Monograph No-12 On Bridge Over Troubled Water - Convergence and Divergence in The Formulation of National Security Bill in Indonesia

Monograph No.
12
Bridge Over
Troubled Water
1 October 2008
Convergence and Divergence in

the Formulation of National Security Bill in
Indonesia
Kusnanto Anggoro
(Senior Researcher, ProPatria Institute)
PROPATRIA INSTITUTE
Working Group on Security Sector Reform
Jl. Pancoran Barat IV No. 2 (003/06)
Pancoran - Jakarta 12780 – INDONESIA
Phone/Fax: (62-21) 799.0546 / 799.6380
Email: propat@cbn.net,id, propatria.institute@gmail.com
Website: www.propatria.or.id
Bridge Over Troubled Water: Convergence and Divergence in
the Formulation of National Security Bill in Indonesia
Working Group on Security Sector Reform, Monograph No. 12, 1 October 2008
Introduction
Evaluation of the Process of
Establishing National Security Draft Bill
Until today Indonesia has not reached any consensus on the use and definition of
national security concept. Although there was a tendency towards a common
understanding that security is a multidimensional concept that needs to be handled by
various institutions, which have appropriate technical competencies, there are still
substantial differences in the way those institutions look at the policy level, scope and
authority relating to national security, as well as in terms of the level of national
resources that should be allocated towards the management of what-so-called national
security.
From the legal aspect, threat and security are two sides of a coin. There are no security
issues that do not derive from threat, and a threat that has not materialized is not
significant enough to be considered as threat towards national security. However, both
statements have differences. The tendency in every discussion on national security
focuses on the objects that are threatened, i.e., comprehensively covers the components
of a nation state: the people (individual and citizen), sustainability of performing state
and its governing function as well as the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state.
On the other hand, the gravity in the discussion of threat tends to focus on the nature of
threat (military or non-military), sources of threat (from within or from outside of a
country) and characteristic of threat (potential to spread or escalate). Not all threat
appears physically and can directly threaten the safety and security of the citizen, the
sovereignty of the government or territorial integrity. Threats towards state are not
necessarily threat towards the people. Violation of state sovereignty does not
necessarily threaten territorial integrity; however, it may threaten the safety and security
of the citizen.
The scope of national security policy seems unclear since the government has not yet
established fixed and operational security strategy. For that reason, the government
should eventually formulate strategic security policies, which specify the purposes of
national security, dynamic strategic environment, and development of threats, state
capacity-building, as well as participation of the society in dealing with national security
issues. Such policy is useful for technical institutions to develop sectoral policies. To
achieve an integrated national security system, these policies need to be coordinated by
central government. And such integration will only be possible if there is clarity on the
level of authority of each security actor. Clarity on the level of authority will eventually
contribute to the state’s efforts to strengthen national security system.
i
Although Indonesia has just marked its tenth year of reform and democratization
process, the discussion and debate on the need and the process to re-formulate the
regulation framework in national security is not yet over. National security paradigm and
conception are still the main issues to discuss and debate upon. For that reason, this
monograph becomes relevant since it reflects the dynamics of all stakeholders’ thoughts
that have transpired in numerous forums, which facilitated by ProPatria over the past
eight years. The monograph is also a proof of ProPatria’s track record involvement on
the process and drafting of national security bill, which previously used the nomenclature
of state defence and security.
The time setting of the monograph was over the period of 2005-2006 when the
discussion towards the draft bill initiated by Department of Defence was at its peak.
However, it is important to acknowledge that the idea and conception of the discussion
started after the legalization of defence draft bill and POLRI draft bill back in 2002. At
that moment, the whole discussion and debate were focused on the need to coordinate
defence and security actors within the national security perspective under the authority
of the National Security Council.
Post 2006, the discussion of the issue reflected public’s reaction, which was not
necessarily affecting the revision of Department of Defence’s draft bill. However, this
period could also be considered as a turning point for POLRI to comply with the
stratification of national security and by its own initiative POLRI managed to formulate a
draft bill on state security, which undeniably served as a counter-draft bill of Department
of Defence’s national security draft bill.
Regardless the controversy on the different points of view that Department of Defence
and TNI (on one side) with POLRI (on the other side), the process being recorded in this
monograph will be very interesting for those who are interested in Indonesia’s public
policy-making. By understanding the process and the flow of logic, we will see that the
whole mechanism of the management of national security will end up in this status quo
without any significant changes and tendency of political and policy omission from a
democratic government resulted from a reform process.
Last but not least, this monograph is intended to stimulate the thoughts and critical
responses to complement the weaknesses of the monograph, as well as a form of
contribution towards the security sector reform in the future. ***
Jakarta / 1 October 2008
PROPATRIA Institute
ii
Contents
Introduction i
Contents iii
Chapter One / Policy Process on National Security:

Bringing Outside into Inside 1
Nation-State and National Security 1
Culture and the Politics of Language 3
The Voice of the Exile 5
Democratizing Policy Process 6
Final Notes 8
Chapter Two / Conception on National Security and

the Politics of Policy Initiative 9
Sailing into Uncompleted Regulatory Changes 9
Civilianization of the Defence Ministry 11
Elite Circulation in the Military 13
The Fall Out of Reforming Security Actors 15
Final Notes 16
Chapter Three / Department of Defence’s Proposal 18

Two Approaches 18
Legality, Self-restraint, and Confusion 20
National Security: Comprehension without Disaggregation 23
Final Notes 25
Chapter Four / The Actors: Institutional Preferences and

Technical Competence 26
Department of Defence: Leading the Diverging Voice 27
The National Police 28
Department of Home Affairs 29
Department of Foreign Affairs 30
The Military Headquarters 31
Intelligence Agency 31
Discord and Accordance 32
Final Notes 33
iii
Chapter Five / War of the Roses:

Military and Police in the Loggerhead 34
Where Have All the Flowers Gone 34
Discord and Convergence 36
The Police Strike Back 38
Final Notes 41
Chapter Six / Voice from the Exile and the New Battleground 42
Widening Political Battleground 42
Politicizing Policy Expertise 44
Lemhannas’ Academic Paper 47
Final Notes 49
Chapter Seven / A Concluding Note:

Bring Deliberative Process in 51
The Epilogue / Capacity-Building, Coalition of Ideas, and

Policy Strategic Bridge 54
Appendix 1 / Recommendation for Short-term Measures:

More Active Assessment and Engagement for
National Security Bill 57
Appendix 2 / Tables 60
Table-1: Level of Attendance 60
Table-2: Difference Perception on National Security Issues 61
Table-3: Comparing Three Proposals 62
iv
Chapter 1 British in the United Kingdom. Since

Westphalia Treaty until the immediate
aftermath of the Cold War, nation
building was rarely an issue. Unresolved
Policy Process on conflicts in Spain, Canada, and Northern
National Security: Ireland are exceptions rather than rules.
In most cases, war occurs among
Bringing Outside into states, conflict over ideational of state is
rarely occurring. Nationhood had
Inside already solid before the state was
established; and there is no series need
for a state to be the instrument of nation
building.
Nothing is more contested than the idea
of “national security”. Draft on National Such luxuries experience of the West
Security Bill, prepared by Department of was very much lacking in the developing
Defence, has dragged in political world, particularly those emerged from
turbulence for more than three years. the remnant of colonial powers.
Discussion has proceeded for quite Indonesia was not an exception. As
some time, involving policymaking evident, political trajectory that
establishments and implementing Indonesia has embarked for than a half
agencies. Most agree that Indonesia is century, nation-building develops along
facing more serious, complicated the line of state-building. Bureaucracy,
specter of threats than ever before – security apparatus, political system used
ranging from traditional-non-traditional to be the crucial elements of nation-
axis, national-transnational boundary, as building. Even more abstract, normative
well as symmetric-asymmetric character entities, such as Pancasila (ideology),
of threats. Perception converged on the Wawasan Nusantara (national outlook),
need for comprehensive perspectives to and Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (slogan) are
deal with those security challenges. instrumental moral anthem for nation
However, divergence evolves on other building. Colonial-type authoritarian rule
issues, especially whether a distinctive and governance, including the
system of national organizational excessive use of coercive measures,
structure is necessary. Comprehensive became instrument for state building.
understanding does not resolve the Departing state-society relations was
question of whether an all-embracing bill complete. Indonesia is the state of
is required. This chapter is to provide becoming, not yet of being.
background and a couple of factors that
appeared to have become hindrance in With more than 500 ethnic groups,
the discourse of national security. spread in a geographically diverse area,
Indeed, it has to be admitted that what is demography becomes social and
known as national security process is cultural hindrance of nation-building.
more than just national security bill. Indonesia nationalism has always been
Nevertheless, the debate over the bill contested, because Indonesia is hardly
may also suggest enduring complexity equated to Java, Sumatera, Sunda, and
that Indonesia is to live with for some other titular nationalities. Struggle over
time to come. resources, political authority and local
identity blended into attempts at
dissociating locals from national,
Nation-State and National Security provinces from central government.
Added by troubled, unresolved past
State is indeed a modern construct, and such the case of Aceh and Papua, this
was expected to be instruments for regional identity could turn into serious
nation building. The luxury of a stable challenge for the national state. On the
modern nation-state as the European other side of the coin, however, the use
enjoyed was simply absent, in which of coercive measures by state
most state building are able to claim apparatus, though intended to assert
titular nationality, such as the German in internal sovereignty of the state, was
Germany, the French in France, and the
1
perceived as threats to sub-nationalities. community” – and imagined as both

Quite often, consolidation of central inherently limited and sovereign.1
government and strengthening state
capacity become rallying point for As Barry Buzan suggests,2 in such
societal forces to question the state’s circumstances, physical based of the
legitimacy as if zero sum game is the state – comprise mainly of population
rule of state-society relations. This cycle and territory, indeed to include all
of perception reinforces contestation natural and man-made wealth contained
over the legitimacy of the nation-state of within its border – is only one among
Indonesia. other important elements. Beside
territory, ideational-based of the state is
This remains unchanged even after the of particular importance. Wawasan
downfall of Suharto in 1998. To the Nusantara (national outlook), for
contrary, the ghost of the insertion of the example, is therefore instrumental to
seven words of the Jakarta Charter, devise both nation and state building.
incorporating Syariah Islam to the State Ideational-based of the state is locus in
Constitution 1945, fervent regional somewhat amorphous components
insurrections of the 1950s, the roots in the history, psychology and
communist abrupt coup of 1965 remain imagined being. Equally importance is
piquant in the back mind of national institutions based of the state that
government. Emerging communal comprises entire machinery of
conflicts in Maluku, Central Kalimantan government by which they operate. It
and Sulawesi and other areas were self- includes constitution, branches of
evident that social harmony remains in government, political system, laws,
flux; the enactment of syariah laws in norms and procedures by which they
some regional decrees moulds imagery operate.
that nation building confronts serious
challenges. The flare of identity politics One of the central issues in defining
into communal violence poses serious scope of national security, especially in
challenges to human security as well as a multi-national state in which legitimacy
authority of the state. of the state remain conditional, is
whether the object is the nation or the
Indonesia may not be facing threats of state. Among Indonesia’s officials,
disintegration to the scale of Soviet however, what is meant when they use
Union and Yugoslavia. Benedict the term of “komponen bangsa”
Anderson is however correct in saying (components of the nation) or
that Indonesia is a creation, an “kepentingan bangsa dan negara”
imagined-community to which territorial (interests of the nation and the state)
border of the state does not weaken are contextual of nation-state, either as
emotional boundary of sub-nationalities. territorial construct, authoritative
In the context of cultural fabric and post- institution of state, and well-being of the
colonial polity, the development is people. Nation or state refers to nation-
intriguing. Indonesia proclaims to be a state. The case in point was definition
unitary state. In reality, however, diverse adopted in the Law No. 3/2002 on the
culture, archipelagic, physical distances, State Defence (UU Pertahanan
and perhaps level of colonialization in Negara).3 The Law refers to defend of
the past create some problems in the
process of both nation- and state- 1
building. Prejudices to central Kusnanto Anggoro, “Nation-building and
government was so strong that many in state-building”, in Challenges of the New
Government (Jakarta: CSIS, 2004).
resources rich area perceived the 2
relations between central government Barry Buzan, People, State and Fear:
and local government as resemblance The National Security Problem in International
Relations (Brighton, Sussex: Wheatsheaf Book,
of colonial patterns. Still, these national 1983), especially pp. 44-64.
in-statements are "an imagined political 3
The initial draft of the Law No. 3/2002 on
the State defence was “national defence”. The
use of state defence only began in mid-2001,
when the formulation of the Bill already assumed
into stage of policy consultation. At the time,
2
the state, but the very foundation of the primacy. On the other side of the coin,
ideational construct was in fact a nation- language is also the instrument of
state. State defence, which in the defence. Nevertheless, the impact of
modern Western countries suffices to language upon societal relations is
mean defending territory, is mean as trivial, depends upon circumstances. It
defending the overall construct of could not be separated from context.
nation-state. National security in The importance of communication
Indonesia is therefore more than simply strategy presumes knowing of other as
protection of territory. well as comprehension of self. War and
peace may start from and end by
Post-Cold War world had brought about language. Agreement or disagreement
other issues, especially transnational in the most part is ability to impose
security challenges. The history of rational claim, though convergence of
countries such the Soviet Union and ideas can only be reached through a
Yugoslavia were self evident that threats somewhat conciliatory approach and
to state security come not only from willingness of accommodation.
externally driven threats, but also from
within because of demographic change, The bahasa suffers serious flaws.
social disintegration, and many others. Negara is more often referred as
External dynamics, may either actively combinatorial elements of territory,
penetrates the inside or simply provide population, and a government. Negara
demonstration effects to the populace. is also meant a country. They are all a
Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution in Iran complicated construction of thinking,
(1979) have influenced more Islamic more than simply sovereignty and/or
fervent in Indonesia. So have student authority over given territory, as English
protests in Kwangju (South Korea) in the speaking countries understood the
late 1980s. state. Meanwhile, nations are comprised
of ethno-nationality; and, thus, a social
To put it another way, boundary eroding construct with all facets of sociological
is thus becoming a serious threats. This notions. Something national is therefore
deterritorialization of threats complicates problematic, as it conceptualized an
conventional approach to national aggregative element of the nations. It
security that relies on deterrence, law should simply means to expose totality,
enforcement, as well as on functioning express the need of cooperation and
government. In this context, the modern coordination. The use of terms such as
state becomes an ensemble of national security or state security could
institutional arrangements for rule, which become contentious debate.
imposes sets of rules from continuously
operating offices of administration over Even Negara Kesatuan Republik
a territorially bounded society; and the Indonesia (NKRI, the unitary state of
rule boils down to giving commands, Indonesia) has become controversy.
and getting compliance to them from “kesatuan” (unitary) is interpreted more
those who are ruled within the state's often as unified, which in bahasa means
territory. “persatuan”; though it also referred to as
united as opposed to federation. For the
Culture and the Politics of Language civilians, for instance, “defending unitary
state of Indonesia” can only be no more
Language can be powerful instrument to than contracted terms of defending
establish political gains and institutional territorial intact against aggressions,
invasion or other form of externally
driven threats, but also against
amendment of the State Constitution had been separatist movements. For the military,
taking place for two years. It is important to note the NKRI is the catch phrase for unity,
however, that chapter XII of the Constitution was
then yet to redefine. Nevertheless, the National solidarity, and well-being of populations,
Police (POLRI) had no longer part of the armed coherence relationship state-societal
forces, and the National Assembly Decrees No. relations, and the stability of governance
VI and No. VI (2000) already authorized POLRI as well as government.
to be responsible in “security affairs”, while the
armed forces in defence affairs.
3
This should not necessarily become as well-being of the populace. As efforts

serious contention if both the civilian to secure all these objects, security
and the military prepare to understand function of government may reflects in
the context. The military may be using public safety, community protection, law
the language not only simplifying what enforcement and good order, and, last
they have in mind, talking to but by no means the least, national
themselves, and expressing their defence.
concern as citizens. In similar vein, the
civilian’s resistances to the term are not It is apparent therefore that word can be
an expression against the military, but corrosive; and this may reflect
simply represent their worry to Indonesian limit to put something in
authoritarian practices, centralization of relevance context. A national security
power, and the possible use of coercive policy should comprehend a system of
apparatus against them. A common managing resources, employing
ground must be agreed upon that, first, strategy, and taking measures relevant
the military should defend democracy, to security of the [nation] state. While
not define it; and, second, pluralism of security has always been the state of
ideas and different means of expression being, defence should be understood as
should be used responsibly. the dynamics of taking action. As the
state of being, security must derive into
Another contested terminology is series of actions by authoritative
“military”. In English, military is an implementing agencies. The fallacy of
adjectives, and it normally links to identifying internal security to the police
others, such as military personnel, is as erroneous as equating defence to
military doctrine, and military the armed forces. If function is to be the
instruments. English language use benchmark, then the correct term should
soldier or armed forces to denote be defence and policing, military
institutions and/or agencies that have security and non-military security,
military character. In bahasa, military external security and internal security.
(militer) is a noun. It often refers to
mean an agency and organization Beyond institutional designs, there may
(tentara) as well as profession (militer). be more serious problem Indonesia is
In the same vein, civil refer to civilian facing: that is the making of mind, the
personnel, rather than civility, peaceful knowing of self, and the inclusion of
resolution of dispute, political solutions, other. Democratization may well be in
and elected authority. Civil-military progress, but changes that occur were
relations are therefore interpreted as mostly in institutional designs, not
mere relation between those in the institutional behavior. Process may well
military and those are not in. There is no become normal practices, but remain for
appropriate word for civilian in bahasa. fulfill legal obligation, not participation.
This demands tremendous efforts. The
The word “security” (keamanan) is no legacy of colonial years, fragmented
less controversial.4 It can be an abstract geography, besieged mentality appear
noun denoting situation and condition, in the similar line to the seeds of liberty,
but it cannot stand-alone. It must modernization of bureaucracy, and
specifically refer to particular object; suspicion of others. It is not going to be
otherwise, confusion will certainly arise. easy to bridge this volatile contradiction.
Global security, national security,
environmental security, and other are Understanding of national security as a
self-evident that security cannot be comprehensive concept requires at the
separated from their own object. same time disaggregation of threats and
National security should therefore be differentiation of responses. Discussions
understood as security of the nations: are to find a new consensus; and they
territorial integrity, sovereignty as well may achieve point of convergence
should those involved in perceived as
4
provide for them opportunity to gain
See “Keamanan Nasional (National benefit of some sort. Discourse thus
Security),” Monograph, No. 2, (Jakarta: ProPatria
Institute, 16 February 2004), p. 4. rises to the ascendancy of importance.
4
However, imposing an agenda, subject well as concerned from what occurring

