|
Domestic
security disturbances take many forms. Unfortunately, in the context of
Indonesia’s current situation, these are too often manifested in horizontal
conflicts based on ethnic and religious differences, land disputes, or
simply because of misunderstanding between two groups living in the same
neighborhood.
Vertical
conflict frequently occurs between the security apparatus and groups of
people, namely workers, the poor and students, either taking the form of
demonstrations or protest rallies.
Based on a
national survey in 2012, a polling agency and research institute suggested
that the government take extra measures to deal with social conflicts.
A high number
of respondents were dissatisfied with the government’s performance in
preserving public order and safety.
However, social
conflict is a complex problem as it involves many dimensions, not to
mention the political economy interests of elites that may trigger the
violence. Identifying the roots and solutions of conflict is no easy task,
even for specialists and experienced mediators.
Within that
framework, the recent Presidential Instruction No. 2/2013 and memorandum of
understanding (MoU) between the Indonesian Military (TNI) and the National
Police, which enables the deployment of military personnel to quell unrest
without the consent of local police, need to be explored.
The instruction
confirms the crucial role of local leaders (governors and local
bureaucrats) in handling security disturbances.
In that sense,
the government is basically decentralizing the authority to do so to local
governments. For the sake of public safety, a governor holds the power to
assess the level of emergency and vulnerability.
The
instruction, however, as stated by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and
Coordinating Political, Legal and Security Affairs Minister Djoko Suyanto,
is in line with the Social Conflict Law endorsed by the House of
Representatives last year.
Taking the
presidential instruction into account, local leaders should take more
decisive action in responding to potential and real social conflicts in
their region.
The tasks of
police, soldiers, or intelligence personnel in particular areas where
conflict seems to be violent and destructive are part of the governor’s
decision.
The policy of
social conflict management in Indonesia is relatively civilian-driven,
because a local leader is elected directly by the people and oversight can
be conducted by the regional legislative council.
The role of the
central government is, in one way or another, diminishing and the tendency
to adopt a hard power approach from the local police and military command
can be ideally reduced through consultation between different stakeholders
in the area.
However, in the
wake of strong criticism from human rights activists against the
presidential instruction and, furthermore, the MoU, the problem of
“domestic disturbance” is much broader than just coordination puzzles among
the security apparatus and local civilian government.
The lack of
coordination is one thing, but the quality of Indonesian democracy in the
bigger picture also plays a crucial role. We cannot neglect the influence
of the development of security sector reform and the rule of law on
domestic security as well as on public order.
The recent performance
of the security apparatus in conducting its duties is unsatisfying.
Instead of
preventing or mediating conflict, the security apparatus has become a
perpetrator of human rights violations. As a consequence, it is not
surprising if particular segments of civil society think that attacking the
security apparatus is an act of breaching the law that can be justified
(see CSIS-Indonesia National Survey, January-July 2012).
There is likely
something that needs to be changed within our security apparatus. Thus, in
the context of the presidential instruction and the MoU, the interpretation
of social conflict, communal conflict and domestic disturbance needs to be
closely examined. And in doing so, the participation of civilian elements
is imperative.
The governor,
along with the local legislature and civil society, should discuss the
nature of conflict and the best way of stopping social grievances and
retaliation. At the end of the day, they should be aware that handing over
the solution to the police or military is simply unsustainable.
The government
should understand public criticism. With varied degrees of interpretation,
we are of the same opinion that since Reformasi, our security apparatus has
transformed itself into a more professional, sophisticated institution.
But, as the government itself also realizes, such reform is not enough.
There is much homework to be done, beyond issues surrounding human rights
violations.
If we look
closer at the latest report from Transparency International entitled “The
Government Defense Anti-Corruption Index 2013”, the index is actually
diversified into six bands: A for low risk of corruption (Germany and
Australia), to F for critical (the likes of Algeria, Angola, Cameroon).
Indonesia lies
in the E category, which means “at very high risk of corruption”. Other
countries in the same bracket are Afghanistan, Ivory Coast, Sri Lanka,
Uganda and Zimbabwe.
The report
stated that, in Indonesia and Philippines, “financial corruption is a
concern” (p. 19). The issues of corruption are found within the controls of
asset disposals and enormous off-budget expenditure.
Within this
situation, NGO activist critics find their resonance. There is no urgency,
and never will be, to give carte blanche to the military and entire
branches of the security apparatus, including the police and intelligence
personnel, to do what they think needs to be done in a situation of
turmoil, such as deploying more personnel without the consent of the police
and other officials, including the civilian element within a region — as
agreed in the MoU (The Jakarta Post, Jan. 30, 2013).
With all due
respect, all these criticisms can actually be traced from the ambiguity of
the President’s position in managing social conflicts in Indonesia.
On the one
hand, he stated that local leaders must work hand in hand with the central
government and coordinate social conflict prevention mechanisms. On the
other hand, he is also encouraging military personnel to become involved in
domestic disturbances without giving them clear and specific guidance.
We should not
forget past experiences, notably during the New Order era, when human
rights and the rule of law were swept under the terms of “development” and
“stability” by a militaristic regime.
Public political
action to question any tendency toward strengthening the security apparatus
presence within society is a must. Such acts are relevant to what Nomi
Claire Lazar (2009) questions: Danger is a common element of political
life, but why should danger and emergency be the central element?
Taking all the
above into consideration, the transparency and accountability of the
security apparatus must come first. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar