--
Flawed National Security Bill Could Prove a Recipe for Chaos in the Country
Yohanes Sulaiman | January 13, 2012
As the House of Representatives takes aim at 64 priority bills this year, t he national security bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation up for debate. There is no question that passage of the bill is overdue — the legislation aims to fill existing security holes in Indonesia. Notably, those occasions when police forces are incapable of maintaining security, or when the military is unable to provide assistance due to a lack of procedural clarity, as has been the case with recent troubles in Papua and Aceh.
At the same time, the bill in its current form poses many pitfalls and has been subject to no shortage of criticism. The government should move carefully, lest it end up creating more problems than this legislation is supposed to solve.
There are many positive aspects to the bill. In the words of J. Kristiadi, a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, it serves to put the police back in their proper place on issues of national security. In the years since the fall of Suharto, the police force has effectively been given free rein in maintaining domestic order and finds itself on equal footing with the Armed Forces (TNI). The original intent of this arrangement was to bolster the status of the police, which had been hierarchically inferior to the military.
The problem, however, is that because the police force is essentially responsible to no one but the president, many analysts argue that they are out of control, the product of a passive president unwilling to offend powerful law enforcement figures. Many recent incidents, notably the Mesuji and Bima killings, were attributed to police arrogance and the absence of any deterring fear that law enforcement would face meaningful sanctions if they took the use of force too far.
The law would remedy this by putting the police force under the supervision of the yet-to-be-formed National Security Council (DKN), which would be led by a ministerial-level administrator. The law could thus be useful in reining in police excesses, subjecting police conduct to closer scrutiny and placing the entire police force under an active administrator. In other words, this is a polite way to finally put the police under ministerial control, which has long been strongly opposed by an institution unwilling to see its power curbed.
The law could also improve cooperation between police forces and the military in maintaining security in restive areas. While the police force has the responsibility to maintain internal security, in reality it lacks the training and manpower to effectively span the archipelago.
The military has the ability to provide much assistance to the police in this regard, thanks to its strong organization and reach across Indonesia. Yet it is constrained by the 2004 Military Law and international scrutiny, preventing it from actively aiding the police unless requested under the condition of military emergency. Civilian law enforcement has often proved hesitant to ask the military for help, whether from simple pride, a lack of proper guidance on when to do so or due to a fear of being perceived as incompetent or ineffective.
The law will fill this void by establishing and articulating the framework under which all the elements of government can and should work together.
Despite these noble intentions, the bill still has some major flaws. Most important, it adds several layers of bureaucracy in the form of the DKN. The council is intended to address the problem of too much power being held by the police. At the same time, the DKN would have the power to coordinate interactions between military and intelligence units, a power supposedly belonging to the coordinating minister for political, legal and security affairs. The overlap in responsibilities is a recipe for a potentially muddled chain of command.
Moreover, the bill also specifies the creation of provincial, district and city-level National Security Coordinating Forums (Forum Koordinasi Keamanan Nasional Daerah) headed by governors, district heads and mayors, respectively. These new bodies would also add layers of bureaucracy and bloat the ranks of civil servants.
At the same time, a question remains: On whose desk does the buck stop when someone messes up? The law specifies the president as having the authority and responsibility to mobilize the elements of the national security apparatus. And right alongside this authority, the bill states that the regional forums should determine the duties, responsibilities and command and control of personnel, depending on the severity of any given situation.
Will the president claim that he or she has the authority and responsibility only to mobilize forces and that his or her duty stops there? Will this absolve the regional heads? Among the military, police force and intelligence apparatus, who will be held accountable, should the situation spiral out of control? With so many layers of bureaucracy piled up, the blame game may prove popular.
Another big problem lies in the allowance for “people” to get involved in “providing national security.” Even though there is a qualification that the involvement should be through “reserve and supporting components,” the law regulating both functions has not been passed yet, with the discussion getting snagged on the question of the “slippery slope” of the military re-establishing its role in society in ways reminiscent to the New Order.
In addition, the wording is vague enough to allow every single militant group to get involved in “providing security,” supplying the legislative rationale for many ambitious people to create their own “security” groups while providing more opportunities and justifications for the existing groups to create more havoc in society due to the “need” to establish security.
While the overall intent of the bill is good — to provide more checks on police power and improve coordination among the police, intelligence units and military — this current draft has many problems that must be addressed. If lawmakers fail to do so, we will simply see further additions to an already bloated government and not long after that, more dysfunction among the actors of the nation’s security apparatus.
-----
trueblue
2:08pm Jan 13, 2012
@Yohanes
There can be no reason for a reader of this piece to misunderstand the twists of sharing power, and the potential for conflict in the roles of police and the military.
I was interested in your brief comment with respect to the New Order.
With the defiance by the Mayor of Bogor with respect to a Supreme Court order, and the repression of other minority religious groups throughout Indonesia, I suspect there are some who would welcome a return of the disciplines of Suharto. If the police are unable to ensure that minorities are safeguarded, has the "slippery slope" time arrived? From an international perspective that would be an unmitigated disaster, but for the oppressed would it be a welcome relief?