of discussions as well as predisposed at the international level. They are all
conclusion appears to sweep all worried on the impact of the American
problems under the carpet. war on terror upon democracy and civil
liberties. They note that the American
war on terror has created remilitarization
The Voice of the Exile of the state. Strengthening state
capacity to deal with terrorism restricts
Democratization and globalization have public space everywhere. The formation
brought with it tremendous impact upon of the 'International Coalition against
state and society, and thus their relation. Terrorism', which embraces anti-
Critical is the need for legitimate policy- democratic governments throughout the
making process. One may argue that world, has served as a pretext for the
such demand is paramount important in governments of Asia to extend and
the public sphere, to which national intensify the use of national security
security issues may not fully apply laws to suppress movements for
considering that at policy level the democracy and human rights.
issues still become the prerogative of
elitist circles. However, at the same To the civil society, national security
time, it would also be difficult to deny regime is representing either colonial
that national security policy may imply to past, anti-communism during the post
societal life. National security measures Second World War, or modern day
are by definition relates to how the state development. The September 11 was
may use their authority to employ reinforcing repression. National security
coercive power, including military power laws in India, the Philippines, and South
that can bear serious consequences. Korea are not aimed at providing
security so much as consolidating state
Inclusion of actor in wider audience is power and intensifying the suppression
therefore crucial. Discussion on the of pro-democracy and human rights
national security bill cannot separate movements. Such was indeed legitimate
themselves from dynamics taking place concern in democracy. Nevertheless, it
in other quarter of society. As many has is equally important to note that civil
argues, the immediate aftermath of the society did not distinctively see the
Cold War and wave of democratization difference between national security
have brought with it many ideas, policy, national security laws and
primarily the importance of human national security measures. Most of
security and the need for democratic them assume that national security law
governance in realm of security policy. is like Malaysian and Singaporean
State officials may argue that the internal security act that constitute
importance of human security does not abrogation of the rule of law, and violate
necessarily reduce the primacy of state principles articulated by international
security. Civil society can be in the human rights instruments, such as the
opposite by prioritizing on the human International Covenant on Civil and
side of the security referent. If the state Political Rights. The primary
is consistent to their own assessment prerequisites for national security
that Indonesia is not confronting serious regulations are, in the mind of civil
external threats, then it is only natural society, to control misconduct of the
that the state should not prioritize to security apparatus, though some of
military defence. They assumed that them went even further, demanding the
human security has to be defined as a adoption of human security as an
negation of, not complement to, national alternative concept to state security.
security measures.
Another social circumstance that
Indonesia’s civil society in 2005, the first emerges and need to be taken into
time when the national security bill account is academics and researcher
became public issues, has already concerned to national security issues.
engaged in many global activities and Those with academic background on
networks. They absorb new ideas as international relations and strategic
5
studies worry about the emergence of open the door at least for a certain circle
non-conventional threats that are not of the society. They cannot deny the
likely to be dealt with sort of symmetric importance of democratizing policy
deterrence; those with special process. As always in other democratic
background in politics and government, society, public debate is an importance
disrupted with abuse of power source for legitimacy. The questions are
committed by security apparatuses to what extent and to what objectives
during Suharto’s days, demands for the policy process is to be open up.
democratic security governance; those
annoyed with political army are tempted It is importance to note in the first place
to focus on the professionalization of the that until today, the national security bill,
armed forces. The bottom line for these drafted by Department of Defence, has
in this circle is by a large, the needs for not yet officially made public. The last
devising national security policy that draft of January 2008 stamped as
assures both professionalization of restricted and officially numbered,
security apparatus and the protection of perhaps to avoid unofficial circulation.
democracy. System building appears to This does not at all suggest that national
be the most importance approach to security had never become important
achieve these goals. issue. Since late 2000, ProPatria
Institute has put itself into a bridging,
The proliferation of media has opened mediating role through some focus
opportunity for civil society activists and group discussions on the issues. In fact,
academics to expose their concerns to the Institute proposed national security
wider public outreach. They appear to bill in 2003 and since has published
become voice of the exile, especially in dozens book and monographs on the
the context of policy formulation. subject.5
However, no one denies that civil
society has becoming power in some It should be understood that the Bill has
sort. Whether they were able to not yet reached a complete circle of
influence state policy continues to policy process. For sure, it has its own
generate debate in both academic circle relevance to some sequence of the
and policy-making communities. The policy process, especially to the stage of
influence is usually indirect, and it is agenda setting and policy initiation. It
achieved by convincing those with should be discussed in the context of
power to advocate for and/or action their policy-making and policy
ideas. Academics can be a source for implementation, though some dynamics
intellectual resources for stakeholders, in the earlier stages may reflect what
including those in the government. On might and would be happening in future.
the other hand, civic organizations can
obviously set some agenda of concern. Discussing the Bill at this early stage of
policy process, however, can be
instrumental to understand the politics of
Democratizing Policy Process policy process. Those in charge of
initiating it, for example in form of
When the idea of drafting a bill on preparing initial draft, could well shape
national security put in the air by the agenda and perhaps also promote
Department of Defence, Indonesia has and secure their own preferences and
already changed from what it was during interests. Agenda setting is by definition
Suharto years. National security policy a stage to set the political agenda by
has become an issue not only for defining certain problems as issues; and
reasons for policy coherence with other
dimension of statecraft, but also for its 5
possible implication for human rights, ProPatria Institute has played
considerably substantial, if not significant, role to
democracy as well as accountable the process. Later in 2004, Pacivis, a research
government. Meanwhile, management centre at the University of Indonesia, plays
of statecraft has also changed similar role, though perhaps more concern to
somewhat. Many in the government, academic perspectives rather than policy
relevance. Many other can certainly be found
Department of Defence is no exception, across the country.
6
determining broadly how these issues is altogether. Rather, it is all about how
to be address. The identified issues and they are being projected, expressed,
strategy to address it may reflect and instrumentalized by stakeholders.
institutional interest. Suspicion of the Communication becomes a key, if
police and civil society towards the convergence is to reach. Successful
possibility of the military to use the Bill to negotiation, reaching convergence,
regain their past role are obviously requires “communicative rationality”,
legitimate, though it cannot be justified preparation for giving, or at least
without go into detail through technical accommodating. In practices, however,
provision within the Bill. Meanwhile, agencies tend to adopt “instrumental
Department of Defence officials cannot rationality”, super ego embedded in their
just say, “we do not have the intention to professional competence and, perhaps
taking over authority of the police” political interests. There may be no
without clearly defined it into provisions. reasons to say Department of Defence
is using the Bill to integrate the police
Beyond defining issues, the important into the Department. The way
aspects of agenda setting are the Department of Defence’s officials project
projection of those issues into a wider their arguments and, on the other hand,
agenda. This projection may be taking tyranny of suspicion in the National
place in an interagency meeting. But Police, converge into a turbulence water
often the political struggles and debates of negotiation. Inclusion into the process
associated with public agenda setting of policy initiative, for this matter, could
are played out in the many venues of well be instrumental of forging a
social and intellectual interaction within consensus.
civil society: classrooms, universities,
seminars and, in particular, the media. Academics and civil society activists,
Projection of ideas may serve double too, are susceptible to instrumental
objectives, i.e. to disseminate as well as rationality either because of their
to absorb ideas. A wider audience in this conviction of what they think as
stage may also necessary to test the academic objectivity or what they claim
water, for example to know possible as interests of the society. In fact, they
coalition building in the deliberation are both member of the society as well
process of the Bill. as citizen of the state. In the same vein,
state officials represent the authoritative
No one can deny that such process is state and bureaucratic preference as
highly political. The way the discussion well as servant to the public. They can
is taking place, the argument forward, be vulnerable to public pressure as well
and respect for dissenting voice are as bureaucratic fighting, and thus incline
certainly represent institutional to instrumentalize their institutional
behaviour, including how far democratic authority.
reform has gone through in all
stakeholders involved. It is normal in This is a fragile relationship. Temporal
any discussion that ideas vary, politization of issues is always possible.
argument can be overheated, and any Instrumental rationality cannot take over
element might propose their own ideas communicative rationality. Rather, the
and preferences. Politizing one opposite are prerequisite for reciprocity,
particular issue, while avoiding the by which adjustment can take place. As
other, can be more importance than such, policy process is no more than
simply reflect technical competence. imposition of ideas.
They also represent institutional
interests. As long as such interests are This is to suggest that there is no other
predominant, then it would be too much way to secure the process, but to make
to expect that the discussion will reach a it since the very beginning as part of
common denominator. deliberative process. This requires not
only every stakeholders to move beyond
Different of opinion is indeed normal in purely self-interested adversarialism.
democracy. The dynamics to watch are Common ground can only be reach in a
not whether any differences exist win-win solution, feeling of inclusion,
7
and of course, respect to others. As in beneficial to anticipating future. Not only

the case of putting a particular issue in was the process is political, and thus
or out, convergence and divergence involve the rationality of power, primarily
could be more than simply technical as manifested in institutions such as
preferences among stakeholders. For Department of Defence and the National
such reason alone, the process of Police (POLRI), but also the relative
formulating the national security bill, autonomy of institutional preference.
limited period as it may, should reflect Understanding the process is also
more than simply institutional rivalry necessary to know that cultural changes
between the military and the police, but are more difficult than that of
also tell the process in which democratic organizational. Reforms that have been
maturity is taking place in Indonesia. taking place for almost a decade have
produce a lot. But the way we
comprehend national security issues
Final Notes appear to be immune for such changes.
Before we go through, it is important to The following chapter will go through
note that this monograph is not to several aspect, all of them are to gain
document what have been achieved our understanding of the process. The
during the process of national security next is to provide a background, and to
bill since early 2005. Neither is it some extend also context, that can be
intended to debate a sort of “academic relevance throughout the process. It
truth” in the conceptualization of national discusses constraints and opportunity
security. Instead, this monograph that the officials at Department of
concerns to understanding what have Defence might have gone through
been taking place as a process as they during the early stage of drafting the Bill.
were. The immediate next chapter is to review
trajectory that the draft have gone
There are two reasons for this through. It is understood that the
standpoint. First, academic truth can be January 2008 draft is not the only one.
much as objective as trivial. Theories Before this, other three drafts had been
should always be contested for the sake discussed. Subtle changes in these
of their own intellectual maturity. Our drafts may reflect how circumstances
reading of literature may have also been and actors adjust to external as well as
constrained from what is available, internal pressures.
rather than what we actually need. The
politization of concept has always a Chapter on actor’s preferences and
significant part in the history of science, institutional interests, war of the roses,
including that in political science and and voice of the exile discuss dynamics
strategic studies. More importantly, such process. War of the roses is simply the
limited understanding may end up with most intense rivalry between the military
narrow mindedness that is against the and the police, likely the most affected
very nature of academic life. Still by the bill, if it became a law. Yet they
academic truth, if any, are not also represent the most troubling
necessarily relevance yet feasible as a relations since the separation of the
policy option. Only sky limits academic police from the military command. It is
truth. Policy has to confront more not entirely true, however, that the gap
restricted surrounding, including but not between these two siblings is
limited to political feasibility. The height unbridgeable. A more conciliatory
of desirability is obviously far beyond the approach, yet a more inclusive space for
reach of achievability. discussion, may heal the wound. Voice
of the exile is necessary to explain what
Second, there has no material outcome implication is likely to occur should the
yet, as the Bill has not passed through battleground is becoming more diverse.
deliberation. There is no one even know
whether it will be recanted in the Lemhannas’ proposal could well be the
immediate future. Yet understanding case where a deadlock in policymaking
process can be important and hopefully may require political intervention. For
8
this reason alone, the proposal would Chapter 2

deserve special attention. So would
other proposal, drafted by POLRI on
Keamanan Negara (State Security).
Regardless of how the process will Conception on National
proceed, both Lemhannas and POLRI’s
proposal are self evident that the battle Security and the Politics
of ideas is not over. This is by no means of Policy Initiative
suggesting that an intense battle of
ideas, even among governmental
agencies, implies chaos and anarchy. It
is undeniable, however, that lack of External and internal factors do play
cohesion or uneven dispersal of power some role on the conception of national
mean that the final outcome may not be security as devised in the Bill, drafted by
what was first envisioned by initiator of Department of Defence. Officials of
the proposals. Department of Defence, especially
those in the Working Group to prepare
the draft, were not working in vacuum.
They learned that incomplete
regulations in national security affairs
have impeded some importance aspects
of security measures. Their capacity is
of course determined to large extent by
changes in the Department and in
Military Headquarters. Regardless
shares experiences and institutional
origins, both Department of Defence
and the Headquarter has nonetheless
grown in their own institutional interests;
and the Department is likely to use
opportunity of drafting the Bill to get
more. Such aims, however, must also
take into account relative autonomy that
the headquarters may still retain. A
somewhat maximalist stance is
necessary to set the agenda, if only in
the end they may prepare to give in
some claims. This chapter is to assess
how these factors interplay and affect
politization of national security issues.
Sailing into Incomplete Regulatory

Changes
Reform has been started. Regulations

are in place. Many are still in the wing.
But, then, 6 years of reform, post-
Suharto Indonesia succeeded only few
law, among other Law on State Defence
(UU No. 3/2002 tentang Pertahanan
Negara) and Law on the National Police
(UU No. 2/2002 tentang Kepolisian
Negara Republik Indonesia) and Law on
Combating Terrorism (UU No. 15/2003
tentang Tindak Pidana Terorisme) and
9
Law on Indonesia Armed Forces (UU competence, differentiating the source

No. 34/2004 tentang Tentara Nasional of threats, and management of
Indonesia).6 Some already in the selves, resources.
not sure when they are to be discussed,
such as on Intelligence, State Secrecy, Throughout the discussion during the
and Defence Resources (National process of drafting the Law on State
Reserves). Further remote in the Defence in 2000-2002, term of “national
horizon include draft Bill on Defence defence” (pertahanan nasional) was
Space, Patriotism, Basic Military used instead of state defence. The
Training and many others. Less than official title of the Bill until June 2001
30% scheduled for parliament (2004- was Bill on The National Defence.
2009) materialized, much lower than Definition and scope of what then
previous parliament. understood as “national defence” was
much alike to national security in recent
How much such incomplete regulation is concept. It comprised of protecting
likely to affect policy on national security territorial integrity, maintaining state
is not very clear. No one can be sure sovereignty, and preserving social
how many laws actually required. It welfare for the whole nations. When the
depends on design and how far they will Bill becomes law, definition and scope
regulate issues of substance. More of relevance remains unchanged from
importantly, number may be less their original notion. There is no specific
important. In the past, a long list of bill referent to military threats and/or those
had never completed with academic possibly inflicting physical damage to
draft and draft of bill. Initiative from civilian targets. Defending national
within may be hold back by many security can thus mean the employment
problems, including ideas and budget. of defence, more than simply military,
Meanwhile, initiative from the outside is resources to neutralize the any kind of
less likely, as regulation of defence and threats. This is to say that the spirit
security matters are normally not in the adopted in the Law No. 3/2002 on the
shopping list of, say businessmen, who State defence was in fact in line to the
benefits from new laws and thus law that it replaced, Law No. 20/1982 on
prepare for provide financial support. Basic Laws on Defending State Security
The Law No. 3/2002 alone requires (UU Pokok-Pokok Pertahanan
dozens derivate, less than 40% already Keamanan Negara). The dominant logic
completed. at that time was that should functioning
government in defending security is to
One may even worry with new be separately managed, say between
stipulation in the amended Constitution that on external defence and internal
that requires other bunch of law. As security, thus the successor of the Basic
understood, the article 30 of the State Law must be those regulate policy
Constitutions needs more regulation in making in defence affairs and, similarly
some respects. First, specialization of apply, to those policy-making in security
function for the military and the National affairs, each with their own main
Police respectively in defence and implementing agencies, the TNI and
security functions; second, the need for POLRI respectively.
regulating the cooperation between the
two; and that the TNI and National Until today, that remains a hope.
Police (POLRI) are the primary Foundation for defence policy may have
component in dealing with defence and been fairly completed, separation of
security. They will serve only as a policy-making and implementing agency
supporting component in dealing of has already cemented into Law No.
threats that are not in their primary 3/2002 and Law No. 34/2004. There are
function. Left behind is the issue of many derivative laws in demand, but the
very bases for specialization of function
6
See Kusnanto Anggoro, “Reformasi between policy making and policy
Sektor Keamanan, Kewenangan Negara, dan implementation was already in place. If
Partisipasi Publik,” in Andi Widjajanto (Ed.), there are regulations to complete the
Reformasi Sektor Keamanan Indonesia (Jakarta:
ProPatria Institute, 2004), p. xv. picture, it is those on defence resources,
10
some institutional designs to strengthen armed forces must be regulated in Law.

defence governance, and a couple of In the Law No. 2/2002 on the National
repository measures to professionalize Police, however, the issue can be
core competence of the TNI. To some tackled by government regulations.
extent, Military Headquarters already There is no agreement on settling the
take their own initiatives to complete issues. Democratic perspectives will
these regulations. obviously prefer laws to regulate, as
they are more democratic than mere
That was not the case for regulation in governmental regulations. Bureaucratic
“security sphere”. Law No. 2/2002 on perspective may opt practicality, thus
the National Police was ambiguous with governmental regulations may serve the
regard of policy making and policy objective.
implementing agency. Derived from Law
No. 20/1982, and more importantly in This complicated picture offered two
lieu of amended State Constitution, Law possibilities for the officials at
on National Police should have read Department of Defence. First is to wait
Law on State Security or Law on for completion of sectoral laws,
Policing [Function of the Government] combined with some necessary
instead. This is becoming more amendment to the existing laws,
confusing as throughout this Law the especially Law No. 2/2002 and Law No.
term of state police (Kepolisian Negara) 3/2002 on the National Police and State
referred to both policing as government Defence respectively. This option should
function and as institutional agency take considerable time, and thus bring
(read: POLRI). Other implementing with it a prolonged vacuum of
agencies in policing such as immigration regulations. More importantly, waiting
and custom officers was recognized, but for completion could well be less
left untouched. assuring as it depends on the initiatives
to department and/or agencies other
Emerging new threats to national than Department of Defence. Second is
security as already elaborated in to initiate a new but all-embracing law
previous chapter cannot be resolved that is likely to initiate new agenda
only by little amendment to both Law and/or instigate other necessary
No. 3/2002 on the State Defence and regulations. Department of Defence
Law No. 2/2002 on the National Police. went for the later.
Nor will what is mandatory to the
Constitution. Indonesian sovereignty
over territorial water may be maintained Civilianization of the Defence
by policing function of the government, Ministry
but the implementing agency could
hardly be the POLRI. On the other hand, Civilianization of the Defence Ministry is
it is acknowledged that Indonesia must an importance benchmark for
have sufficient capacity to cope with democratic control of the armed forces.
epidemic diseases; and there is some This should include personnel, policy
element of defence function to handle directions, and character of defence
such threat to human security. But only posture. The later may not be important
in particular circumstances, especially factor for Indonesia. Defence capability
with regard to restoration, should the of Indonesia is so lacking that there is
TNI can be deployed. no projection capability. Even an
offensive posture of Indonesia’s force
Come into the fore in such cases is structure would not be able to pose
military operation other than war as a significant threats other countries. With
strategy to employ the armed forces in such limited defence posture, and more
stability and support operations. But this importantly with a defensive strategic
issue has become flash point between outlook, Indonesia’s defence orientation
Department of Defence and the TNI on has been basically for defensive
the one hand and POLRI on the other. purpose. It remains to be seen whether
According the Law No. 3/2002 on the such orientation was capacity-
State Defence, supporting role of the
11
constrained or truly emanates from Headquarters managed depolitization of

cogent strategic culture. the armed forces, at least at official and
national level. Marshall Djoko Suyanto
Department of Defence was changing, was well known of his reluctant
no longer under the shoes of the Military commenting on political issue. His
Headquarters. Civilian in the helm since predecessor, General Endriartono
the downfall of Suharto, irrespective of Sutarto might have been somewhat
political background, are all proven to be political, yet his leadership was more or
fairly instrumental in reforming the less in timely change parallel to stronger
Department as well as the TNI. civilian control, and thus in different
Mohammad Mahfud, Defence Minister balance of civil-military relations.
under Abdurrahman Wahid Ryamizard Ryacudu, an outspoken
administration, was successful general, darling of the press for his
especially in initiating the State Defence conservative comments, failed to
Bill into Law. Matori Abdul Djalil, the replace Sutarto. Current Chief of the
successor of Mahfud, under the Armed Forces, General Djoko Santosa,
Presidency of Megawati Sukarnoputri, was known for his concerned on
signed ministerial decree to introduce national disintegration, but keep silence.
the application of humanitarian laws to To varying degree they are all
ranks and files in the military. He was instrumental to further depolitize the
also the one who initiate special task armed forces.
force to formulate drafts Bill of TNI, once
the bill lost from public space in the last Nevertheless, civilianization is not only a
second quarter of 2004. Currently matter of number and presence of
serving Minister Juwono Sudarsono has civilian personnel, but also the question
also contributed much internal reforms of assertion and capacity. One may
in Department of Defence. have use political authority, euphoria,
and pressure to civilize Department of
Whether the ministers are really able to Defence. Without capacity, however,
established control over the military is civilianization may be no more than
different ball game. Political supremacy symbolic supremacy. This appears to be
does not easily transform into the case. The relationship between
operational control. Personal capacity Department of Defence and the Military
does matter, more than political clout Headquarters remains at best mutual
possibly would. With no background of in[ter]dependence. As many developing
defence issues, Mahfud and Djalil were democracies have shown, a civilian at
considerably successful. Juwono the helm should not necessarily become
Sudarsono, a professor in international sufficient for pacifying military. In the
relations at the University of Indonesia is case of Indonesia, such mutual
well-regarded as the lecturer on interdependence is fairly adequate to
strategic and security studies. He is drive a modest defence orientation.
former ambassador to Britain, and in
fact also Defence Minister under At the operational levels, handful civilian
President Baharuddin Jusuf Habibie, the has ever controlled important post in
immediate successor of Suharto. Department of Defence’s bureaucracy.
Juwono enjoyed respect from the With the exception of Mas Wijaya,
military. Civilian control has always been Director General for Budgetary Planning
a matter of degree. Juwono, despite of under Megawati’s Presidency, others
being respectful by the military, was in bureaucrats of civilian background were
2004 unable to secure his preferred in less influential post. Budi Susilo
civilian candidate, Indra Djati Sidi, for Supanji and Lilik Hendradjaja, both
the post of Director Generalship in university professors, oversee
Department of Defence. directorate generals for defence
resource and research and development
The TNI, meanwhile, have passed respectively. The later had been in the
thorough changes as well. No one civilian post for more than 8 years,
dispute that the military is less and less beginning with former Indonesia’s
involved in politics. The Military Academy of Sciences’ Head Sofyan
12
Tsaury. More strategic post, including It may be fair to conclude that

