Understanding the Polemic of the Revision of the TNI Law

On one hand, several civil society groups firmly reject the broader role of the military in political life, as they are still haunted by the trauma of the New Order era.

On the other hand, the military has openly sought a broader role, as if attempting to revive the dual-function romanticism that was abandoned after the 1998 Reformasi.

The stagnation of this discourse is rooted in opposing, yet equally outdated, views of civil-military relations.

The first group aligns with the line of thought of General AH Nasution, insisting on the involvement of the military in social, political, and economic life. Unfortunately, they disregard the consensus that today's national development is based on the foundation of competent and professional civilian supremacy in their respective fields.

The Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) are certainly obligated to take part in development, but with the primary duties, roles, and functions focused on the national defense sector, which are translated into the framework of military operations for war. The TNI can participate in non-defense sectors, provided they are requested by civilian authorities and operate within the framework of military operations other than war.

Why is civilian supremacy emphasized? Because the military is aware of its limited resources and expertise in non-defense sectors.

To develop non-defense sectors such as maritime and fisheries, for instance, a fisherman accustomed to handling nets and fishing rods is certainly more competent in managing marine resources for economic purposes compared to soldiers who are more trained to handle weapons on the battlefield.

The second group, leaning towards Samuel Huntington, views the military as a separate professional entity but is reluctant to acknowledge that the involvement and influence of the military in various aspects of civilian life persist and have even increased post-Reformasi.

They disregard surveys from recent years that indicate a high level of public trust in the TNI. The existence of civil society organizations within the community, which utilize military-style attributes, is also noted. This includes the strategic environmental conditions in other democratic countries.

Forcing the military back into the barracks under the guise of Huntington-style professionalism can be counterproductive to the very goal of professionalism itself. In the United States, Huntington's country of origin, imposing Huntington-style professionalism has instead created a paradox within the military organization itself.

One of them, as written by Risa Brooks (2020), is the tendency of active military members in the US to be more open to being involved in practical politics. In Indonesia, this paradox is reflected, among other things, by the involvement of retirees in the succession of national leadership in political parties and elections.

In short, Nasution's group was less sensitive to the trauma of the New Order which became the foundation of the 1998 Reformation. Huntington's group, on the other hand, was trapped in unrealistic idealism amidst the developments of the times and the remnants of the socio-cultural influence of the New Order.

Military involvement in national and state life is inevitable, but there must be clear and firm boundaries, this is an important keyword. The revision of the TNI Law is a momentum to map and redefine the role of the TNI, especially in non-defense sectors.

Based on the circulating draft of the TNI Bill, civil society should be more open to accepting the TNI's involvement in dealing with non-traditional threats such as natural disasters, drugs, terrorism, and cyber, including leading related institutions.

The TNI's logistical and coordination capacity in disaster management has been tested in the field. In the context of other non-traditional threats, the overlap between the roles of the TNI and Polri in disaster management efforts is hard to deny.

Active military personnel could lead the National Narcotics Agency (BNN) or the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT), as long as the counterterrorism is based on the corridor of law enforcement and the involvement of the TNI is carried out in coordination with the Police, and supervision by the DPR and the public.

Dialogue with civil society must be reopened. Without it, the polemic will be a time bomb: hampering development, damaging public trust, and opening old wounds that have not healed.

However, critical questions should be raised when the TNI is pushed into institutions such as the Attorney General's Office, the Supreme Court, or the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. The rationalization for these three institutions seems forced. There is no credible and accountable comparative study, even in authoritarian countries such as China and Saudi, to legitimize the active military occupying positions in law enforcement institutions.

For the maritime and fisheries sector, arguments about border management or territorial sovereignty conflicts in the Malacca Strait and the South China Sea could be put forward. However, this reasoning is too biased and flexible, so it can be applied to other sectors with similar logic: why not or not just the Ministry of Forestry or ESDM, for example?

This inconsistency is too far-fetched and hard to accept. These economic sectors are better left to professional civilians with proven track records in managing marine resources for welfare.

Forcing the military into such a controversial position could complicate the implementation of Free Nutritious Food and President Prabowo's priority programs. Many credible studies show a strong correlation between the quality of democracy and foreign investment inflows.

Civil supremacy and power-sharing are key indicators of this quality. The recent decline in democracy is certainly one reason why foreign investment inflows are not optimal.

In addition, the move risks damaging public trust in the TNI, which is a more valuable social capital than additional roles in a number of institutions. Forcing a role in law enforcement institutions will only trigger resistance, as seen from student groups and civil society since the bill was echoed.

The revision of the TNI Law should be a momentum to clarify, not obscure, the role of the military in democratic life. Dialogue with civil society must be reopened. Without it, the polemic will be a time bomb: hampering development, damaging public trust, and opening old wounds that have not yet healed.

Denny Indra Sukmawan, PhD Student University of Liverpool, BPI - LPDP Scholarship Recipient