DrDez
3:04pm Jan 13, 2012
Yohanes you have fallen in to the trap of academic correctness I fear!!
The bill whilst good intentioned (sic) is simply a recipe for disaster. Especially for minority groups, ethnic (Papuans/Acehenese for example, religions and more worrying social groups (punks, gays, transexuals etc)
It is nothing more than a hash up aimed at appeasing everybody who can generate a mob or has money, from the Police to the illegal Militia groups (FPI, FUI etc) it lacks clarity and as you point out just adds even more layers of control - thereby further increasing the opportunity for private agendas (political, religious, financial)
The only saving grace is it will take forever to pass and with any luck I will be dead
True - Sadly a call for the good ol days is on a lot of peoples lips right now. If it returned would all be roses? I think not. If anything I suggest it would be a hindrance and some groups would find themselves scapegoats - and it would not be the likes of the FPI
Yohanes-Sulaiman
11:43pm Jan 13, 2012
Wow, interesting comments.
@Trueblue: To be honest, I am not sure whether returning to the "new order" era is the best idea here. The entire mess is caused because none of the politicians here know how to really connect with people, and thus to show that they have the support from the population, they rely on these thuggish groups such as the FPI and now the FUI courtesy of the Mayor of Bogor.
Another round of Suharto's era would provide a short-term solution but very damaging in a long run because people then will keep relying on a strongman without learning on how to really build a good government. The minority will also rely on the whim of the autocrat, and as we see in the 1990s, when his base in the military was failing, Suharto decided to rally radical Islam.
In essence, the protection of minority will depend on the whim of the autocrats, and I don't think that's a good recipe for a longevity of the nation. People really need to learn to use the ballot box properly.
Yohanes-Sulaiman
11:49pm Jan 13, 2012
@DrDez: I think I have addressed your concerns in the second half of this article, that the problems of this bill is so glaring and this bill will add more problems than it worth.
Still I disagree with your first part. I do see the biggest problems now with the stupid police's policies such as the rounding up of the punks is because the lack of accountability, especially with our "slow action hero" in Cikeas.
Putting them under a ministry while not a perfect solution will help curbing all the abuses. Moreover, the important thing here is providing the framework for the military to step in, should the police create more mess. Thus, making the police think twice before doing stupid things, lest the military believe that they have to step in to clean up the mess.
Fear is always a good incentive to shape up.
shytallnight
7:49pm Jan 14, 2012
Perhaps the title could be changed to read 'recipe for FURTHER chaos in the country'.
trueblue
1:04pm Jan 15, 2012
@Yohanes
Thank you for your reply, and we certainly have some issues to debate!
1. What is wrong with relying on a strongman/woman who is a "politician who connects with the people? Think Reagan, Thatcher, the Singapore dynasty etc., and a raft of others who were the right persons for the right time! Is not this exactly what seems to be needed next time around?
2. How on earth can "people really learn to use the ballot box properly"? It is impossible to form a majority government without forming a coalition, and with the multitude of parties you finish a with a compromising shambles.
3. My conclusion is that with Indonesian complexities nothing less than a strongman/woman is the way forward for equality. The post 1998 Presidential experience really relegated Indonesia the the international embarrassment category. Much was expected of SBY, and let others judge him. The choice of strong candidates is not just an Indonesian problem. Even the U.S. Republicans have a B grade selection!
Yohanes-Sulaiman
6:26am Jan 16, 2012
@shytallnight: blame my editor. I never write a title for my articles. :D (actually JG's editor is doing a heckuva great job in cleaning up/arranging some that I wrote, making them much better -- way more professional than other newspapers.)
@trueblue:
1. Reagan's track record is actually pretty moderate, far less of an ideologue than many nowadays portrayed him to be.
Still, what important here is the rule of law that still sets the limit to what they can do, not the strong people making rules of what people can or cannot do. Thatcher and Reagan, while considered as strong people, are still working within the given parameter. In Indonesia, however, the parameter is still unclear, with rule of law remains weak. This lack of control, while could be good (think of Suharto between 1967-1975 or some would argue, 1988) and his performance post 1988, where he courted the political Islam (including the radicals) and tore apart professionalism within the military. Cont...
Yohanes-Sulaiman
6:33am Jan 16, 2012
... In essence you can't guarantee that a benevolent dictator will keep doing good things and instead could easily end up ruining the country, especially by stunting the development of good civil society and proper institution (the damage still exist today, in term of lack of professionalization everywhere, in education, law enforcement, even the military.) Going "authoritarian" today does not guarantee a good country in 5, 10, or 32 years. In fact, "good" dictators such as Suharto or Pinochet were "outliers," other dictators did worse (e.g. Chavez, Mobutu, Ali Khameini).
2. You need to change how the election is being run to pure district system (that's why virtually all political parties are against district -- because then you will see how shallow their support is -- nobody gonna vote for Marzuki Alie for sure in the next election). You also need time to educate voters on how to do it. It is a hard job, but it has to be done.
3. Strongmen are tempting options, but read above.
No comments:
Post a Comment