secretary general, and directorate institutionalization of proper roles have
generals for strategy and planning already been started. Conflict between
remain in the hand of active military Department of Defence and Military
generals. Headquarters, if it occurs, should be
perceived more in bureaucratic,
The significant of such structure may be institutional terms rather than political. It
seen from some perspectives. would be too go too far to suspect that
Supremacy at the top as it may, the generals in Military Headquarters take
Military Headquarters may still be able form of ministerial turnover, in which the
to retain some sort of control over policy headquarter take on initiative without
direction. It is of course a matter of consulting Department of Defence. The
debate whether the control is asserted headquarters’ relative “autonomy” was
through systematic control or simply result of institutional structure of defence
consequential of matching culture. In policy establishment, formal
theory, the officers are answerable to constitutional powers of the core
Defence Minister; but in practice Chief generals over defence policy, and
of the Armed Forces retains his full nested in interlinked policy subsystems.
authority. Article 45 (5) Law No. 34/2004 Law No. 3/2002 on the State Defence
on the Armed Forces reads that the authorizes Department of Defence to
Military Headquarters remain in charge drive policy formulations. The Chief of
of disciplinary measures to their officers. the Armed Forces was to operationalize
Nevertheless, this potential authority it into an operational strategic policy.
was not always transformed into an Should decision matter most, then
institutional power. No action was taken consultation over policy may already
when Major General Sudrajat, then fulfil the objectives of working
Director General for Defence Strategy, relationship between Department of
challenged the Military Headquarters in Defence and the headquarters. One
2004 on issue of automatic military cannot expect more than that, at least
deployment in case of emergency. until a significant proportion of well-
devised, capable civilian could hold
This was an interesting development. more substantive post in Department of
One may argue that the relationship Defence.
between Department of Defence and
Military Headquarters have not read the
ideal form of functional supremacy that Elite Circulation in the Military
is supremacy of the department in policy
direction, and thus subordination of the There is no doubt that Indonesia’s
military head quarter for that matter.7 It military is modern organization, with
might still be in the stage of equal clear hierarchy, and well-established
partnership in some sort. The question practices for mobility. All criteria are
is whether any contestation, if any, is to there. In a matter of the second, one
be resolved by imposition or should know ranks of particular
consultation. No one denies that power individual, since their early joining of the
is important, be it institutional (politics), armed forces till a point where such
intellectual (conceptual), or even criteria is needed in elite circulation.
personal. Current Secretary General, During Suharto years, political
Sjafrie Sjamsuddin was regarded as an consideration may be dominant. Now
effective official in driving internal reform such an informal network may still exist.
in Department of Defence, besides No system is perfect. Generals have
becoming effective bridge to the Military always been a political post, for sure –
Headquarters. particularly in a country with a long
tradition of political army.
7
See Kusnanto Anggoro, “Department of
Defence of the Republic of Indonesia”, in Beni But unlike practices in the past,
Sukadis (ed.), Almanac Indonesia 2007 Security nowadays deviation is practically low –
Sector Reform (Lesperssi and DCAF, Democratic especially at the middle ranks and lower
Control of the Armed Forces, August 2007), pp.
5-18. ranks. Gone are adagium of the past
13
such was “if you want to be regent, joint There is no pattern, except that there is
the military academy”. So does if you some flavor of rotation among services.
want to be president, governor or other Director General for Defence Resources
important post. Younger generation in has experience leadership of Rear
the armed forces would likely to adopt Admiral Bambang Murgiyanto, Rear
such value. They are becoming less Admiral Dharmawan, and now,
political than their superiors. Psychology Professor Budi Susilo Supanji.
of a professional army in Indonesia is Secretary General goes from Lieutenant
such that those in the ranks and files are General Johny Lumintang, Rear
more respectable than those in the Marshall Suprihadi and now Lieutenant
outside. Commandership is to be General Sjafrie Sjamsuddin. Director
respectful; serving the corporate interest General for Defence Planning back and
of the armed forces is more respectable, forth from civilian Mas Widjaja to Rear
if not preferable among ranks and files. Admiral Tedjo Edy Purdijanto, before to
Major General Gunadi. It is not quite
But at the same time, they are also clear whether the Navy have more
confronting more serious competition. opportunity than the other. Neither nor
The impact of recruitment pattern to the leadership of person like Sjafri
serve the interest of authoritarian Sjamsuddin should indicate more than
regime, to which the military assume his personal capacity to lead, not
dominant role in internal security, affects because the need for the army to gain
personnel planning. This makes a more clout in the internal affairs of
civilian post is necessary sometime to Department of Defence.
complete the circle of tour of duty. Many
stayed in civilian post simply to get As far as policy on national security is
opportunity to get back commandership. concern, especially when it comes to
Posts in the Military Headquarters system legislation and policy document,
and/or in the territorial command are the Directorate General for Defence
becoming so competitive, and not much Strategy is paramountly important. The
choice for those who want to step up Directorate General oversees drafting
should be in the civilian post for some the bill and, of course, other policy
time. Priorities is given to those suffer document such as Defence White
from black spot in military carrier and/or Paper, Defence Doctrine and Defence
those racing again time of retirement. Strategy. Personalities like Sudrajat and
Dadi Susanto was obviously qualified;
Interestingly, all Director Generals for they were then the only candidates
Defence Strategy, in fact the most proposed for the post by the Military
important actors in drafting new bill until Headquarters. Whether this is for their
2007, were “U.S. alumni”. Both Major capability or other reasons is something
General Sudrajat and Major General else. Sudrajat was in some occasion in
Dadi Susanto had serve as defence the loggerhead with his compatriot in the
attaché in Washington. In most cases, Military Headquarters. He even had
international exposure forces someone serious argument with his classmate,
to be more open-minded and open to then, the Chief of the Armed Forces
new ideas. This is becoming important, Endriartono Sutarto, in the case of
especially as Indonesia sailing around article 19 of the Armed Forces Bill in the
global politics and more fluid yet first quarter of 2004. There was no
complex strategic environment. Such disciplinary measure against Sudrajad.
person often brought new ideas, However, the proposed Bill that
including that on defence and security Sudarajat and Minister Matori Abdul
matters. For sure, they were not alone Djalil were unofficially convening was
and must discuss with their superior in intercepted on the way to the Office of
the headquarters – from which most State Secretariat, before deliberations in
overseas trained officers were not so the Parliament were to take place. That
popular, enjoyed less respect and, thus, was politics.
low credibility.
The Military Headquarters has changed
since. Under the leadership of Marshall
14
Djoko Sujanto, the Headquarter was The Fall-out of Reforming Security

less political. Department of Defence Actors
has also changed more people in the
Directorate General for Defence The downfall of Suharto has created
Strategy to prepare draft regulation on tremendous opportunity for changes.
national security issues. Their The military, the most powerful actor
engagement with academic circle since during Suharto years, became the most
2002 might have strengthened their targeted institution. Human rights
intellectual capacity to absorb many issues, transparency, and misconduct
ideas that is necessary. Some of second and misbehaviors of security actors
echelon officers in the directorate are come to the surface. The military was
also intellectually more able; some of then in the defensive, in part due their
them acquired master degree in own disorientation after Suharto begun
international relations with thesis on to look at another direction for support;
defence and security matters. in part also because of turbulence within
due to power struggle for leadership.
But Major General Dadi Susanto cannot Either way, an internally driven reform
take it for granted. The opportunity as it had become an important agenda.
may, he ought to be cautious for not Some reformist officers aired many
outraging other in the Military ideas. What the so called the New
Headquarters. Sure he was in the Paradigm (Paradigma Baru) already on
advantage, being a former intelligence the air since sometime in the mid-1990s.
officer on his own. More importantly, he Unnoticed, generational changes, and of
was also dealing with Chief of the course, internal power struggle in the
Armed Forces that was presumable less armed forces, opened up situation in
political than his predecessor. In term of which officers appear to unsecure of
power relations with the Military their own corporativeness.
Headquarters, the position of Susanto
could well be better than that of his What role should military play in such
predecessor. perilous change is not clear yet.
Indonesia’s armed forces are a complex
This suggest that instrumentalization of history. They represent the most
Department of Defence by the Military sustained legacy of a colonial
Headquarters appear to be waning. No movement, integrative elements of
one knows whether this is a temporary people resistance, militia, and regular
and coincidental with changes in both army.8 Education and training in the
institutions or will be institutionalized armed forces has follows more or less a
somehow. Considering a greater conservative approach, which must be
tendency for natural elite circulation in understandable as the military around
the armed forces to go along natural the globe, which according to military
line, rather than political, it is fair to historian Michael Howard, is known for
assume that political decoupling their conservativism. Thus, it is only fair
between Department of Defence and to posit that generational changes do
the Military Headquarters has already not entirely erase non-professional
taking place. For the foreseeable future, elements of it. Indeed, it may no longer
however, Department of Defence is the days of orthodoxies, as in the past
likely still depending on the Military when they used their birth rights as to
Headquarters for resources in the first justify becoming political army. For
echelon. This dependence, however, better or worse, they are the best, well-
does not necessarily reflect political organized structure with a strong
clout of the Headquarters over hierarchy, command, and thus order;
Department of Defence. and obviously such organizational
structure should stabilized relationship
8
See, for instance, Salim Said, Genesis of
Power: General Sudirman and the Indonesian
Military in Politics 1945-1949 (Singapore: ISEAS,
1991).
15
between general at the tops and ranks then in the amended State
and files down under. Personalities of Constitutions. Laws that regulate
the Chief of the Armed Forces, thus, function, role and task of the armed
could well be instrumental. forces and the police appear to be
constructed in harsh way. National
During the period under the study security is confusingly interpreted as
(2005-2008), Indonesia armed forces combining government function in
was under the leadership of Marshall protecting the nation state against
Djoko Sujanto who, as an Air Force external threats by way of military
Marshall less incline to adopt political means and maintaining internal order by
stance, unlike his army counterpart. way of National Police. Democratic
Nevertheless, deep in the heart and reform in security governance appeared
mind of most military, especially middle to have produced false meaning that
and high ranking officers, who organizational separation of the police
experienced through formatting years from military command is also
under Suharto rule, it is a conventional separation of maintenance of internal
wisdom to assume they were in the mid order from external defence. Criticism
of combined sentiment of nation against the TNI as backbone of Suharto
building, strong state, and stable authoritarian years opens opportunity for
government. Besides, because of a the police to gain international
considerably strong self-identification to cooperation, a relatively autonomous
the state, it would be nigh impossible for from external oversights bodies, and
them to tolerate phenomenon, such as more importantly blame of their past
national disintegration, challenged wrong doing.
government, and suffered people. This
is particularly important with regard to Reform happened to be blessing for the
how military personnel perceive what police. They are no thirst into the
imminent threats are. forefront of security. Long discredited,
being a junior partner, and deprived,
Indeed, what is and is not in the they were now handling the biggest
perception should not necessarily internal threats of contemporary
become part of policy. The military is no Indonesia – terrorism, communal
longer the main actors in devising policy violence and separatist conflicts. For
choice. As stipulated in the Law on the many civil society activists, the rise of
State Defence and in the Armed Forces, the police represents an essential tenet
military is basically an implementing of democracy – civilian supremacy in
agency of policy devised by Department matters of security and a military firmly
of Defence. They may still in important lodged in its barracks. To the military, it
position of setting agenda, perhaps also is a perverse inversion of the old familial
initiating some, tough they were, at least relations inside the security apparatus.
in theory, no longer in a predominance In ABRI – the militaristic institution that
position. They were confined in administered the police, army, navy and
circumstances of wider space, including air force under Suharto’s New Order
but not limited to, Department of years – the police were the junior
Defence. The presence of active partner of the armed forces.
military officers in Department of
Defence, therefore, may be indicative of
how the military retains well-established Final Notes
channels of policy process.
Legal vacuum, civilization of the defence
Separation of the police from military ministry, elite circulation in the military
command (1999) soon cemented in and the fall out of reform provided
some National Assembly Decree,9 and subjective circumstances to which a
somewhat progressive and yet
9
See National Assembly Decree No. overarching agenda. The need for
VI/2000 on Institutional Separation of Armed redefining security is to be best serving
Forces and National Police; National Assembly by introducing a new law on national
Decree No. VII/2000 on Role Separation Armed
Forces and National Police. security. Like it or not, Department of
16
Defence must accord themselves to the therefore could be seen as politization of

amended constitution, for ideological agenda setting. They will likely to
purpose as well as political. They were impose the agenda, if necessary with
in the need of modernizing total defence building coalition of ideas with others.
as well as regulate the working relations As Chapter 5, War of the Roses, is to
with POLRI. A new bill is more likely to figure out, this maximum strategy did
provide snowball impact, rather than not work as expected.
expecting amendment of Law No 3/2003
as well as Law No. 2/2002. More
importantly, if the initiatives succeeded,
there may be jealousy of POLRI being
an autonomous body. Efforts to
strengthen the position of Department of
Defence vis-à-vis the Military
Headquarters is also in the agenda
especially because to a certain degree
being a civilian bureaucrat would likely
offer longer years of service before
retirement. This could be true especially
for middle rank officer in the
Department.
Priority wise, however, agenda for
civilization of Department of Defence
may not in the same urgency as to have
more authority over the headquarters.
Having military background themselves,
Department of Defence officials know
only too well that the level of military
entry in the civilian sector will naturally
reduce, not because of political
intervention, including endorsement of a
new law, but also because the
headquarter will be sort of middle
ranking officers in the next few years.
Less likely, the headquarters would
sacrifice their own corporate interests by
inserting more officers in the
Department. Indeed, this should go
along the line of strengthening civilian
capacity on defence matters, which
remain problematic because of
bureaucratic impediment. Strengthening
institutional power of the department vis-
à-vis the headquarters is likely to serve
their personal interest more than their
counterpart in the headquarters.
This suggests that a progressive yet all

encompassing bill is likely more
preferable as it will impose further
reform not only in Department of
Defence, but also in other security
sectors. Such progressive idea should
reach wider audience, because
Department of Defence officials may
need supports from other stakeholders.
Agenda to be addressed in the Bill are
17
Chapter 3 arrangements, security remains keep in

the dark and contentious. Indonesia’s
Constitution regulate far less than that
in, for example, South Africa, India,
Department of Defence’s Pakistan and some East European
countries in which defence and security
Proposal are detailed in same provisions.10
The amendment of the 1945

The final draft of National Security Bill Constitution is, therefore, meant to
that then was given to the Office of clarify such systemic perspective and to
Coordinating Minister for Politics, Legal regulate how the system should work.
and Security Affairs had gone through a Another reasons, at least intentionally,
long journey. Four different drafts had might also to adopt spirit of reform. In
been discussed between mid-2005 to practice, the amendment produces more
early 2007. The first two drafts, in May confusion rather than solution. At first
and June 2005, were officially named glance, the amended Constitution
Bill on Defence and Security of State. emphasize the distinctive role of military
The other two, using the term of national and police, the first being military
security bill, was finalized in December instrument to protect the nation-states
2006 and January 2007. There are against external threats; while the latter
some points of continuity and change, is to protect security in internal affairs.
perseverance and vacillation, as well as Such an external-internal, territorial
similarities and differences as far as nexus is not the most importance
arrangements on national security were characteristics. According to some
concern. All of them are comprehensive members of the DPR, the primary
understanding of defence and security intention of the article is, in fact, to
as well as national security. Referent stipulate organizational separation of the
objects include territorial integrity, two agencies; indeed assuming that
sovereignty, and safety of the nations cooperation between the two should
from any kind of threats, military or have become inherent part.
otherwise that stem from external as
well as internal sources. This chapter is Article 30 of the amended Constitution
to trace the trajectory, looking at the four elaborated its original provision, trying to
draft Bills and, pin point to some cover three element necessary relates
elements of importance. It is necessary in some way with professional
to emphasize that all of the drafts should competence of the military and the
be seen as policy initiative by police, people as inherent element of
Department of Defence. system responsible for defence and
security, and inter-relations between the
military and police. Such spirit was
Two Approaches embodied in all constitutions that
Indonesia have ever had: UUD 1945,
The original State Constitution 1945 Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Serikat
dealt no considerable portion of defence (the Constitutions of the United States of
and security issues. Except provision on Indonesia) and UUDS 1949 (Undang-
the President’s emergency power and undang Dasar Sementara, Interim
paramount position as Supreme Constitution). These Constitutions
Commander of the Armed Forces, the considered people’s total defence
Constitution mentions only the right and (hankamrata) as national beliefs and
obligation of the citizen to in defending doctrine, without elaborating it into
the country. There was no elaboration
on what popularly known as people’s 10
total defence (hankamrata). Neither nor Some of them directly refer to armed
forces and police as state agencies, reducing
provision on role and function of the problems of unclarity. Other simply emphasizes
military as well as the police. They are the Presidential authority over the armed forces
regulated in part in the Law No. 3/2002 (Armenia and Nigeria); Pakistan 1977 regulates
on the State Defence and Law No. role of the Armed Forces (art. 143-145); so does
2/2002 on the National Police. In such Brazilian (1986) and the Portuguese (1997).
18
strategic and tactical level. Therefore, Guerrilla strategy “should

“guerrilla warfare” is easily slipped from only be applicable if we are
its doctrinal element to tactical, from being invaded by aggressive
doctrinal resolve to strategic instrument, power. It is defensive
spirit of history to devised future. strategy in lieu of stronger
Guerrilla is rarely seen as a mere power, like the Dutch in the
tactical, circumstantial option that a past. There is no issue of
defending weaker party is to confront human rights though the
the aggressive yet stronger occupying guerrilla strategy may
power.11 involve ordinary citizens. We
do not use those citizens to
Comprehensive understanding of issues invade others but to defend
is not match to capacity of making it into our own survival. Life and
workable instrument. Conception of death is not something you
doctrine, strategy and tactics are well can opt for.
disseminated in the textbook in military
academy but not a distinctive feature
easily grasp in public discourse. Meliala’s argument explains that the use
Systemic approach has always become of people is not unconditional. He also
obsession of all, without which continues that, “it was a last resort.
Indonesia could not survive. System, Should we can afford, we would love to
including that in national systems, has protect our country in the first perimeter,
been understood in comprehensive way, with air force and navy”.
but failing to make it down to earth at
strategic and tactical level. Quite rare is Come to conception of “national
reference made that hankamrata is security”, “defence and security of
relevance only for self-defence against state”, “national defence” or something
incoming, unavoidable aggression. More else, it is unclear whether the notion is
importantly, such system was primarily being used as individual, distinctive
seen as interaction among subsystems, context subsystem or as an approach.
not integration among instruments that Grand strategy, national policy, and
make the subsystems works. national strategy are term that quite
often did not exist in Indonesia, but
For the old generation of the armed perhaps more due to incorrect use of
forces, guerrilla warfare is a strategy, term rather than simply absence; one
and thus something inseparable from may refer to GBHN as sort of grand
context, threats and availability of strategy, though another term may also
resources. Member of the Parliament apply should as Blue Print, General
Commission I Raja Kami Sembiring Planning, Plan of Action (Rencana
Meliala (Indonesia Democratic Party of Kerja) may also apply; there is varieties
Struggle, PDI-P), a retired two star army in using whether “national” to become
general, explained it well when saying attributive to “policy” and “system”, and
that guerrilla warfare is strategy, it exists thus national policy and national system;
in parallel, may be complement to other or, instead, national is to be aggregative
strategic option, and always used in instruments and/or integrated
defensive way against aggressor and responses. In the latter case, national
invader. According to Meliala, systems should comprise of subsystem
that responsible for maintaining security
of the nation-state, indeed in its modern
understanding to include human security
11
It is therefore understandable that as well.
guerrilla warfare, for example, has become an
issue in civil military relation for some time. In similar vein, national policy should be
Civilians argue that hankamrata is against human
rights, humanitarian law and pose civilian to reflected only at cabinet level, while
become target in any violence conflicts. ministerial posts are basically
Meanwhile the armed forces appear to be too responsible for their own portfolio. They
sensitive and simply refuse to clarify what they are all responsible for planning and
meant. Guerrilla was then taken as synonymous
parsimony to people’s total defence. programming, and developing national
19
capacity, indeed by management of comprehensive understanding of

resources, adopting strategic option as national security as disaggregation of
well as devise instrument for response threats and differentiation of responses.
particular challenges. Nation-state is to Securitization should be limited in time,
have policy on national defence. The simply using emergency power as
President should prepare general inherent executive power, as it primarily
outline of how to defend the country devise to defuse tension, minimizing
against all spectrum of threats. But costs, and restore order. Securitizing
Department of Defence is basically agency is needed only to decide
department of preparation for war, and whether available resources should be
the portfolio is restricted only to develop first mobilize and normal function of
military capability. The President should government should well-equipped, and
also devise policy of national policing, in the worst-case scenario, supplanted
national law enforcement and even by extraordinary efforts, security
national policy to provide public approach, and thus both military and
services. Law enforcement agency other coercive instruments.
should subordinate to any department
that in essence to devise policy relevant
to the implementing agencies of Legality, Self-restraint, and
maintaining law and order. Confusion
Without such disaggregation of In January, Minister of Defence Juwono

responses, there will be no clear Sudarsono met delegation of ProPatria’s
distinction responses according to Working Group on Security Sector
circumstances. Particular measures to Reform. In the meeting, the Minister
neutralize threats, for example said that Department of Defence was
annihilation, will become normal preparing to propose a draft on state
practices. More importantly, national defence and security (RUU Pertahanan
security policy may assume national dan Keamanan Negara). According to
policy and become national strategy at the Minister, the regulation is
the same time. The use of force, laws as importance not only to be an umbrella of
well as other punitive instruments could other laws related to maintain defence
become primary option, if only because and security of the state, but also to
the inability of diffracting them into close the gap created by new
particular context. regulations since 2002. Minister Juwono
also emphasizes the need for
In fact, the use of force is legitimate only accommodating the newly amended
for self-defence against threats of Constitution that again re-emphasized
violence. Laws should be applied to acts “sishankamrata” (Sistem Pertahanan
against the laws. Violation of public law Keamanan Rakyat Semesta, shortly
should not be confronted with military total defence and security). Sometime in
operation. Without such disaggregation March 2005, before the House
of threats and, at the same time, Commission I, Minister Juwono said that
differentiation of response, there will be Department of Defence is to draft a bill
a strong tendency for securitization. It is on “national security”, with primary
undeniable need thus to distinguish objective of elaborating constitutional
security agents from securitizing mandate, devise legal backing for
agency. coherence national security policy, and
regulate how cooperation between
Worst-case scenario should not and military and police can be organized.
could not become a dominant culture;
and must be devised in a wise way. If it In his Kompas article,12 the Minister
is to contain in a national policy, it must says, “… should the term of state
only be reflected in preparation, alerts,
and early detection. Needless to say, in 12
such perspectives, capability should Juwono Sudarsono, “Pertahanan dan
Keamanan Negara” (State’s Defence and
always been maintained. Anticipating Security), Kompas, 10 March 2005. In fact
security dynamics require as much Juwono consistently proposed this idea, for the
first time in June 2001 under the administration of
20
defence and state security be used as civilianizing policy-making process in

standard terminology referring to the title defence and security affairs.
of the Chapter XII of the Constitution,
then, there must be a law on State As mentioned elsewhere, the already
Security that the Law on National Police established regulations suffer from
should refer”. Minister Juwono was serious defect. Law No. 3/2003 does not
trying to appease the National Police go far enough to devise role and
when he said that “There is no intention function of Department of Defence. It
of Department of Defence to integrate, says little on the relationship between
amalgamate, or put the armed forces Department of Defence as policy-
and the National Police together into making bodies and the Military
defence-security type like in the past Headquarters as implementing
when the National Police was agencies. There is no even law on
subordinate to Department of Defence”. intelligence, strategic information,
Nevertheless, it is understood that what management of defence resources or
the Minister had in mind was that the Bill other that in practice should always be
should be instrumental, at least in instrumental in national policies on
theory, to security sectors, governance defence and security. Meanwhile, Law
and actors. To the dismay of the police, No. 2/2002 on National Policy even
Minister Juwono continued that, justifies concentration of power in the
hand of the Chief of National Police.
One official in Department of Defence
According to Law No. 3/2002 grumbled that “The police is, in fact, the
on State Defence, the state most independent actor in this country
defence are not only to be … they are accountable to no one, but
the responsibility of the to themselves”.
armed forces, and thus the
law on state security should To Department of Defence, national
also devised that state security is a cumulative and summative
security is not only the concept, comprises of defence of the
responsibility of the National state and security of the state. The first
Police. … as the Law on the is basically deal with military, traditional
Armed Forces has stipulated threats. Defending territory is the most
that in future the armed important part of the military’s job. No
forces should be integrated one disagreed that the TNI is the most
into Department of Defence, prominent, competence, and yet
thus the Law on state authoritative to take such action.
security should also Department of Defence should
integrate the National Police formulate and decide force planning.
into civilian institution (for This imply that devising defence policy
example, Department of should be acceptable as long as it limits
Home Affairs). themselves with the core competence of
the armed forces, which is combat,
military operation against external
Needless to say, the Bill was also meant military threats. The second was
to open the way for more reform in somewhat ambiguous concept
security management. In one way or comprises of internal security
another, it could then be expected that (keamanan dalam negeri) and public
the Bill may comprises of elements of order (keamanan dan ketertiban
masyarakat). It was acknowledged that
police must become agency responsible
primarily to the area of criminal offences
Abdurrahman Wahid. However, President Wahid and public order (ketertiban umum).
refused and preferred to have direct access to
both the Chief of the Armed Forces and Chief of
the National Police. To compensate Wahid’s Thus, the most contentious issue would
direct access, Juwono suggested that likely be any threats that either from
appointment of the Chief of the Armed Forces non-state actors, but capable of inflicting
and National Police by the President require
approval of the Parliament. serious damage to the nation-state and
21
non-military threats that likely to relevance to national security, to

escalate into those of military. Such coordinate with the Agency for
threat could fall into the category of Development of National Law (BPHN,
defence and policing. Even if these Badan Pembangunan Hukum Nasional).
threats may fall into function of law Department of Defence even went to
enforcement, the military and other may consult with Constitutional Court, and to
get involved in such efforts. Threat as write an academic draft of national
such could manifest themselves in form security. Last but the least, the Working
of armed robbery, piracy and Group emphasized another important
international terrorism as well as internal issues, which quite rare being discussed
military threats, such as armed at the time, i.e. the need for rethinking of
separatist, rebellion and widespread emergency law and law on internal
communal conflicts. Undoubtedly, some security act.
of them may also be seen as
transnational in nature, and Department of Defence came with their
disaggregation into a specific referent first proposal sometime in the mid-2005
object could well be necessary. (Bill on State Defence and Security).
The name suggests that Department of
Department of Defence might have the Defence would have avoided
ultimate objectives of overarching constitutional controversies, since the
reform in the security sector. They know Constitution used the term, instead of
only too well, however, that the much more controversial “national
legitimacy that they have in drafting the security”. In a concept paper, it was
bill might have been contentious. For understood that state defence and
better or worse, reform has created a security is all-inclusive. National security
particular circumstances and psyche is understood as concentric, beginning
that the military is primarily to defend with keamanan negara at the centre,
against external threats; and that circled by human security, public
Department of Defence should limit security and state security. The military
themselves in developing defence appears to think about referent object
capability against external military comprising of individual (human
threats. Many outside the Department security), societal (public security) and
are in the opinion that the military were nation-state (state security).
not supposed to get involve in internal
security affairs. The National Police are There are some interesting points of the
using such predilection to argue that proposal. For a better or worse, the draft
they are not subordinate to Department was progressive. At least, three
of Defence. By drafting the Bill, elements are important at this juncture.
according to official at the Police First, Joint Chief of Staff was officially
Headquarters, Department of Defence mentioned as part of the structural
was acting beyond his capacity and change in the armed forces. It did not go
constitutional duty. further to supplant the Chief of the
Armed Forces, but the Joint Chief of
Such psyche is strong and has been Staff will be responsible to develop and
around for years, intensified by military- maintenance of forces while the
police rivalry. But whistle had already Panglima will be responsible for force
blown. In March 2005, Department of deployment. Second, seven department
Defence already set up an internal portfolio was identified as elements to
working group to prepare the bill on policy decision. They were Department
defence and security of the state. The of Foreign Affairs, Department of Home
Working Group, comprises of dozens Affairs, Department of Defence,
officials under Directorate General for Department of Research and
Defence Strategy, came up with first Technology, Department of Industry,
idea. They appeared to limit themselves other state agencies as well as the
to gather all experience of the actors Coordinating Minister for Politics, Law
responsible with national security and Security. Third, there was clear
issues, conduct a studious effort to delineation between policy formulating
identify all necessary regulation agencies (departments) and
22
implementing agencies, such as the that were explicitly embodied in the first
military and the police. The military is to draft, the second draft simply put more
task for defending the country against emphasize on optimalization of local
any threats and the police is to law resources, development of defence
enforcement agencies. For the military, industry potential, and strengthening
referent object is “bangsa dan negara” technical competence of the
(nation and state), a loose and implementing agencies.
controversial concept as it blurs physical
characteristics with those of more Indeed, the old thinking is by no means
ideational. The police concerns to public has gone. There is no point to debate
security. the argument. But the most importance
issue at place here is the preparedness
Less than one month, the second draft of Department of Defence to find other,
was put in discussion. The term of less controversial, if not normative,
National Security Council (NSC) was terminology. The drafter appears to
used for the first time to substitute the have learned a lot from their
Council for the State Defence and engagement with those outside the
Security in the earlier draft. While no establishment. The drafts were trying to
specific membership of the Council was accommodate democratic principles,
referred to in May draft, the later draft good governance and protection of civil
made it clear. Chaired by the President, and human rights. In addition, an early
the NSC is to comprise of eight top sign of disaggregating threats and the
ministerial post serve as permanent appropriate instrument of response was
members and representation from non- emerging. Escalation is to be the most
state actors in the alternate, non- prominent principle before military
permanent member. To some extent, forces, and other coercive measures are
this is progression. However, the to be applied on the ground. In other
Council would have no authority on words, the use of coercive measures
political decision-making process. was perceives as no longer
According to Sugeng Widodo, Head of unconditional. These already show a
Law Bureau in Department of Defence, clear jump from authoritarian shelves
the Council will only design to look at that have been in for decades.
studiously on short, medium and long-
term strategic dynamics.13 Interestingly,
Widodo appeared not to be aware of National Security: Comprehension
other agencies that were similar in without Disaggregation
nature, such as Institute for National
Defence (Lemhannas) or the Council for Security is understood as situation
National Resilience (Wantannas). rather as condition. Thus it is dynamics.
Most threat is either transformational or
There were element of change and escalatory. And the military is in line with
continuity between the first and second the ideas of gradual response to
draft.14 One should not fail to note that escalation of threats that might have
the June draft was also more solicitous been progressing. Perhaps, this is one
with regard to emergency, mobilization, among important reasons for rethinking
and local government. Interestingly, or emergency law which, until that date
conservative, traditional ideas were is rarely on the public discourse. The
gone. Instead of using the term of securitizing agency, such the National
“kerakyatan” (people), “kesemestaan” Security Council is there to bridge
(totality) and “kewilayahan” (territoriality) between the President and the
ministerial post (Department of Defence)
and other department as well as non-
13
Sinar Harapan, 20 February 2005 Departmental State Agencies (Lembaga
14
The two draft should not be treated as a Pemerintahan Non-Departemental).
real trajectory, except the later is more Interestingly, however, the National
elaborative and show that to some extent there Police are nowhere to mention.
should be learning process in Department of
Defence. A month should not be enough time to
expect huge progress.
23
The title of “Bill on National Security” security realm, and thus could have
was exercised for the first time in been subordinate to Minister of Home
December 2006. The December draft Affairs.
used the term of “human security”
instead of “individual security”. The use Department of Defence appeared not to
of “individual security” as one among quite firm about securitizing agency. The
others element of national security was National Security Council is to be
as much interesting as confusing. On advisory body to the President on
the one hand, this is a sign that “national security policy and strategies
Department of Defence officials is trying coping with emergency and strategic
to adopt more liberal security policy; but, issues”. It would be ambiguous whether
on the other hand, they could have been such phrase should be read “national
gone too far. The state should not security policy coping with emergency
necessarily responsible to, except that and strategic issues” and “national
concerned to non-derogable rights of security strategy coping with emergency
the citizens. Department of Defence and strategic issues” or simply “national
appeared to make up their mind. In security policy” and “strategies coping
January 2007 draft, individual security with emergency and strategic issues”. It
was replaced by “human security”. The would be more appropriate that the
Department of Home Affairs was to be advisory role of the National Security
responsible as coordinator for, among Council is to apply only in extraordinary
other, disasters relief and post-conflict matters, include emergency and
rehabilitation. strategic issues. This would avoid
conflicting interests between the Council
Despite such progress, unclear ideas and the Coordinating Minister and other,
remain. The draft failed to distinctively for example, the ineffectual Council for
disaggregating threats into a continuum National Resilience.
of violent notches as well as degree of
impact that referent object may suffer Two other importance features in the
from particular threats. This is serious new proposals deserves special note.
problems as one may fall into the trap of First is that on strategic information. As
securitization, either at policy decision or already mentioned, the function of
at policy implementation, especially intelligence was brought up for the first
when there is commitment capacity gap time. So has idea of early detection,
in the ground. The draft tried to prevention and other minimizing
accommodate such threats by opening measures. In this context, strategic
the possibility for the armed forces to information is important in itself for some
support civilian authorities as well as reasons. Very likely, the inclusion is
international community. This includes expected to be instrumental to other
involvement in peacekeeping operations Bills being drafted such as state secrecy
and stability and support operation. bill, intelligence bill, and freedom of
Civic missions were also included as information bill. These bills were in the
part of military operation other than war. hotbeds during the discussion on the Bill
of National Security. Second is that on
National security, in both December and topical approach. January draft is for the
January drafts are to comprise of first time for Department of Defence to
individual (human security), public mention about “sectoral/functional
security, state security and defence. security/deterritorialization of security”.
Human security and public security will No less than 7 provisions stipulate on
be under responsibility of Home Affairs specific cases such as counter
Minister. Minister of Defence is to terrorism, maritime security,
control state security (keamanan transnational crime, and how to cope
negara). This is when controversies with emergency situation, as such strike,
have never been resolved. POLRI disaster relief, isolated areas, widening
simply interprets Department of Defence communal conflict and others.
was intentionally design the Bill to Especially in the transnational crime,
undermine police authority. As known, Department of Defence officials were
POLRI defined role is in the public
24
cautious enough to mention about Department of Defence is not quite

“actors form overseas”. certain with the future ministerial post in
the cabinet. They may be learning from
the past in which particular minister was
Final Notes erased; or scope of authority was gone
somewhere such in the case of “trained
It has already noted in the introductory people” (rakyat terlatih) that previously
chapter that modern nation states in under Minister for Defence and Security
contemporary world confront serious Affairs. The artificial separation of
challenges more serious that those in defence and security in 1999 already
the past. As deterritorialization of forced the rakyat terlatih is now
threats is becoming more intense, practically under control of the Home
armed force might have been becoming Affairs Minister.
less important; but management of
resources could well be more More importantly, one may also notice
complexes, as military capability needs how bureaucratic politics matter most. A
not only modern technology, but also time difference is very short both the
support from non-military resources. first and the second draft, though the
The use of instrument for securing second draft was an obvious departs,
nation-state against dynamic escalatory especially with regard to National
threats require integrative strategy that Security Council. Also in this period, the
in essence is gradual approach, and initial idea of reforming relations
fragmented policies, and differentiated between Department of Defence and
implementing agencies (instrument of Military Headquarters was fading away.
responses). This is not quite well tackled Emphases in structural change within
in the draft of Department of Defence. the defence establishment were
practically gone in June 2005.
Changes in the conception of national Meanwhile, the role of intelligence
security, as well as how these concepts function in national security issues was
to be included into the Bill shows beginning to emerge. Very likely, that in
important trajectory. A careful reading this period, there should be relatively
on the four drafts that evolve since May intense discussion among Department
2005 to January 2007 could well be of Defence with Military Headquarters.
indicative of some significant issues. External dynamics that could have been
One may notes, for instance, how instrumental for making more confusion
securitizing agent evolve from original was public outrage on Intelligence
ideas of Defence and Security Council Agency Bill.
into a National Security Council. The
last column in Table 2 (See Appendix) Such politics of time was also repeated
notes some factors that evolving in the case of the third and the fourth
throughout the period. The intriguing draft. Detailed elaboration on supporting
questions are, among other, how all role of the armed forces were devised in
these happen, why they happen, and term of specific missions, among others
what process is actually happening. counter terrorism, disaster reliefs,
There must be contestation in the whole maritime security, transnational crimes,
process involving changes, negotiations, and local government. In these issues,
and instrumentalization of political the third draft focus only on depolitizing
environment by security actor into that military deployment, for example by
process. giving more authority to the President to
deploy military forces without
Perhaps such politization is manifested Parliamentary approval, indeed only
among others by the use of vague apply to restore emergency. Besides,
language, such as the use “minister who the use of POLRI in national security
responsible for internal affairs” rather measures, of course other than that
than “Minister of Interior” or “Home already part of policing function as
Affairs”; minister responsible to foreign devised in Law No. 2/2002 on the
affairs, instead of Minister for Foreign National Police, was embedded in the
Affairs. Another interpretation is that third draft. Interestingly however, special
25
reference to the policy was nowhere in Chapter 4

the fourth draft.
Interestingly, such significant changes The Actors: Institutional

could not have occurred in 20 days Preferences and
(inclusive of Christmas and New Year
pause). Overall, significant learning Technical Competence
process might have taken place from
June 2005 to end of 2006. It is going to
be difficult to prove whether such Discussion, seminar, symposia are
learning, if existed at all, was sort of public area in which issues converge.
strategic gambit to avoid direct conflict. They play a magnitude of importance,
Imbalance learning process among especially for those initiate particular
security actors could well initiate wider policies to expose their ideas for wider
gap of understanding, and thus create audience. Others should also enjoy
more contentious debate. similar opportunity, perhaps even to
challenge ideas proposed by the policy
initiator. It is different ball game whether
such public forum are to produce
convergence of ideas, and thus a more
solid policy recommendation. This
chapter is to map of different opinions
and institutional stance in the
discussions.15 This chapter will only
focus on emerging issues, such as
scope, actors, managements, and how
to tackle contingency threats.16 It is
assumed that actors have institutional
preference to promote interests and
15
It is acknowledged that the participating
stakeholders were Department of Defence, the
National Police, Department of Home Affairs, the
Military Headquarters, Department of Foreign
Affairs, and Intelligence Agency. Reference made
to intelligence agency was not those from special
meeting in the office of State Intelligence Agency,
but from the agency’s officials attending to the
meeting. The meetings referred to was organized
by the Propatria Institute between 20 April – 27
July 2006.
16
After July, the Propatria Institute
organized other five meetings (30 August – 28
December 2006). Many interesting, progressive
ideas put to the fore by former military and police
high ranking officers. Some ideas that emerged
in these later series of discussions may also be
found in this monograph. As a matter of fact, the
idea of establishing Special Authoritative Agency
to deal with specific threats, such as Disaster
Reliefs, Maritime Security, and Counter Terrorism
appeared for the first time in this discussion. As
mentioned in the introduction and disclaimer, the
Institute adopted the Chattam House Rule in the
meeting. Name and designation are, therefore,
reserved to be anonymous. Attribution to
agencies and/or institutions is disclosed only to
emphasize different organizational character,
institutional flavour and perhaps also individual
preference. Data for verification are available on
request from the author. The author is willing to
include these discussions in forthcoming
publication.
26
gain from negotiation. Nevertheless, conducted unofficially by military

technical competence that particular bureaucracy.
actors may have experience in the past
was also matters. How to deal with such challenges
remain serious problems, easy to say,
difficult to implement. One may opt for
Department of Defence: Leading the systemic and structural changes. This
Diverging Voice would serve longer-term perspectives of
reforms, and thus grass rooted new
The original intention of national security emerging values and best practice,
bill, as explained in the previous including democratization, adoption of
chapter, is so much system building as global values such as human rights and
to handle immediate, urgent need for human security in general. This may
coordinated efforts in handling threat to also open the way for democratizing
national security. Multidimensionality of Department of Defence itself. System
threats, but at the same time management is very important.
comprehensive nature of the national
security consequently affects structure Two important principles are
as well as functioning state apparatus. differentiation of structure and
As leading role in drafting the Bill, specialization of function. National
Department of Defence was obliged to security problems cannot be tackling by
disseminate their ideas on single agencies. Joint efforts, inter-
comprehensive national security. Since agency cooperation, and coordination
the very beginning, there was strong are paramount important. But this can
impression that in fact assumption that only be done in new perspectives,
security is in general of functioning considering laws and other constraints,
government. As such, defence/military is let alone unfinished institutional reform
to tackle primarily with military threats by in Indonesia. Democratic principle can
way of military operations; while the only be done with a strong flavor of
police are likely to limit them in by way “democratization”, which in systemic
of law enforcement. The other perspectives means differentiation
departments will, of course, function as between policy makers and
normal, according to their sectoral implementing agencies. At the time of
functions. debate, the TNI has already in
Department of Defence. Meanwhile,
Nevertheless, normalcy may not some implementing agencies, such as
effectively be able to manage stability, intelligence and National Police remain
reducing threats as well as preventing untouched. They are answerable only to
threats to emerge. And second that the president, and thus reduce some
many emerging threats are emerging, to elements of democratic government in.
which conventional approach will less
likely to be effective. Terrorism is the At national level, hierarchy of policy is
case in point in which prevention is important. Since there was no Policy
getting more difficult. The country is Blue Print like GBHN (Garis-garis Besar
becoming more vulnerable not only from Haluan Negara), a five-year policy
physical threats, but also from changing guidance during Suharto’s years,
perception of people that possibly lead consistency over policy in the longer run
into delegitimization of states, loyalty to became questionable. According to
government officials as well as possible Director General for Defence Strategy
widening communal conflict. Loosening Major General Dadi Susanto, for
of central government to region may example, the President is oblige to have
pose other challenges, especially national security policy (general outline
because of depolitization of the armed of security and defence policy) to which
forces. This is worrying, especially all government sector should then laid
because Department of Defence have their own sectoral policy upon.
no direct control. There is not yet Department of Defence is to write
Regional Offices to Department of Strategic Policy on the development
Defence. Their role, if any, is still defence capability; Department of
27
Foreign Affairs should have strategic department, such as department for

policy on diplomacy and foreign policy; national education, health, and so on.
Department of Home Affairs should
have strategic policy on, for example, So far there have been agreement on
governing administrative unity. Needless what sort of curricula and/or special
to say, all departments should have educational program that will be
strategic policy in their respective organized by Department of Defence or
institutional competence. simply to be incorporated into existing
materials in general education. Very
That idea is embedded very strongly on likely that this is going to be intensely
the drafts of national security devise by debated in the years to come. Unless
Department of Defence. Department of coming up with clear ideas and program
Defence assumed a somewhat self- specific, Department of Defence’s
appointed leading role to write a draft on proposals for such subjects is likely to
national security bill. But there are some invite public criticism.
constraints that Department of Defence
is facing. First is that the administration
of Indonesia appeared to have adopted The National Police
a three-prong approach: politics, law
and security (polhukkam), economics, According to Law No. 2/2002 on the
and social welfare. What the so-called National Police, police is responsible for
security approach is those on the maintaining public security and law and
portfolio of coordinating ministers for order. POLRI is one of the most widely
political, law and security affairs. Health, known as primary actors in public
education, and religion could well be security, though the Law also mention
under the Coordinating Minister for other agencies responsible for law
Social Welfare; economic, monetary, enforcement. Using the appropriate
trade and industry may be under terms of national security, they may
auspices of the Coordinating Minister for include those responsible for custom,
Economy. It remains unclear how to immigration, as well as local police. In
establish specific measures to tackle general, they are implementing
measures such as economic security, agencies for government function to
health security, epidemic, and provide “security and safety of the
environmental security. They do contain public” through law enforcement and
some elements of functioning public services in securing the ultimate
government in particular sector. The objectives of maintaining internal
failure of this governmental sector to security”.
tackle their competency, however, may
bring with it a possible danger to the Focusing on internal order as well as
society. transnational issues, the police relies on
law as the most important parameter.
Second is ambiguity between the Enforcing law is the most important
government’s portfolios on defence. efforts that any government should do to
Department of Defence covers defence protecting their national interest. Their
issues in a very wide sense – which is concern is, in fact, not on national
defending the country against any kind security per se but on keamanan negara
of threats. Sectoral portfolio suggests (state security). Confined to their scope
that Department of Defence should have as law enforcement within national
had competence on developing military territory, and expecting that the military
capability, or at the most defence is to focus their role on external
capability, against military threats. defence, they are very much obsess
Relevant to that are, of course, military about keamanan negara. It is primary
capability, reserve and software important to resolve many problems,
necessary for defending country such as including that grey areas that may still
patriotism and basic military training. But preserves.
at the same time, such category may as
a matter of fact fall beyond particular State security, in the words of Inspector
General (Pol.) Farouk Mohammad, “…
28
is to include the existence of the state, recognizes how importance is inter-

territorial integrity as well as state’s agency cooperation to cope with all
sovereignty, and safety of all challenges. They do not challenge
components of the nations and state”. multidimensionality of threats and the
According to Brigadier General (Pol.) need for comprehensive understanding
Syafriadi, also from National Police of security issues. It remains
Headquarter, argues that national unchanged. The National Police
security should concern on threats that consistently argues since the very
originates from external as well as beginning that state security is “to cover
internal sources. He added, however, the existence, territorial unity and
that external threats should be handled integrity, sovereignty, and safety of all
by Department of Defence, Department components of the nation and state”.
of Foreign Affairs and the TNI. The
police and sectoral governments will be
dealing with internal threats. The bottom Department of Home Affairs
line of external-internal nexus is
territorial border of the country. Security has always been understood in
comprehensive perspective. There is no
Differ from Department of Defence's question that Indonesia is still
proposal that need a structural change, embarking upon nation building; and
the police played safe, working within state building is the most important
the constraint of existing regulations, aspect to nation building. Geographic
primarily Law No. 2/2002 on the structure, plurality of ethnic nationalism,
National Police and the State as well as level of educations and social
Constitution 1945. As known, the economy of most of Indonesia
amended State Constitution 1945 sees populations is perceived to become an
parallel arrangements of pertahanan impending factor for nation and state
negara (state’s defence) and keamanan building. Unlike the military, however,
negara (state’s security). The first part, Department of Home Affairs officials
the state defence, has already been repeatedly said that development
arranged into more detailed regulations, approach should be the emphases; and
i.e. Law No. 3/2002 on the State only in a specific circumstances should
Defence and Law No. 34/2004 on the security approach, which is efforts relies
Armed Forces. As POLRI have already on coercive and force, might be used,
well-arranged in the Law No. 2/2002 on with a very strict condition.
the National Police, POLRI assumed
that what is left in the dark was “state’s Developments components of the
security” (keamanan negara). If a Bill is approach include not only provide
necessary at all, it must be that on Basic physical infrastructure, but also non-
Law on the State’s Security (Undang- physical, such as strengthening idea of
Undang Pokok Penyelenggaraan the state (wawasan nusantara, kesatuan
Keamanan Negara). bangsa). Department of Home Affairs
since the very beginning was quite
In an inside paper circulated in the aware of such challenges.
police in early January 2007, short a Departmentalization is manifested in, for
while after the last draft of Department example, Directorate General for Unity
of Defence made public, the police of the Nations and Politics (Kesbangpol)
response candidly. The short paper and Directorate General for General
underlined many issues of worries: Governance (pemerintahan umum). The
legality of the Bill on National Security, first is to focus on forging ideational
police conception on “security”, political based of the state. The second is to
background for diminishing the urgency provide services to the populations. With
of Department of Defence initiated Bill, regards to national security issues, it is
and cost benefit analyses should POLRI within the later directorate general that
is to subordinate to particular ministry of Department of Home Affairs plays role
department. Almost 12 month later, the in the protection of the society, natural
police are in fact less controversial. To disaster and border management.
some extent, Farouk Mohammad However, they noted that there is no
29
need to include individual security in the has the primary role in leading
bill of national security. Public security, interagency coordination in developing
according to Hadi Susanto, Director for and implementing foreign policy as well
Unity of Nation of Department of Home as leading and coordinating the
Affairs, convinced that public security is government representation abroad.
in essence already serve to the interest Department of Foreign Affairs conveys
of citizens, and thus individual security. the government policy through
embassies and consulates in foreign
With the focus on governance and countries and diplomatic missions to
services, early detection is to be the international organizations.
most importance stage during which
Department of Home Affairs can play As such, Department of Foreign Affairs
some role. It is also in this role that the officials are not new in discourse being
department exercises detection function disseminated by Department of
through their Komunitas Intelijen Daerah Defence. They were quite aware of the
(Local Intelligence Community) and fact that in globalized world, separation
Forum Kewaspadaan Dini (Early between national and international are
Warning Forum). They are to support almost impossible, what occur beyond
relevance actors to national security in territory might affect nation states, either
the region. Hadi Susanto, did not used through simple demonstration effect that
the terms of regional security or regional change people preference, direct
order. He was using national security in intervention on the bases of modern
the region. This is so for some reasons. internationalism such as human rights
First, that national security should and responsibility to protects, but also
remain in the hand of central more subtle penetration by using soft
government, despite regional autonomy. power. Threats to national security are
Second, two important elements of thus becoming more difficult to come by.
securing national security are central Heri Saepudin of the Department of
government apparatus, which are the Foreign Affairs said that “it should be
military and the police. Local almost impossible for a country to
government play some roles on unilaterally decide that they wanted to
maintaining local stability and order as do without considering international
they were also equipped with diplomatic landscape”.
implementing agencies, such as polisi
pamong praja (local police), pertahanan Nevertheless, Department of Foreign
sipil (civil defence), and rakyat terlatih Affairs officials warned that military
(trained people). Department of Home solution, as important as it may, should
Affairs, according to Mohammad Roem, take serious consideration.
an official of the Department, should Specialization of function is paramountly
take the lead in strengthening citizens’ important. In the words of Ahmad
alert, awareness on laws, and respect to Bawazier of Department of Foreign
authority. Affairs, the “scope of national security
bill should be flexible/accommodate/
functional role of all security actors”.
Department of Foreign Affairs Foreign policy begins at home,
according to L.H. Moerdani, another
Department of Foreign Affairs is the official at Department of Foreign Affairs,
executive branch responsibilities for and Indonesia’s diplomacy can only be
foreign policy. Within the executive successful if security governance does
branch, Department of State is the lead not create repercussion abroad. He
foreign affairs agency and the Secretary specifically alluded to the need of
of State is the President’s principal reform, especially on behavior of
foreign policy advisor. The Department security apparatus on the ground.
also supports the foreign affairs
activities of other government’s entities, Department of Foreign Affairs has no
including the Department of Commerce. objection to proposal of Department of
In addition, as the lead foreign affairs Defence. They understand scope of
agency, Department of Foreign Affairs national security as their counterpart in
30
Department of Defence does – national military is basically on request by other

security should comprises of defence, domestic agencies and, more
state security, public security, and importantly, based on political decisions
human security. They further argue that by political authority. The political
RUU Keamanan Nasional may be decision should basically respond to
useful. State security is problematic escalation of threats.
terminology in international relations.
They hope that National Security Bill Rear Marshall Sagom Tamboen
could well become foundation for concurred by emphasizing that
systemic advancement. approach to resolve national security
threats should be done according to
professional competence of any
The Military Headquarters agencies. To most in the military, the
problems with Department of Defence
There is strong, determine perception draft on national security bills is not the
among military officers that the military scope, but that it does not provide
is still the best organization in the sufficient assurance to tackle
country; that the country remain emergency situation.
confronting serious challenges.
International change as well as
domestic challenges provides profound Intelligence Agency
effect upon the very foundation of the
nation states. Deterritorialization of Intelligence is important. The world is
threats, in terms of emerging becoming not only borderless, but also
transnational threats as well as their space less. According to official at the
repercussion in domestic affairs, creates State Intelligence Agency, Indonesia is
a situation to which internal security confronting double challenges – not only
cannot be separated from external to keep up with globalization but also
security. National security is a with another, contradictory trends,
combinatorial function of external strengthening localization. Within these
defence, internal security, public (law) two contradictory trends, state is in more
and order. The way they put the difficult position. External threats are
argument suggests that their version of real. It is a matter of time before sort of
“internal security” could well be what demonstration effects that Indonesia
that “state security” is to the police. citizens get from the outside through
modern technology will bring serious
Assign primarily to defend the country impact upon social and political
against external threats as it may, there structure. National security bill should
must be some role to play for the therefore be able to lay foundation for
military in internal security. National state apparatus to react effectively to
security is, in essence, combinatorial such threats. Armin Sugito of the State
threats between what originates outside Intelligence Agency identified that the
ad well as inside. Nevertheless, it is most daunting task for Indonesia is to
interesting to note that professional tackle an exhaustive list of threats,
competence, service background among others, challenge for state
appears to determine how military ranks ideology and constitution, border
and files look at the challenges that the management and disaster reliefs.
country is facing. Rear Marshall Rio
Mendung of the Military Headquarters Sugito suggested, however, that military
argues that Department of Defence and capability should not be used in the first
the military should focus on military place. Intelligence is key elements to the
threats, not that on non-military. As very survival of modern statehood. It
important as it may, internal threats can functions not only to minimize threats,
be resolve by those agencies that but also to take some legible
primarily responsible for it. Only in anticipatory measures. Functioning
particular situation will the military government is necessary conditions for
should play role in internal affairs. To the survival of nation-states. Only in the
Rio Mendung, involvement of the last resort is military capability allowed
31
to be used. This is not without disaster management and communal

conditionality; and, thus “political conflict (30 August – 28 December
decision is a must for state security 2006).
agencies to be deployed in emergency
situation”. In this context, national The high degree of military attendance
security bill is necessary to build should not necessarily evident of their
working national security systems. Major effectiveness in selling the idea. There
General Sutikno from the State are no open challenges to the proposal,
Intelligence Agency emphasized the role except, as predicted, by the police.
of intelligence in information gathering Significant change, however, should be
and strategic analyses. Only with alluded to some changes. It is
adequate information and analyses will interesting, for example, that one of
we be able to come with serious threats those who initially refused the inclusion
in future. of “individual security” to be part of
national security was Hadi Susanto at
the Department of Home Affairs. Some
Discord and Accordance active military in the Military
Headquarters demanded Department of
As Table-1 show, POLRI attendance in Defence to focus on military threats
the series of meeting to discuss national rather than non-military threats. There
security issue was extremely low. Even was discord among military officers,
when the meeting was held at the perhaps not on how to define national
Perguruan Tinggi Ilmu Kepolisian (High security, but on how the military should
school for Police Science) on 20 April play their role in the system.
2006, only 28% attendance was police
background, 3% of which is retired There was some element of
police officers. This was in a stark convergence with regard to the need for
contrast to the military, with level of coherence national security policy; and
attendance varied from 19% in the that national security bill may provide
Department of Home Affairs (12 July some foundation to establish such
2006), 80% in the Military Headquarters systems. This is not suggesting that the
(29 June 2006). Even in the PTIK process of policy formulation in the
meeting, attendance with military realm of national security will be less
background reached 46%. Interestingly, problematic. In relations among equals,
attendance of the TNI reached only 19% leading role has always problematic.
when the discussion was held in the Department of Defence used to be at
Department of Home Affairs. It must be the centre stage of Indonesia, especially
noted, however, that such relatively low on national security issues. During
representation of the TNI may be Suharto years, it named the Department
compensated with paper presenter and of Defend[ing] Security (Departemen
former military officers that already Pertahanan Keamanan), with a clear
serving in the Department of Home reference to security as objectives and
Affairs. defends as means. Both the TNI and
POLRI were also implementing
Major General Dadi Susanto was in agencies to policy devised by the
predominance position. He was Department. Conflict between these two
obviously the man on the show, sibling were quite rare, though later
presenting paper in all the meeting but become evident that gruesome, feeling
that in the Military Headquarters (28 of deprivation, and complains had
June 2006) when one of the paper always occurred.
presenters was Rear Admiral Soedjiwo,
Director for Strategic Policy. It is Reform has disturbed these relations.
interesting to note that Department of There is no more “security” in the official
Defence officials were also the paper name of Department of Defence. The
presenter in the PTIK meeting. Such amended Constitutions uses “state
determination is also evident in the five defence and security” (Pertahanan dan
subsequent meeting that discussed Keamanan Negara), instead of national
more topical issues, such as terrorism, security, defending security, state
32
security or other term that clearly refers among equal, the most likely process is
to particular function of government. harmonization through diffusion and/or
Moreover, TNI and POLRI are the only harmonization. Less likely the process
implementing agencies in the will take in form of imposition. Unilateral,
Constitution. While the TNI has already domineering tendencies is unlikely to
subordinated to Minister of Defence, at succeed.
least in theory, the POLRI have no
obligation to anyone but the President. It is necessary to note, however, that in
Convergence of outlook, let alone addition to actors mentioned above,
strategic resolve, to national security there two other importance actors:
issues is likely to remain problematic. Lemhannas (Institute for National
Resilience) and Wantannas (Council for
It may be interesting to note that quite a National Resilience). Both are
few people read “state police” answerable to the President. Most
(Kepolisian Negara) as a government Lemhannas works are studies on
function of policing. Most of them, strategic issues, including defence,
including or even particularly the police, foreign policy, and security as well as
interpret state policing as the state’s preparing for future national leadership.
police (POLRI), an implementing Wantannas concerned more on
agencies of policy making that in contingency response, though under
democratic system of government Suharto’s years primarily identified as
suppose to be devised by government institution closely related to National
function responsible for policing. Strategic Policy (GBHN, Garis-garis
Confusingly, the Law No. 2/2002 on the Besar Haluan Negara). They are all
State Police regulates the government civilian institutions, though Wantannas
function of policing but only deal with until today remain under the leadership
POLRI as the implementing agencies. of a military top brass. Like Department
The Law recognises other policing of Defence, high-ranking officers from
agencies such as custom, immigration the military and the police remain in the
and other implementing policing role of dominant position.
some sectoral department but says that
they remain under their respective Considering their concerns on strategic
department. and/or contingency issues, Lemhannas
and Wantannas may claim their
institutional rights to get involved in the
Final Notes national security bill. As a non-
departmental organization, both
In relations among equals, Lemhannas and Wantannas do not
harmonization is understood as a multi- have implementing agencies. Unlike the
agents and institutions-centered process military and the police, which have
in which negotiation among actors may strong networks and bureaucratic clout,
precede intra-agency implementations. Lemhannas and Wantannas are directly
In the case of process formulation answerable to the President, and thus
national security bill, the harmonization may claim some sort of institutional
should represent willingness of, say, power. Whether they are able to assert
police to voluntarily adopt conception of such claim, however, depend on
Department of Defence. The other circumstances. Indonesian politics is
possibility is imposition, through which fluid, personal relations matters; and
an exportation of ideas, values and informal politics could lead institutional
principle taking place unilaterally. The power.
last process is diffusion, an indirect
communication of ideas in a wider
audience to reach adoption voluntary by
an increasing number of parties.
Needless to say that throughout the
process, power is important, be it
intellectual (conceptual), institutional, or
even personal. Considering relation
33
Chapter 5 clashes are always from the second-

lowest and lowest bands of officers.
These foot soldiers are doing the bulk of
the fighting, suggesting either problems
War of the Roses: of discipline or economic impulses.
Military and Police in the No theory is able to satisfactory explains
Loggerhead the root of the matters. One may argue
that conflict over resources was the
most prominent causes of the brawl.
Newly emboldened police demand
As previous chapter notes, the most larger share of the funds generated by
contentious relations among security control of the supply and distribution of
actors is that between Department of commodities or the provisions of
Defence (and the military) and POLRI. security to black economy. However,
Psychology of reform, post-separation of clashes also occurred in Bulukumba and
the police from the military command, Binjai, as well as other places that have
reinforces conflicting perspectives. To no economic clout. On the other hand,
some extent, the diverging point of view in other places, police and military
between the two may also switch on personnel routinely coordinate their
technical competence, including work even in everyday security
different mode of operation that the operations such as controlling public
military or the police carry out to fulfill demonstrations, border control and
their respective tasks, and flare up transport security. A joint military and
further at conceptual level. Such police task force raided roof riders in
differences can only be resolved Jakarta’s train.
through timeless efforts. Adjustment is
perhaps needed on both sides. This Undoubtedly, the roots of the conflicts
subchapter will go through several deserve special attention and must be
issues, beginning from troubled relations seen in wider perspectives. Dynamic at
on the ground, different outlook on middle rungs of the hierarchy could well
national security, and how POLRI opt for cover another issues, the future politics
conceptual contests by drafting of management in security sectors.
alternative bill. As observed, the final Generals are tinged with unease about
assault that the police use in their the tenure of police authority over
strategy was to correct the balance, internal security; police top leader
trying to assume prominent role in policy harbour anxiety that security politics
initiative. might one-day trip back in favour of the
army. Conceptualization of internal
security is becoming political battle,
Where Have All the Flowers Gone? representing not only the issues of
economic resources, but also personal
Clashes between military and police dignity, institutional glory, and access
officers are becoming day-to-day event and loyalty only to the Presidency.
since they are institutionally separated
in 1999. The first fight initially involved In public, statements quite often add
individuals expanded out to include a more tension. Brigadier General Sugeng
greater number of soldier and officers. Widodo, then, Head of Law Bureau in
This has occurred in many places. Department of Defence said that “it was
Personnel spats occurs between army a mistake not to let the military get
and the police, especially army battalion involve in internal security. TNI is the
permanently stationed in a region ultimate power (senjata pamungkas) in
against mobile brigade, the paramilitary many cases … should TNI be unable to
police force controlled centrally and cope with challenges, then, the state is
seconded to regional police stations, or in real danger”.17 General Widodo was
police personnel stationed at sub-district referring to what is stipulated in the Law
command (Polsek). Police and army
personnel killed or wounded in the 17
See, Sinar Harapan, 20 February 2005.
34
No. 34/2004 on the Armed Forces, and issues were too sensitive for the police
also elucidating the role of the TNI in to discuss. They simply did not want the
time of crisis. He should have focused discussion on national security bill
his argument on gradual, escalatory become a Pandora box to uncover other
measures instead of saying something sensitive issues.
that may ignite the wound of the past,
arrogance, as well as superiority of the In many occasion, Department of
military over civilian institutions. Defence officials actually explained that
nothing to worry about military operation
Understandably, the National Police are other than war. The use of the military in
especially annoyed with such statement. such role will not undermine political
Widodo argument that there is no authority of the civilian government.
turning back from the draft, and let the Colonel Jan Pieter Ate of Department of
DPR decide, may put more fire. In the Defence, a member of the Working
view of the police, Widodo was by Group on the National Security Bill,
passing the police in the process of clarifies:
initiating the draft. They wanted to be
involved in the process. The POLRI felt
marginalized. As a matter of fact, “It should be understood that
Department of Defence, then, had not the assessment that we
set up their own working group, let alone have in Department of
planning for inter-agency task force that Defence seriously taken into
normally takes place a while after an account critical point to
initial draft, as preliminary material for which the use of military
discussion, is completed. The working force and capability is
group started only in March 2005. justifiable. The use of
military in internal affairs
Inclusion into the process is of must be based on political
importance to build trust and to call by political authorities.
communicate ideas. Nevertheless, the Military should not judge in
problems that the police confront were their own assessment. Some
not only about trust. Their reluctance to threat to internal security, for
discuss draft on national security bill example, radicalism should
was also due to other reasons, only be considered as
especially resistance of talking about threats to internal security
possible amendment of Law No. 2/2002 when they reached critical
on the Police. They are already point.”
suspicious to many parties having the
idea of putting Chief of the Police under
particular department. Their objection However, Ate did not elaborate further,
was part of politicizing agenda setting how such critical point to intervene is
intentionally intended to shape policy decided. It will be based on political
initiative of Department of Defence. decision. For those involved in series
meetings to which this issue was being
In this politicization, two technical issues discussed should be aware of how
are prominent. First is on the legitimacy difficult it will to decide the critical point.
of using military in stability and support Law No. 23/1959 on Emergency
operation (military operation other than Situation is based on subjective
war). To the police, military operation securitization; and in fact some
other than war is no more than the provision in the Bill was trying to detail
military (and Department of Defence) what still keep in the dark in the Law No.
conceptualization of term to undermine 23/1959. In December 2006, Director
police’s authority. Second is on the General for Strategy Major General Dadi
inclusion of such operation into a law, as Susanto said in private conversation
the police believe that such technical, that
operational matter should only be
regulated by government regulations “... we do need such a things
(peraturan pemerintah). These two are regulated somewhere.
35
We also need specific task

assign to military units going One can only guess that the police had
to taking up military something in mind. Institutionalization of
operation other than war. I security operation, in lieu of military as
am not quite sure if we can well as policing function is likely to bring
regulate in detail in the Law about further changes. The military
(that we are discussing; perceive that once something is in the
read: national security bill). law, then it will be obligatory to any
We do hope however that by security actors to obey. And this may
putting it into the Law, not run against the way the police
quite detail as it may, this understand role of the military in internal
may oblige implementing security affairs. For quite some time,
agencies to equip they consistently argue that such role
themselves with internal must be based on emergency situation,
regulations.” according to contingency planning, and
legalized by political decision of political
authority. In the mind of the police,
In part, these show to some degree how political decisions should be ad hoc in
ideas were evolving in Department of principle and contingent in nature.
Defence. A year earlier, ideas hardly Regulating it into a law would indirectly
came up thus far. There was no open institutionalize military’s role in internal
recognition that a law would be affairs into a “permanent” base. Should
instrumental to internal reform, things become permanent, they will
especially on issue important to affect priorities; and for the police, as
accountability of the military. aired by a retired police general Momo
Nevertheless, it is equally important to Kelana, “the top priority should be
note that it would not be easy for Major strengthening capacity of the police”.
General Dadi Susanto to convince his
compatriot at the Military Headquarters.
Detailed regulations are always good for Discord and Convergence
accountability; but at the same time,
they may bring with additional burden The police top brass involved in the
for commander in the field. What discussion are mostly two stars general,
eventually came up in this respect in including those already retired. All of
December 2006 draft was in fact limited them experienced their formatting years
to, first, political side of the military under military corporate. They joined the
operation other than war, especially that police, then part of the armed forces, in
it must be based on political decision; mid-1970s and reached maturation as
and, second, the emphases on the need middle ranks officers in late 1990s. More
for inter-agency cooperation. than three decade in the services, half
of it as junior partner of the armed
The police were unimpressed. Until forces, the other half during the time of
sometime in mid 2008, many in the searching recognition as “civilian” police.
POLRI remain in the position that there They are just like at the cross road to
is no need to regulate such a thing into get raid off their own militaristic
a law. Inspector General Aryanto Sutadi experience. Younger generation in the
says that “cooperation might be police may be different. But difference is
regulated in things lower than laws”. always double-edge sword. They may
Nanan Sukarna, another police general, be more confidence, knowing where
argues, “in fact there were already legal they really are, and thus may see their
bases for the use of the military and military counterpart more objectively. On
police in particular security matters". He the other hand, there is also possibility
added that “the questions are not so for further departure as there was no
much on what to regulations is, but how more common experience. Only time
to harmonize and synchronize chain of will tell.
command and code of operational
conduct when actors are assigned in In the foreseeable future, discord is
one particular issue”. likely to strengthen. Convergence could
36
well be more difficult to reach. Beyond Therefore, selective securitization

psychology of relations, there are should be of paramount importance.
substantial differences between the This is the only way to minimize damage
police and the military, i.e. that military operation may entail. As
understanding on national security Table-2 shows, stability and support
issues, threat perceptions, and range of operation, defined properly, maybe
response. As Table-2 shows, it is not sufficient strategic option for closing
going to be easy to close perception gap commitment-capacity gap. Regrettably,
between police and military personnel. stability and support operation has not
The scope of national security issues as yet defined in specific regulation. More
defined in the Bill by Department of importantly, stipulation about military
Defence can become a problem not so operation other than war is vague. Both
much about the scope itself but different Law No. 3/2002 on the State Defence
perception on how to handle them. The as well as in Law No. 34/2004 on the
inclusion of human security and public Armed Forces preferred to use the term
security may not become serious military operation other than war both as
problems. In one-way or another, the part of military role and as mode of
police authority over public security is operation. Law No. 34/2004 refers
not directly challenged. However, “restoration” as embedded military
deterritorialization of threats and operation, not as specifically tasking
multidimensionality of threats are operation of the armed forces. In so
problematic. The military would likely to doing, restoring order could become
opt for securitization, as this is the only ordinary tasks of the armed forces.
way to handle grey areas issues and
other threats that might not be solved by The drafter of the Law on the Armed
criminalization. On the other hand, the Forces appeared not to be aware that,
police appear to be at ease themselves unlike the use of military force in
with functionalization of security actor. deterrence and defence, which assumes
This would secure their own role, while threats is eminent and existential, and
preventing the military from assuming thus requires active undertaking,
wider role. Selective securitization may restoration is to bring situation back to
to some extent narrow this gap of normal. As such, no more than
perception. responsive feat is required. It is well
nigh impossible to assume this as
Nevertheless, to close this perception simple technical terms of military
gap, appropriate response is required. operation. Unfortunately, this issue did
This may be another source of not significantly attract the attention of
contention, not necessarily because the parliamentary members during the
military-police rivalry as some analyses deliberation of the Law on the Armed
suggests, but simply because different Forces in 2004. There is no doubt that
logic embedded in both policing function in such circumstances clarity is needed
and military function. The police, as law in the National Security Bill to elaborate
enforcement agency believe that law is, derivative regulations in demands.
of course, the ultimate instrument; and
that criminalization should be sufficient Table-2 may be also useful to see
to deter threats (to public order). For the discord and convergence between
military, law may not be able to cope Department of Defence and the National
with emerging challenges, as in the Police. It shows how Department of
case of terrorism, or inapplicable such in Defence’s formulation on threats and
the case of transnational crimes, piracy range of response can be at the
in international waters, and other loggerhead with the police. Both the
transnational issues. Nevertheless, military and the police are likely to agree
military solution may end up with that emergency law should have
excessive use of force. Without strict become bases for regulation. Escalatory
restriction, military operation other than or otherwise, it is political decision that
war may erode authority of policing should take the lead. Nevertheless, it is
function. interesting to see that in the draft of
national security bill, Department of
37
Defence should bother to regulate “civil draft. The previous subchapter already
order”, which from the police notes some of important points. For
perspectives should be no need of now, it is suffice to say that, despite of
regulation, as it can be handle by insularity of ideas and perhaps some
normal functioning of government misconception, the final draft shows how
institutions. Perhaps more importantly, Department of Defence appear to be
the military interprets “political decision” accommodative, if not significantly
to include in law and other government adjust their previous formula to
policy. The police understand it as an ad changing circumstances. Some of the
hoc decision by political authorities. At ideas that emerged in the series
this point, Department of Defence discussions, as mentioned in previous
intention to institutionalized political chapter, also included into the new draft.
decision in the National Security Bill is Some of those changes deserve special
seen by the police as the military attention. One is that on the elaboration
systematic attempt to reinstate their role of military operation other than war,
in the past. especially within the context of support
and stability operations, the bill is now
The final horror for the police is, of more elaborative. The approach is more
course, the status of Chief of the topical, according to specificity of
National Police, which, according threats, such as counter terrorism,
Department of Defence proposal, must disaster management, maritime
subordinate to particular minister. One security, transnational crimes,
should not fail to notice that since early supporting local government, and crisis
proposal in May 2005, Department of management. Indeed, elaboration does
Defence had persistently argued the not necessarily more clarity. The
need for such subordination, indeed not emphases on obligation for the military
only for Chief of the National Police but to provide support may contradict to the
also for Chief of the Armed Forces. It nature of support operation, to which
has to be admitted that such design is a political decision, and thus request from
good sign of democratization, as other security actors is mandatory.
democratic security sector governance
demand subordination of any
implementing agencies to political The Police Strike Back
authorities. Depolitization of security
actors will never be completed without The police was in despair,
such subordination. disappointment, and frustrating. They
were not in correct position to challenge
In current political context, however, in directly Department of Defence
which mutual suspicion among security proposal. They were not in the position
actors was high, the police may have to amend the Law No. 2/2002 on the
seen to other direction. There is no point National Police, as the regulation have
whether such perception is correct or given a lot room of maneuvering and
otherwise. Nor is necessary to judge independency, if not autonomous,
whether the direction valid or fabricated. position. Position of Chief of the Police,
Politics is always perceptual. Perception under new constitutions and the Law is
matters. When perception goes bad, so equal to that of the Chief of the Armed
does reaction. Lacking of consultation, Forces. They would fight for any idea to
and the way Department of Defence change the amendment that is likely to
officials presented their proposal may reduce such privilege.18
have transform such perception into
hostility. Beginning in August 2006, Therefore, the police contend when
police-military relations was entering Department of Defence proposes a bill
into new, more serious crises. on national security that comprise of
state defence, state security, public
Thorough reading to the last draft of the security (maintenance of the law and
national security bill, however, one my order) as well as individual security. Part
find a lot of improvement, if not even
significant departure from the previous 18
See Kompas, 6 February 2007.
38
of individual security can be protected Not long after the second draft of
by law, while the rest is, as the military Department of Defence, police
would agree, under the auspices of headquarter published an “academic
normal government function. Defence paper” to counter Department of
against external military threats is an Defence’s idea. This was not cohesive
obvious threat that the military should paper. It was indicative of politics, rather
confront with. There was no objection than substance. Perhaps the police
from the police. The contentious issues themselves had not crystallized the idea
is in fact on what is called as “keamanan yet. Some of them may be aware of the
negara”, or, in the police understanding, fact political circumstances during the
“internal security”. They could well be amendment of the Constitutions; and
more receptive should the proposal by that the transformation of term from
Department of Defence can clarify the “pertahanan negara” into “pertahanan
different between “keamanan negara” dan keamanan negara” as embodied in
and their own “internal security”. chapter XII of the Constitutions could
well be problematic.
This is not an easy task. Military’s
understanding of state’s security The political paper that the police
(keamanan negara) appear to be much circulate, indeed in very limited
wider than that of the police. Military audience, used legal basis as well as
may resort to the use of force, as political assessment. It was mentioned,
management of violent is their expertise among other, that there is no priority to
and core competence. The police discuss the draft Bill on National
thought differently. Force can be used Security because it was not even on the
only to the last resort. We may content agenda of the Parliament; that the
as the indication is growing. The police proposal was inspired by Western ideas
has the authority and legal basis to promoted by ProPatria that we cannot
prevent any possible worst-case simply cut and pasting regulating from
scenario, with pre-emptive, preventive other part of the world that may not be
and, if necessary coercive measure. suitable to Indonesia; and that the Bill
Penal Code is instrument to which the should started with academic paper that
police had in mind. As law enforcement is prepared by an inter-agency task
official they ought to believe in the force consisted of security actors having
power of law, and everything can be stake in “national security”.
solved by laws.
More importantly, the “political paper”
There is nothing left, even an also defends the benefit that the country
emergence of threat, say radicalism or already had from current situation,
terrorism, may be contain by law. Book justifying the propriety of current status
2nd of the Penal Code equips protection of the POLRI is best to everyone.19 They
to the state, citizens as individual as well tried to convince that reform that had
as group. Reaching to a certain degree, taken place already demilitarized the
which is breaking the law, rebellious police, making it to be suitable for
idea to change the constitutions, just to democracy and interests of the people.
name it as an example, is against the They argued that in current status, the
law. Unlawful challenges to ideational policy could avoid from politization that
bases for the state, as understood by is surely to occur should the police is
scholar like Buzan, can also be subordinate into government
contained by law. Any unlawful act by department. They confused themselves,
citizens against referent object is likely however, when wrote that “even
to be declare as violation of law; and according to any theory of statecraft,
thus can be solved by law. Internal from Montesquieu to van Vollenhoven,
security is in the domain of the policing provide independency (kemandirian) to
works. “kepolisian”. Montesquieu did not say
anything on the police, as he concerned
Such different perspective yielded
seriously. Annoyed by Department of 19
See Suara Karya, 20 December 2006;
Defence proposal, the police reacted. Media Indonesia, 10 January 2007.
39
more on the separation of power Group” was set up to find legal

between executive, legislative and foundation.21 The Constitutions, National
judicative. At best, POLRI should have Assembly Decree, Law and other
had in the judicative “camp”. It is regulations was under scrutiny. More
something of saying the need for solid paper was produced, Role and
independent judiciary, and that the Function of the Police According to the
police can be part of judicial or criminal State Constitutions”. This is more
justice systems, but an independence academic work with its own merit. Those
judiciary should not by any means lead legal bases are indeed creating more
to an independent police from state problems rather than solution to
power. They worried to a minister that Indonesia’s chronic problems.
can be a political appointee, and, as a Contradiction, disharmony, miss
result, the police to be used as political synchronization among one regulation
instruments, without being aware that to the other were all giving a constricted
the President, to whom Chief of the legal lie that is difficult to break. Stability
Police accountable to, is always an is the only option, for not creating
elected officials through of political problems that are more serious in
process, election. President is the future; or, alternatively, change should
ultimate political organ, if not individual. be planned comprehensively,
considering all regulations at the same
This is to suggest that POLRI appeared time. Such an option was simply
to have politicized the issue of whether unfeasible.
Chief of the National Police should not
be made subordinate to political In addition, the police are not seeking
authorities. Civilian-supremacy alike that feasibility. They appear to yearn for
applicable to democratizing civil-military breathing space. Buying time to prepare
relations was not at the POLRI agenda. final assault, the assault was finally
To POLRI, a closed-accountability, emerging in January 2007, when the
exclusively within POLRI’s organization, police published, again in limited
not between POLRI and others, would circulation, an academic paper on State
have been sufficient to ensure police’s Security (RUU Keamanan Negara). The
accountability. This argument should be paper was a “comprehensive” response
clear from statement made by Brigadier to Department of Defence January draft.
General (Pol.) Syafriadi, expert staff at Based on the State Constitutions, the
the Police headquarters, that police’s draft elucidates “sistem
keamanan rakyat semesta” (siskamrata,
system for people total security), a
…differentiation of structure, parallel completion to sishanrata (sistem
distinguishing political and pertahanan rakyat semesta). The draft
operational responsibility proposed that RUU Keamanan Negara
has been embedded in should regulate, among others,
current structure. Chief of management of security management,
the National Police holds use of resources, rights and obligation
political responsibility, while of citizens and some other issues of
operational responsibility is concerned. For now, the substances are
in the hand of Head of not as important as its political echo.
Security Maintenance They are subject to change somehow.
(Badan Pembinaan
Keamanan), Agency for Perhaps, the most intriguing aspects of
Crime Prevention (Badan the police’s draft are in fact that the
Reserse Kriminal) as well as police strategic gambit appears to be
Regional Police’s Chiefs.20 intensifying. Their June paper is fall sort
of solidity, but a political paper. The later
academic paper is more than that; it was
Meanwhile, the police appear also
intensify sort of studies. A “Working 21
“Police forms Working Group”
(Kepolisian Membentuk Tim Penyusun), Tempo
20
Tempo, 2 November 2006. Daily, 8 January 2007.
40
a serious challenge to Department of But it could well be no if what we want is

Defence's proposal. It reads, “POLRI assuring effective response to
should be the leading role in the immediate challenges. For the time
establishment and development of being, the Military Headquarters already
comprehensive state security system”. completed 7 out of 14 code of conduct,
On the other hand, as last part of the i.e. standard operating procedures
previous chapter suggest, the proposal necessary for military operation other
of Department of Defence was getting than war. This internal regulation may
more accommodative. Discords were be instrumental to enact behavioural
still there, the process however appear reform and disciplinary measures in the
to lead in asymmetric directions. One TNI.
may find point of equilibrium, if not
meeting of mind. Both the police and the It emerged in the discussion that police
military are keeping their eyes for officers are quite aware of the fact that
system building; they acknowledged that prevention is important, though it might
anyone needs the other to solve not be sufficient. Some threats to
national problems. [national] security may originate from
low intensity threats; some other may
escalates quite fast. A systematic
Final Notes approach is necessary, but may not be
sufficient. Systems have their own limit;
It remains to be seen whether departing and there should be some room to
police-military relations is temporary or devise contingency planning. It is within
somewhat permanent conflict, rivalry, the context of contingency planning that
discords or mutual misperception. other actor may be involved in domestic
History will tell. Even if no politics, affairs. Some of police officers do not
agencies may have their own ego, if directly challenge the idea of the military
only for reasons of technical role in internal security matters.
competence or nature of organization. However, in most cases, they said that it
Police and the military is no exception, must depend on the issues. As far as
perhaps the most potentially severe the issue can be handle locally by
rivalry. The historical past, and yet functional agencies, indeed there is no
relatively uneven distribution of reform in need for asking help.
post-Suharto era may even widen the
gap. That the police response to However, what should primarily be
Department of Defence proposal of considered as public security and
national security bill should be telling of internal security problems remain
this widening gap. So was the tradition unresolved. A militarized perspective of
of going it alone in Department of escalatory threats, as quite often
Defence as well as their preoccupation brought about by military and
with system building that unavoidably intelligence officials, could potentially
lead to structural change, including the lead to diverging contentions with police
most contentious issue with the police. officers. Meanwhile, the police are
planning to devise their own agency to
Indeed, building up a better, capable be responsible for early detection and
system of national security is deadly assessment of threats. Bibit Riyanto,
necessary. It is not quite clear, whether another retired police general, reminds
a single, all compassing regulation is his police compatriot, however, that the
necessary in the first place. Most of the early detection is only limited in policing
point in the draft has already been function, that are social dynamics that
stipulated somewhere, for example potentially could lead to public security.
emergency response in Law No. This is in fact also important point to
23/1959 on Emergency. The answer note, as most police officers taken it for
could be possibly yes, but most granted, if not mention only implicitly – a
probably no. It is a possible yes if we discourse that some time rise
are to institutionalize democratic reform, contentions with other officials,
especially to use legislation as an especially the military, on the issues of
instrument of controlling security actors. military’s territorial structure.
41
Chapter 6 department, POLRI should subordinate

to. Unlike earlier version of the draft, the
January draft simply elucidates “minister
responsible for internal affairs” instead
Voice from the Exile and the of Department of Home Affairs. Some
New Battleground parliamentarians argue further that it
would be possible for the police to have
their own Department, as was during the
early 1960s, or develop into something
Chapter 5 has reviewed debate on like Department of Homeland Security in
substantial issues that took place in the United States.
official forum, professional and
institutional point of views, as expressed In the executive branch, Governor of
by active security actors. This chapter is Lemhannas, Prof. Dr. Muladi was the
to map the outsider, indeed part of only civilian supporting the idea of
public that can be civilian and/or retired POLRI to be under Department of
military. They represent different culture Defence.25 His stance was change
and may pursue different interests. later, saying that
Rather than perceiving different group of
actors as pre-given entities, and
subsequently measure their impact, this to which department the
chapter is to construct representations POLRI should subordinate is
of different type of actors. It is a secondary issue. The most
importance to stress in the first place urgent task is now to provide
that security (and foreign) policy is legal bases for the possible
elitist. Services produce to public by use of the military in non-
these genres of policy is in essence defence affairs. We do not
silence impact. This does not apply to well equip as yet on how to
security actors, to who public may suffer put these two pillars of
severe consequences from their security actors can
misconduct. Citizens may therefore coordinate in the field.26
fragment. They may ally to whom they
may have convergence interest.
It was not clear whether the waning
preference of Muladi is a political or
Widening Political Battleground bureaucratic stance. The Lemhannas by
that time has already assigned to write
There is no agreement among civilian up an alternative academic draft for
with regard department to which the National Security Bill, tough officially the
POLRI should subordinate to. Some of draft by Department of Defence was at
them, among other Constant Ponggawa the Coordinating Minister for Politics,
(Peace and Prosperity Party),22 had the Legal and Security Affairs.
Department of Home Affairs to oversee
the POLRI. Yuddy Chrisnandy of Golkar Regardless of such quandary, it will be
Party preferred the Department of Law fair to say that most civilians were for
and Human Right Affairs.23 Sidharto the subordination of the police into a
Danusubroto (PDI-P) was the only department. The bottom line is clear,
parliamentarians publicly reject the under democratic system, it is a must for
subordination of the police.24 Such security implementing agency to
diverse opinion may not necessarily subordinate to policy-making bodies.
reflect balance of power in future Super body, combining the power of
deliberation. The Draft on January 2008 formulating and implementing role,
is not even conclusive to what would be detrimental to democracy,
22
weaken the agency’s accountability. It is
Suara Pembaruan, 18 January 2007.
23
Kompas, 4 January 2007 25
24 Suara Karya, 27 January 2007.
Kompas and Tempo Daily, 10 February 26
2007 Kompas, 22 December 2007
42
political option whether the decision Head Fraction and Commission I of the
should be taken right away or in due Parliament, accusing of Department of
process. For a better or worse, what all Home Affairs to be responsible for the
civilian appear to have in mind are all current drive for subordinating National
about democratic control rather than Police into the Department, arguing that
effective policing. It is something else the Minister of Home Affairs was a
whether this demand can be met former military officers.30
through indirect strategy, for example,
by creating specific mechanism to ask Debate was already on the air. No one
for accountability, or directly put it into can certain whether comments are
department. based on expectation or feasibility. The
draft was not yet openly circulated. Even
Most civil society organizations were in those who was lucky enough to get the
the same booth, the Bill on National draft may have their own institutional
Security is of great significant to strike interest and, thus, looking at different
the balance between the need for perspectives.31 Some may comment
security and the necessity of without knowing what provisions are
democracy. Muhammad Asfar from actually in. In one of the series of
Pusdeham (Center for the Study of discussion, for instance, a special
Democracy and Human Rights),27 for adviser of Chief of the National Police,
example, says that discussion on the even mistakenly identified the national
National Security Bill would be security bill as internal security act. In
thoughtful, include but not only deciding private, he admitted that he have yet to
the status of the POLRI. Subordination read the proposal by Department of
of the POLRI to governmental Defence.
department is necessary condition for
strengthening democracy and Meanwhile, the ghost of the past is not
strengthening civil society. He did not entirely erased in the memory of people.
mention, however, whether such Despite of reform, TNI is still a powerful
subordination would also provide better organization and, like it or not, the most
opportunity for police professionalism. able manager of violence. Many
discourse in the background, especially
Komisi Kepolisian Indonesia (Indonesia the draft of intelligence bill, state
Police Commission), allegedly a civil secrecy and national reserves may have
society group close to the National shaped public perception that the
Police, was the only civil organization military is about to back. That
rejects the Bill on National Security,28 Department of Defence was preparing
arguing that “the Bill is to undermine National Security Bill might have been
professionalism of the police”. Since as perceived by other as opening windows
early as November 2005, the Indonesia opportunity for the military to regain
Police Commission was consistently what they had in the past.
against the RUU. According to the
Commission, “the bill is a political Such position is strong especially in
conspiracy to undermine police civic organizations, primarily those
authority”. Police commission alluded concerns to human rights issues. Al
draft bill on national security as an Araaf, Research Coordinator of
attempt at militarizing the National Imparsial (Human Rights defender) and
Police, and thus a gross violation to the member of Study Forum for People
Geneva Convention.29 Months earlier, Initiatives (Forum Belajar Bersama
the Commission sent similar letter to Prakarsa Rakyat), was suspicious that
Speaker of the Parliament as well as draft on national security bill is to
strengthen role and function of the
27
Suara Karya, 19 January 2007
28
Suara Karya and Antara, 23 January 30
2007 Letter No. 25/THOO/KKI/2003, 17
29 September 2005)
Letter No. 149/KKI/TH IV/2006, 26 May 31
2006. Kompas, 15 January 2007
43
military in the past”.32 According to him, their own merit, not necessarily as a
“the Bill will not only retrogressive of distribution of power in the process. It is
security sector reform that we have still long way to go to expect coalition
already achieved so far but also put building to promote public interest
democracy in danger”. He was firm that, through web of networks. Layer of civil
society interested in discussing national
security is thin, growing by years as it
… the military is taking over may. Within the limit to their own
role and function of the activism of promoting particular issues,
President as the only civic organizations, including but not
political authority has power limited to human rights group, may put
to deploy the armed forces. themselves critical for setting agenda.
This can be seen from how On the other hand, Member of
the draft is trying to insert Parliament, could constrains themselves
provisions to authorize the to politicking, and thus do not display
military of taking actions consistency.
against military threats from
other countries, without This suggests that civilian sides are not
President’s authorization, yet pre-given entities. Reactions from
and later report it in no less parliamentarians and civil society should
than 1 x 24 hours.” therefore be learnt cautiously, as they
may not really reads thing as they were
intended. Some civilians may not be
Al Araaf was not alone. Criticism of the aware of the fact that the stipulation is
Bill also comes from Patra Zen of the not unconditional. In fact, the articles on
Foundation of Legal Aid, who warns that authorizing military to take prompt action
the Bill is likely to reinstall the military against external threats without consent
influence throughout the country.33 of the President also demands limited
action for the military. The article 30 (5)
Nevertheless, it is equally important to of the draft reads that such response by
see that their criticism is by no means a the military must be “limited and
rejection of regulating national security proportional”.
issues. Zen recommended the police to
draft their own version of regulation on This is not to say that civilians play no
the matter. Al Araaf further suggested important role. As a matter of fact, they
about what actually should be in the bill. did. Policy process is not only about
One cannot doubt Araaf support for the truth and false, correct or incorrect, and
regulations when he wrote that, “as part precise or imprecise, but also problems
of security sector reform, the Bill must of negotiation. In any negotiating table,
proportionally regulate role, function, diffusion, diversion, and distortion of
and status of all security actors in lieu of issues could have become tactics in
democratic politics”. Such support is self some sort. One should be optimistic for
evident that national security is the future. The underlying ideal of
becoming public concern, and thus democratic political tradition is that
cannot discuss behind close door. public debate is necessary for
establishing legitimate closures in the
It is probably just too luxurious to expect form of solutions to public concern; and
this emerging common ground will result this is already in the horizon.
in stronger policy representation of Substantive issue could well be of
interest group. Indonesia is not yet secondary importance.
reaching coherent policy networks.
Different public opinions and viewpoints
in the policy process were important on Politicizing Policy Expertise
32
Al Araaf, "RUU Kamnas: Ancaman bagi Following the transition to democracy,
Demokrasi”, Sadar Tahun III, Edisi 31, 2007 political decision-makers in Indonesia
33 were unfamiliar with contemporary
Kompas and Tempo Daily, 19 February
2007 debates on security and defence affairs
44
as well as with the range of policy support paper has opened the
options that were open to them. They opportunity for these academics to
were daunted by the uncertain participate in policy process. Whether
consequences of their choices. The these academics have an impact is
more technical a policy and the more difficult to measure. Nevertheless, it is
radical the required change, the greater undeniable that their opinion matters, if
was the difficulty to reach consensus. It not for policy makers, it is for public at
is, therefore, natural that they may large. Their thoughtful analyses could
incline towards conservatism. A reliance well resonate in the media, and
on ‘experts’ from the former regime, sometimes also in the policy making
including security officers is natural in establishment.
these circumstances. This tendency
might be reinforced by politicians’ As was the case with politicians and
awareness of the dangers that flow from civic organization, academic world is not
misguided policies in the security realm. a homogenous entity. They may differ
one from the other. Academic
Academics put more emphases for background is importance factor of
comprehensive conception of national explaining how these academics look to
security. It would not be possible to the problems. In a large degree,
separate policing function from defence however, most of these academics are
function. For some reasons, there in favour of national security overhaul.
should be link and coordination between They believe that change both in
the TNI and the POLRI. Chronic international sphere as well as domestic
problems, no adequate conception, landscape has profound impact on how
lacking of policy designs, contradiction national security policy should be
among laws, and ego sectoral could well managed in Indonesia. It would not be
be an exhaustive list that most possible to draw clear line between
academics cited as lacking coherence of external and internal. Neither nor
Indonesia’s national security policy. To between military and non-military
these academics, emerging new threats. Thus, conception on national
security issues and commitment- security should be comprehensive.
capacity gap need immediate solution;
and a national security law should be In the midst of many domestic contexts,
instrumental to devise both system as those already mentioned in previous
building and problem solving. These chapter, completion of regulations is in
academics were also expecting that the order. So is coherence policy with
Law on National Security should resolve implementation. One may also add the
once and for all. The discussion on the need for professionalization of security
Bill is windows of opportunity, a actors, either in relations to technical
momentum not to be missed, to resolve competence and their public
problems starting from policy-making to accountability. There must be clear
policy implementation. guidance for these to materialize. And
despite law is only one among many
National security issues have been in other instruments, momentum should
the agenda for academics involved in not be missed. The Bill should enable
security sector reform for some time. laying foundation of building more
Besides those focus themselves in reliable national security system. This is
strategic and defence studies, these the most dominant views, far than those
academics also include those with who opt for solving immediate concerns.
primary background in international National Security Bill should resolve
relations, politics and government, and once and for all, it windows of
law. Based in university and/or research opportunity to capitalize on the
centre, some of them loosely organized momentum to resolve policy problems.
in a working group devoted themselves
in defence and security affairs, It is interesting to note that academics’
independent media writer, and/or with political preference, if only predilection
civic organization. The need of state for democracy, is neither new nor
institutions for second thought and problematic. They are citizen after all.
45
However, a problem exist when in their they are able to influence policy. They
inclination to support system building, are all for the establishment of a
they implicitly or explicitly equates coherence national security systems to
academic preferences to political deal with multidimensionality of threats.
arguments, and reinforces a simplistic System building, institutionalization of
and misleading view of how academic policy process, clear regulation for
perspectives support policy. Very much implementing agencies such the military
lacking is adaptive strategy to changing and the police are necessary.
circumstances. It is problematic whether
this is because of their political naïveté, Specialization and core academic
or otherwise academic partisanship. competence does matter. A generalist,
One can only say that one major barrier such as Indria Samego himself is an
to academics’ effective participation in adviser to Chief of the National Police
the policy process and state actors and a Research Professor at Indonesia
ability to use their advice is the Academy of Sciences (LIPI),
importance of context for state actors. emphasizes general idea. According to
Academics tend to minimize the Samego, “… reform is needed for sure;
importance of context; and to them there and a system building is required. A law
is only one answer, which is total does help, but it may not be sufficient in
reform. For policy-makers, context will itself. It also required bureaucratic
always be a key concern, so they are reform and professionalism of the
not looking so much for the answer as security actors, in which paradigmatic
for an answer. shift are required”. Kurniatmanto, a
professor of Constitutional Law at
It is appear that reforms have created Catholic Parahyangan University,
more space to include progressive Bandung, was more specifics saying
ideas, including that on human rights, that “there is no need of a new
democratic governance, as well as regulation to resolve contradictory
demands for responsible and among laws. According to him,
accountable agencies in national contradicting regulations can be
security affairs. Democratization goes resolved by political decisions of the
on, and so does space for discussions. higher authority.
National security is no longer an issues
discussed inside the wall. Politicians, Such different emphases do not justify
civil society and the media could play more serious divergence. Most of
very importance role. Sometimes these academics argue for a law on national
non-state actors are afforded little more security to resolve institutional rivalries
than an opportunity to advocate on once and for all. Particular background
behalf of the policies they favour, but at could well be more relevance to national
other times they are involved in a more security issues than the others.
meaningful role, actively advising on However, relevance background could
policy development and programme well be more useful in the context of
design. defining what national security is, and
not necessarily useful to how to devise
Most of the academics involve in the regulation on national security. Though
discourse have already in a melting pot there are no significant differences in
for quite sometimes. Affiliated to the scope of national security, there is
particular institutions, they are also some divergence in strategic approach,
frequent participants as well as resource for example, whether all regulations on
persons on focus group discussion national security should be formed in a
organized by civil society organization, single document or otherwise. Most of
such as ProPatria or research centre, the academics are in the high hope for
such Pacivis at University of Indonesia. the Bill to become an umbrella
Some of them were regular resource regulation and thus resolving
persons at the meetings organized by contradiction among the existing
state’s institutions, such as Department regulations. Quite a few of them openly
of Defence, the National Police and support for a possibility of drafting some
Lemhannas. It remains to be seen how laws considering that contradiction
46
among laws can also be resolved by omission.34 ProPatria Institute published

inter-disciplinary regulations. Law does a book with somewhat provocative title:
help, but it should also complementary National Security: the Need for Building
to the other, including bureaucratic Integrated Perspective versus the
reform, professionalism of the security Politics of Policy Omission.35
actors.
In some occasions, they shared the Lemhannas Academic Paper
views of civil society activists. Al-Araaf
arguments mentioned before, for Instead of using four categories as in
instance, was also aired by Ikrar Nusa Department of Defence earlier
Bhakti of the Indonesia's Academy of proposals, Lemhannas offer a simplified
Sciences and Kusnanto Anggoro of the version. National security is to cover
Centre for Strategic and International security of people (human security and
Studies during the debate on public security) and security of the
controversial article 19 of the Armed [nation]-state. The later is primarily
Forces Bill in 2004. It is secondary defined in terms of internal and external
whether the civilians were correct or threats against territory, sovereignty as
incorrect. There is no point of saying well as authority of the state. National
whether they comprehend the security is comprehensive efforts of all
substance of defence and security elements of the country to protect and
matters. They joined the public debate maintain national interest from all
in their capacity for conscientization of spectres of threat from internal and/or
human rights and professional military, external sources that directly or
more than for substantiate the provision. otherwise can and may disturb the
The message is clear that provisions in foundation of national culture, economy,
the drafts must define clearly and leave politics as well as defence and security.
no hole for distortion as well as As comprehensive efforts, the national
misinterpretation. security system must be able to develop
capacity necessary for specific function
This is a sort of politicizing policy – early detection, prevention, action and
expertise. In the midst of deadlock on rehabilitation – through sectoral as well
the discussion on the national security as coordination and cooperation among
bill, such politization grew significantly. sectors.
Criticism was then targeted to the
President rather than to, say, Defence More importantly, the adopted approach
Minister and Chief of the National appears to be more systemic rather than
Police. Cornelis Lay of the University of emergency principle to deal with
Gajahmada (Yogyakarta) was the case extraordinary situation; and thus there is
in point. He was quoted in Republika as no emphasis on instrument of response
saying that against threats to national security. In
Lemhannas views, “defence and
security” is only one among other
President Susilo Bambang sectors of national security system.
Yudhoyono deliberately hold Defence and security should be capable
up the discussion on the to maintain their own effective
national security bill because functioning against threats. As such,
of its potential impact to contestation over the notion “defence”
destabilize election 2009, and “security” will be as much avoided
possibly due to losing
support of the National 34
See, Republika, 2 April 2007.
Police. 35
T. Hari Prihatono, Jessica Evangeline
and Iis Gindarsah, Keamanan Nasional:
Kebutuhan Membangun Perspective Integratif
Kusnanto Anggoro from the Centre for versus Pembiaran Politik dan Kebijakan
Strategic and International Studies even (National Security: the Need for building
accused of the President for political integrated perspective versus the politics of
policy omission), Jakarta: ProPatria Institute,
2007)
47
as unresolved. Specific domain of The paper quoted academic circle that

“defence and security” in Lemhannas’ argues the comprehensive nature of
academic paper comprises of nature- security, multidimensionality of threat as
specific threats, such as among other, well as the importance of human
cyber crimes, terrorism, separatism, security. Less appeared were citation
anarchical radicalism, sabotage, military from those who argue the need for
invasion, fall out of nuclear technology. differentiated and aggregated strategy
Securitization is left to emergency power to cope with these overarching threats.36
of the president, as already established It comes to the need for inter-agency
in the existing law. coordination and cooperation among
stakeholders. But does not offer whether
Lemhannas’ proposal appears to this should be accommodate directly or
comprehend national security as indirectly into adequate strategic
comprehensive issues, but does not response. Therefore, it is difficult to
really focus on emergency and/or expect that Lemhannas’ proposal will
extraordinary measures. Meanwhile, the contribute significantly to previous
term of integrated is not referred to as drafts.
proportional act against imminent
threats, but as a coordinated measure Nevertheless, it should be interesting to
among implementing agencies. A note that the Lemhannas’s proposal
proposed Council, not specifically may convergence to Department of
referred as National Security Council, Defence on the issues of approach to
would not be a securitizing agent. “national security problems” and
Lemhannas writes that the Council is “to preference to emergency. As Table 3
manage and coordinate as well as shows, the proposals also converge with
advice to the possibility of use Department of Defence in the issue of
integrated potential of the nations” and, system building. The difference may on
in so doing to maintain solidity and the basic assumption, while Lemhannas
synergy of government’s implementing perceived security and prosperity is
agencies. The draft does not specifically basically two distinct approaches.
refer the Council as securitizing agency. Department of Defence and the National
Chief of the National Police and Chief of Police perceived it as dynamic
the Armed Forces are to be member of condition. Both Lemhannas and
the Council that is chaired by the Department of Defence proposal,
President. however, may be at the loggerhead with
the police with regard to the source of
It has to be noted that Lemhannas legitimacy in coping with crises. The
proposal is not quite an academic paper most serious problems with emergency
to guide legal draft. Some ideas in the approach are subjective justification.
paper would not easily be
operationalized into provisions. The Meanwhile, the POLRI’s contingency
most contentious issue of the role of the approach is adequate with regard to
armed forces in stability and support crime prevention, and low intensity
operations is not well-managed in detail. conflict, but maybe insufficient to
The Paper simply emphasizes the need manage transformational and/or
for coordination among state agencies, accidental conflicts that requires more
not even specifically mention the TNI than control, but also preponderance
and the POLRI. Though some principles level of coercive instruments. This is
are being accommodated with vague acceptable, especially considering that
notions of “unnecessary suffering and
proportionality of using force”, demands 36
See, for example, Kusnanto Anggoro,
for institutionalizing such constraints “Managing State Defence and Security in Modern
through standard operating procedures democracy“ (Pengelolaan Pertahanan dan
are weak. In this score, the earlier draft Keamanan Negara di Negara Demokrasi
Modern), paper presented to the national seminar
of Department of Defence has gone a on State’s Defence and Security, Gedung
lot detailed formulation. Astagatra Lantai III, Lemhannas, Jakarta, 15
Januari 2008
48
police works in normal condition. A Final Notes

caveat is to be made however that
normalcy, in the police frameworks, is Policy process is always political. At the
situation in which law should be agenda-setting stage, potential policy
applicable. problems are politicized and put on the
public agenda. This is not a
However, the National Police are likely straightforward matter. There is often
to less resistance against Lemhannas conflict over the wisdom of politicizing
proposal, especially because the later an issue, such as "subordination of the
does not touch the issues of structural National Police into department”, that
and/or organizational changes affecting some would like to see left in the hand
the POLRI. According to Governor of of the President. Also, during agenda-
Lemhannas, Muladi, the academic setting, competing understanding of the
paper significantly departs from the policy problem struggle for acceptance
previous draft by Department of and debate ensues regarding the issue's
Defence. The Governor did not urgency. Agenda-setting sometimes
elaborate further what the differences goes on within fairly closed networks of
are. He assures, however, that there will bureaucrats, politicians, policy lobbyists
be no changes in organizational and an "attentive public" of very limited
structure of the National Police, thus it size.
remains an independent agency as it
have been.37 These habits of oldies appear to
change. To a significant degree, the
Besides such convergence and underlying ideal of democratic political
divergence, there remain unresolved tradition is beginning to emerge in the
issues, such as definition and scope of horizon. Views are crystallizing that
national security, defining threshold for public debate is deemed to be
managing emergency situation, and role necessary for establishing legitimate
and function of the “National Security closures in the form of solutions to
Council”. Department of Defence, the controversies. Nevertheless, it is
National Police and Lemhannas appear important to note that infrastructure to
also converge on the issue of early facilitate such public debates is very
detection, prevention and action as a much lacking. The draft of national
sequential response. Remain highly security bill had never been made in
contested issue is on how such public. Some people may learn only
sequential response concurred with from second hand resources, including
disaggregation of threats. In view of media coverage that in many occasion
inter-agency cooperation, extremely lack of accuracy, if not loosing context.
needed are, among other, clear rule of This brings about serious implication,
engagement and well-defined standard i.e. the contraction of discourse. One
operating procedures to apply for should not fail to notice that in public
security actors. space, attention was given primarily to
reintegration of POLRI into Department
National security bill will remain in the of Defence, though in fact there is no
hotbed for some time. For a while in the such provision in the Bill.
Office of Coordinating Minister for
Politics, Legal and Security Affairs the Issue of the establishment of a national
Bill is now back again to Department of security council shifted from the actual
Defence. It remains to be seen when need for decision making during the
deliberative process is restarted. time of crises into concentration of
Department of Defence may consider power in the hand of the President. In
some new input, primarily that from an fact the original idea of the National
academic paper on National Security Security Council is to institutionalization
System by Lemhannas. of policy decision, especially during the
time of crises and/or emergency.
Without the Council, the President may
decide everything with his or her own
37
Antara, 30 July 2008. judgment. Justified from what might be
49
called inherent executive power in shows intention of hostility. Every soldier

Presidential system of government, knows that rules of engagement apply in
centralization of power is against the those circumstances. If it happened, it
principle of democracy. For Indonesia, would be a self-defence act. Political
National Security Council is also useful decision to use military force is needed
not only to strengthen institutional to extraordinary role, not to routine
memory and wisdom of the Presidency, tasks. The point here is to suggest that
but also to reduce draconian effect of the Bill should be devised in such a way
Law No. 23/1959 on Emergency that provisions is relevance to what they
Situation that provide no space for the are for.
President’s accountability.
In similar vein, attempt at regulating

stability and support operation of the
military become an issue of
retrogression of the military to reassume
their role. The original idea of regulating
this secondary role of the military is to
provide legal bases for more effective
but democratically military operation.
Much as avoiding controversies on how
the military would be used in internal
security affairs, it remains necessary to
discuss other task that the military would
and could likely to play, such as in
international peacekeeping, or have
already been playing for some time with
less accountability as in the case of their
civic missions. More importantly, many
provisions in the draft are in fact to
oblige the President to devise a national
security policy as guidance for any
department, not only Department of
Defence, to devise their own strategic
policy planning. Such Plan will be
instrumental to maintain continuity of
development, and thus assurance of
public accountability.
This is not to suggest that the bill is free

from void, lack clarity of ideas, and offer
quite a few repetition of what has
already stipulated in other regulation. In
the case of authorization for the military
to take action before decision by political
authority, the military confused
themselves not knowing whether they
want legal basis for or capability to act.
According to Department of Defence,
the provision is meant to give legal
bases for the military to intercept if there
was an intruder entering into Indonesia’s
territory. Such argument is not only
unconvincing, but also self-evident that
the military was not aware of their
military duty. Patrolling territory is a
routine task for the TNI, and they oblige
to act against aggressor, or anyone who
50
Chapter 7 oversee the Department’s Working

Group, was expected to chair the new
Working Group.
A Concluding Note: It was very likely that the President
Bring Deliberative Process in and/or the Coordinating Minister were
trying to cool down the overheated
debate. It is something else that such
decision may not be able to narrow
Debate on national security remains differences among stakeholders,
inconclusive. There are no clear signs especially between Department of
that controversies over National Security Defence and the National Police. On the
Bill, which on the air for more than three surface, the objective was fulfilled. In an
years, will come to a conclusive end. unofficial gathering, the President
Department of Defence completed a instructed Defence Minister, Chief of the
preliminary draft of the Bill, but failed to Armed Forces and Chief of the National
earn support of submitting it to the Police to stop the controversies over the
Parliament. Minister of Defence, Juwono Bill. Discussion on the national security
Sudarsono claimed Department of bill is to resume after 2009 election,
Defence as the leading role to formulate according to the President. However,
the Bill, especially because the the President made nothing is clear
Department is to manage national whether the construction of the Bill
defence covering wider domain than would remain the same. He emphasizes
defending the territory and sovereignty that national security is responsibility of
of the state against external military all components of the nation.
threats. President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono has never made his support With these backgrounds in mind, it
publicly to the Minister’s claim. In fact, would be difficult to judge whether future
the President seemed to be indecisive, if discussion on the Bill will be more
not conciliatory, to accommodate constructive. The battleground appears
reluctant General (Pol.) Sutanto, then, to be wider than it was when the original
Chief of the National Police. draft was initiated by Department of
Defence in 2005. More importantly,
Since sometime in mid 2007, the Bill during the last six months, while the
was in the office of Coordinating draft of the bill on national security was
Minister for Politics, Law and Security in the Office of Coordinating Minister,
Affairs. It was unclear why the Bill two other drafts were proposed. In July
should be there in the first place. The 2008, Lemhannas (Institute for National
initial idea was that the Coordinating Defence) completed an academic paper
Minister was to set up a new Working on national security system.38 The
Group to discuss and devise a new National Police had earlier completed
draft. The Office may have higher their own version of academic draft on
political standing than a ministerial level, state’s security basing themselves on
but they are lack of legal authority to National Assembly’s Decree of 2000
submit the Bill to the Parliament. and amended State Constitution 1945.
According to Law No. 10/2004 on Therefore, it is fairly reasonable to
Legislation Procedure, it is the technical presume that, after nearly three years,
department and/or agencies that have national security bill was nowhere to go.
rights to submit bills.
The National Police may not be happy

with the process. They perceived the
Coordinating Minister office is 38
Interestingly, until sometime in March
dominantly occupied by military this year, Lemhannas had not use the term of
personnels. Meanwhile, Department of national security. Roundtable discussion in
Defence was hoping that they would Lemhannas discussed instead academic draft on
law on state’s defence and security, a
remain in control. Outgoing Director reminiscent of all-at-once style of "national
General for Defence Strategy, Major security law" in the 1980s, called Basic Law on
General Dadi Susanto, who had Defending Security of the State.
51
Nevertheless, the process itself Comparative study shows that there is

suggests a couple of importance no template for what the so called
phenomenon. First, Indonesia national security laws. In the United
comprehends national security as a States, National Security Act (1947) is
wide-ranging concept. Most would agree no more than a simply formation of
that security is a state during which part National Security Council, without
and/or whole of the referent object are in defining what national security is all
a good shape and able to pursue their about. In China, “national security law”
interests. This may include survival, (1994) is called law on state security,
maintenance, and advancement basic with a wide perspective, to include not
interests. Such a comprehensive only threats to the very survival of China
understanding, however, fails to reach as [multi] nation-states but also the
common ground on how the state political stability and functioning state
should response to the threats. Remain institutions. Until today, the United
untouched is the issues of Kingdom does not regulate national
disaggregating security threats and security in a law.
differentiating instrument of response.
There were no clearly distinctive Fourth, reforms have created more
measures – especially between a space to bring in progressive ideas.
sequential of early warning, deterrence, Wider discussion has opened the way
defence, and, in the context of for particular security actors to pursue
accidental threats such as natural their own institutional objectives. For
disasters, also reconstruction and better or worse, democratization goes
rehabilitation. on; and so does space for discussions.
However, such an expanding scope
Secondly, no common agreement was appears not go hand in hand with
reached on what defence function of the deepening understanding of national
government actually is. Department of security affairs. Discussion forum is yet
Defence officials were reluctance of limit to accommodate proliferation of
themselves to define defence as act of stakeholders. As such, public debate is
repulsions of military threats, which is limited, and may not positively
either systematic or organized used of contribute to agenda setting, let alone to
violence or those of likely to inflict policymaking process. Social and
serious damage, by using military political background, institutional
capability. Force continuum appears not affiliation and technical competence of
to become criteria for security issues. actors in the debate may determine
On the other hand, the National Police what issues to be in the hotspot, despite
predisposed themselves to understand their relevance to national security
the function of policing, i.e. maintenance issue.
of law and order, to the role of POLRI as
stipulated in Law No. 2/2002 on the Fifth, national security is no longer an
National Police. Since the notion of state issues discussed inside the wall.
include not only physical territory and Politicians, civil society and the media
external sovereignty, but also internal could play very importance role. It does
sovereignty and constitutional order, not really matter whether institutional
thus the military and police may have rivalry, technical competence, or
overlapping role on state’s security. paradigm shifts that spur the debate into
an inconclusive end. Words matter; so is
Third, there was no common agreement ability to negotiate and adeptness to
whether regulation on national security alternative ideas. Process is therefore
affairs is to be a single regulation, become an importance dynamics to
comprising of many aspects, but do not watch. Discord and collaboration is
touch on practical issues or on the other always part of the process of
hand, a detailed regulation directly negotiation. How much space can be
applicable in the ground. Despite negotiated and how such space may
engagement in discussions many contract may determine common
stakeholders have different ideas on ground. On the other hand, unprepared
what national security is all about. stance for negotiation may hide more
52
importance reasons than mere technical the armed forces. Even in their own
differences and institutional respective quarter, difference nature of
competence. An inclusionary process of operations may create relational
discussion may become a room for problems. Civilians generally do not
reaching such common ground. The have an appreciation for what happens
discussion should be in atmosphere of “behind the scenes” of any successful
mutual trust, in which communicative military operation. Without getting into
rationality precedes instrumental the weeds, military officers need to
rationality. This can only be possible if explain what could be accomplished
stakeholders in national security affairs with the use of military forces, and what
must be free of self-interested craftiness the limitations are. However it is well
and characterized by a high degree of established in democracy that military
reciprocity, respect and understanding. should defend, not define, democracy.
They may speak at consultation
Sixth, civil-military relations remain meetings to give their best military
important issues to discuss. The civilian- advice on the issue at hand as most of
military gaps go beyond political the civilians have little or no experience
relations between civilian authorities and with military operations.
53
The Epilogue
Capacity-Building, Coalition of Ideas, and
Policy Strategic Bridge
National Security Bill (RUU Keamanan Nasional) has gained wide coverage of
discussion. Attention has focused on substantive issues, including scope of national
security issues as division of labour among policy making bodies and implementing
institution. There were at least two documents by civil society that especially produce to
response to the Draft. One is that of Pacivis, a research centre at Faculty of Political and
Social Sciences, University of Indonesia.39 Pacivis focus is on system building, and
national security system was perceived as elements of a wider national system. Pacivis
suggested that to build a functioning national security systems requires a single law on
national security, amendment of existing laws, especially those on state defence, armed
forces, National Police and on emergency, and a formation of a National Security
Council. Pacivis put emphases on the need for systemic approach to ensure regularity,
predictability and, indeed, legitimacy of security policy.
The second assessment is by ProPatria Institute.40 Recognizing the importance of

system building, the Institute focus was on contingency planning and emergency. This
approach is not to substitute the need for a national security system, to which the
Institute has been in for more than eight years, even before Department of Defence
initiating their Draft.41 It is rather to complement the existing proposal. ProPatria
emphasizes the need of bottom up approach. Ad hoc regulations could well be possible
at the lower level, i.e. at the implementing agencies’ unit on the field. Such approach
may be able to break the impasse of the National Security Bill.
This monograph does not concern itself with system building or contingency approach.
There is no preoccupation with academically correct system building or with reasonably
feasible practice on the ground. System building is necessary and sufficient prerequisite
for a responsive state, but may not necessarily adequate in political context. Divided
bureaucracy, incoherence culture of security agencies, as well as incomplete regulations
and partial policies, however, should be resolved in the first place. A national security
system is combined among structural specialized agencies, and also at the same time
39
See Dwi Ardhanariswari and Yandri K. Kassim (eds.), Sistem Keamanan Nasional: Aktor, Regulasi
dan Mekanisme Koordinasi (National Security System: Actors, Regulations, and Mechanism for
Coordination), Jakarta: Pacivis, June 2008).
40
See ”Pengaturan Tindak Kontingensi dalam Kerangka Penataan Sistem Keamanan Nasional (The
Arrangement of Contingency Operation in the Framework of National Security System),” Special Report,
(Jakarta: ProPatria Institue, June 2008).
41
Propatria Institute has studied many aspects of national security issues and published them in,
among others, Defending Security of [democratic] State (2006) and National Security: the Needs for
Integrative Perspectives versus Political and Policy Omission (2007). Earlier studies by ProPatria already
show the very evidence of more serious problems, ranging from contradictions, incompletion, and emerging
new loopholes of new regulations. See, for example, “Kajian Kritis Paket Perundangan di Bidang
Pertahanan dan Keamanan” (Critical Studies of Regulations on Defence and Security Affairs), Monograph
No. 7 (Jakarta: ProPatria Institute, 12 September 2006).
54
an integrative adequate sequential action that in each stage considers escalation of

threats must be confront with adequate level of coercive measures. Therefore, sectoral
approach is always possible. As time goes, system building can be achieved not only by
structural differentiation of and functional specialization, but also by insulating it from
public debate.
The main objectives of this monograph are to portray how discourse was taking place.
Perception does matter, it is not quite relevance whether perceptions is genuinely project
to achieve institutional objectives or simply making noise to affect negotiation. This is to
say that this monograph is more interested in the process of negotiation. Differences of
opinion among stakeholders can be political, but may nonetheless stem also from
indifferent nature and competence among stakeholders. The way stakeholders setting
agenda and formulating issue of concerns are thus normal process to reach a
convergence. In the process of transition, process could well be as importance as that of
substance. Process of formulating a policy and that of national security issues could well
become an exemplary case, reveal more important political conjuncture, including
contestations, and negotiation among stakeholders involved. This monograph is,
therefore, to fill the void by uncovering the level of understanding among stakeholders
on national security, bureaucratic and ideological contestations among government
institutions, as well as technical constraints that have so far hampered a more viable
option. That said, the way ahead should bring in a more deliberative process.
As noted somewhere, security sector reform in Indonesia has moved beyond military
politics. Depoliticizing the military may have reached point of saturation, at least
considering political constraints as well as limited initiatives outside the military to
shaped agenda of reform in the armed forces. Reforms in the military would likely
concerns to internal reform, such as in the area of disciplinary measures, strengthening
the TNI as repository institutions, and enhanced their technical competence. The last
four years, attention appear to have been given to transitional issues like military law and
military business, which should have relied on political decision rather than on
systematic designs. Such two issues are defined to be transitional matters in the Law
No. 34/2004 of the Armed Forces. Importance as they may, they do not resolve more
structural problems of the armed forces.
As for reform in defence affairs, particular attention is to be made on appropriation of
defence role in national security. Wide coverage of defend to include non-military
defence may be correct in academic discourse, but it might invited unnecessary debate
on what appropriate role Department of Defence is to play. It has always relevance to
discuss defence planning, force structure, and thus national resources to be allocated for
defence purposes. Nevertheless, contextualization of Department of Defence’s role into
military threats, or at least, threats that is likely to inflict physical damage should be
instrumental to avoid policy discrepancies and, more importantly, to functionalized the
Department within the context of governmental portfolios. As such, topical issues should
become top priorities. These may include, among others, border management, defence
industries, and defence cooperation.
Meanwhile, security sector reform should be seen as a process of strengthening
democratic governance in security affairs rather than as combined-among-sectors. It is
necessary to discuss reform in military, National Police, intelligence agencies as well as
specific agencies like immigration, custom as well as policing-agencies attached to local
government. How far the reform can probably go is depend on resources available. The
most adequate approach would likely be looking at stages of policymaking process in
which the government is to be in the driver seats while parliament and public is to focus
on control, regulations, and monitoring works. Needless to say, in such perspectives,
strengthening capacity of parliament as well as civil society is of paramountly
importance.
55
Lesson learned from the process of National Security Bill suggested that constituent for
security sector reform remains weak. Perception gap among actors remain as serious as
it have been. Even without politics, the gap may continuously exist for different actors
have different institutional preference and technical competence. Widening policy
process to accommodate more deliberative process is, therefore, a prerequisite for
narrowing perception gap, avoiding unnecessary debate, and reaching more
convergence. Policy makers, security officers, academic and civil society organization
should actively involved in the process of national security policy. At the centre stage of
this multiple actors is strategic bridgehead, which can be played by those already gain
credibility, competence, and trust from all those actors. This strategic bridgehead can
play dual role, provides policy alternative to policy makers, build coalition of ideas and
interests to shape policy agenda and process, and also to bridge the gap between the
state and society.
Discourse on national security should go well beyond policy as well as academic

domain. It is necessary to conceptualize national security into adequate perspectives,
considering both academic precision and policy relevance. Such perspectives may,
however, encounter serious contradictions stemming from different institutional interest,
technical competence, and policy consequences. Comprehension of national security
must be precisely put into context (national security problems and national security
challenges), relations among functional actors (national security system), and/or
disaggregated instruments of response (national security measures). The term of
“national security”, without such contextualization, does not explain anything but
confusion. To avoid securitization, national security issues may be best dealt by
differentiated approaches.
56
Appendix 1
Recommendation for Short-term Measures:
More Active Assessment and Engagement for
National Security Bill
A paradigm shift is a contemporary in nature in Indonesia in this reform era. The 10 –

year experience of reform, particularly in defence and security sector, demonstrated that
various measures have been done to reform the TNI and POLRI institutions including
establishing legal basis for both institutions to carry out their respective function and
roles. However, legal reform in this sector is not enough. To achieve optimal result, it
needs more reform starting from the institutional design, up to reform in work paradigm,
ethic, and culture of the institution. Further arrangement is also needed to identify the
best model for multi – actors coordination, especially when the country is faced with a
security situation that requires response nationally. Therefore, over the past two years
many actors have been trying to find a systemic framework of national security policy
appropriate for Indonesia by combining at least three major elements: military,
intelligence and police force.
Policy on Defence and Military
As stipulated in Law No. 3/2002, article 13 sub – article (2), the President has an
obligation to determine state defence general policy that constitutes a reference for
planning, implementation and supervision of the state defence system. Furthermore, as
stated in the same Law, article 16, the Defence Minister of the Republic of Indonesia is
obliged to, among others, determine policy on the state defence implementation,
develop white book on defence as well as to determine policy on bilateral, regional and
international cooperation in defence sector. The Defence Minister has to also determine
policies on budgeting, procurement, recruitment, management of national resources and
development of defence industry and technology required by the TNI and other defence
components.
Over the past year, the Defence Ministry has developed several documents relating to
the Defence White Paper, Defence Doctrine, Defence Strategy and State Defence
Posture. Each of the documents contains some aspects that directly or indirectly
become the foundation for the building and development of the state defence capacity.
As a policy, the substances of the documents need to be placed as part of national
policy and at the same time they should be able to respond to the changes at national
and international level.
57
According to the Article 16, sub – article (4) of the Law No.3/2002, the White Paper is a
“statement of defence policy as a whole ... disseminated to public, both at national and
international level, to create mutual trust and eliminate conflict potential”. Whatever the
document looks like, a defence white paper should not only inform the state defence
identity and direction of defence capacity that is required to support the state
governance function in regards to state defence, but also has to clarify its function in
confidence building measures.
Therefore, state defence doctrine plays a key role as policy guidance on defence. At the
operational level, the defence doctrine constitutes a reference for military ethic when the
armed forces carry out their function as defence component. Alignment between the
defence doctrine and strategy will ensure that the doctrine is flexible enough to
anticipate the defence threats and at the same can be carried out consistently.
While the defence strategy is a derivative of the defence doctrine, it also provides space
for flexibility at strategic level. As part of the state policy, defence strategy focuses on
efficiency of the national resources utilization to achieve the defence’s objective.
A state defence posture is an actualization of the state defence power that reflects the
integrated power, capacity and utilization of national resources. In the state defence
system, the posture must reflect credible and sensible yet realistic balance between the
main component and the reserved component. Eventually, the defence posture must be
reflected in the synergy between the TNI’s and reserved component’s postures that take
into account the competency, rights of the citizens and international law.
Policy on Internal Security and Police
The dynamic development of the strategic environment at global, regional and national
level in many instances influenced the state policy on defence and military sectors.
Simultaneously, in the conceptualization of today’s security, the state’s capability in
producing and managing political goods for its citizens – governance capacity –
becomes a key variable to measure a holistic capacity of a political system (the state).
Moreover, as agreed upon in many literatures, police force is the main actor in the
creation and also management of security for the citizens.
In the context described above, POLRI needs to take all necessary measures to improve
its capacity in carrying out its main tasks and its authority as mandated by the Law No.
2/2002. One of many important issues faced by POLRI is to formulate its strategic role
priority that needs to be exposed given its limitation and escalating social problems.
POLRI should stop being a “fire extinguisher” in implementing its main task and function
as law enforcer, as most crimes arise from and are rooted in social problems. POLRI
must take all necessary steps and measures to anticipate and eliminate the potential
impact of the social dynamic. In this case, pre-emptive measures should be prioritized
before a social problem becomes a crime.
Within this context, the policy of Chief of National Police issued in Decree No. Pol.:
Skep/737/X/2005 on Policy and Implementation Strategy of Community Policing Model
in the POLRI’s Tasks, later on followed by Decree No. Pol.: Skep/433/2006 on
Implementation of Community Policing requires commitment of all police organization
structures. Therefore, in addition to carrying out its tradition policing works, police has to
58
also find a way to express the philosophy of community policing by exploring proactive
strategies aimed at resolving problem and/or preventing a problem from becoming a
crime or getting worse.
National Security Policy
Referring to the two policies explained above, it seems that further arrangement of the
national security system framework that constitutes an integration of various security
sector policies is still needed. However, until today none of the existing policies
specifically regulates issues relating to intelligence’s authority. Therefore, the whole
mechanism of national security management, from normative framework, policy
guidance, organizational structure, resource allocation, show of force, up to control ,
need to be reformed or otherwise it would remain in status quo condition. Maintaining
such status quo can be interpreted as political ignorance against structural problems that
exist in the national security system as mandated by the National Strategic Development
Plan 2005 – 2025.
In today’s context, the Indonesia’s national security policy needs to at least demonstrate
coherence and consistency with the defence doctrine and strategy; establishment,
maintenance and development plan on defence force as well as specific capacity such
as intelligence, logistics and technical expertise and other institutional capacity in the
criminal justice system such as police force, attorney, immigration and customs; making
sure the state budget capacity to ensure the development and improvement of highly
qualified national security posture without disturbing the other tasks of the state
government.
Recommendation for Short–term Measures
Considering the results of various assessments conducted directly or indirectly on

national security regulation framework, national security policy framework as well as
separate assessment on defence and military – intelligence – security and National
Police policy, joint dialogue to organize the existing policies involving various strategic
stakeholders is the least we can do in the short–term. This joint dialogue needs to be
organized to solicit inputs for two different levels. First, an arrangement of policy
framework in defence and military – intelligence – security sectors and national policy
focus on management and implementation strategy of various policies within a systemic
framework of national security. This first choice requires focus on discussion aimed at
mapping out the fundamental problems and scenario for capacity building for each actor
according to its specification. Second, joint dialogue on overall changes in regards to the
major functions of the defence and military – intelligence – security and National Police,
focusing only on the creation of new regulation, i.e. national security act. This second
choice has a consequence of overall changes.
59
Appendix 2
Tables
Table 1
Level of Attendance
Attendance (%)
Self-defined Role on National
Date Host Topic
Civilians Security
Military Police Intelligence
In Search of National 14 Public security (maintenance of

20 April 2006 National Police 46 25 10
Security Bill law and order)
Department of Essence and Objective Defence (military and non-

7 June 2006 52 - 4 38
Defence of National Security military threats)
Scope of National Primary and secondary role as

28 June 2006 Military 80 3 - 14
Security stipulated in the law
Headquarters
Early detection of potential
Department of Home Authority and Security threats to national integration,
12 July 2006 19 - 3 78
Affairs Actor protection of the society, as well
as “human security”
Department of Authority and Security Diplomacy, including public

27 July 2006 31 - 4 58
Foreign Affairs Actor diplomacy
Intelligence function: information,

Intelligence Agency analyses, strategic option
intelligence
60
Table 2
Difference Perception on National Security Issues
Department of Defence National Police (POLRI) Possible Discord Accommodation
Defence, homeland/internal Not so much about scope, but

State security, homeland/internal
Defence, state security, public security (state security), public the need for disaggregating
Scope security, domestic security.
security, human security order. threats and differentiating
response measures
Deterritorialization of threat the

unsuitability of conventional Selective securitization,
Functionalization of security actors;
Threat deterrence Grey areas issues, ungoverned desegregation of threats,
external defence and internal
Perception territory of security response differential response, integrated
security
Multidimensionality of threats strategy
(needs for securitization)
Prevention, pre-emption,
Stability and support operation
repression Law suppression capability vs.
Deterrence as means of closing commitment
possible excessive use of force
Range of capacity gap
Criminalization
Responses Defence
Military operation other than war
Restoration, rehabilitation
Law enforcement
Escalatory, transformational,
The Nature of Escalatory
accidental Different nature of tactical
Military Standard operating
operation
and/or procedures, rules of
Additional concept of civil order;
Militarized No need of securitizing civil order engagement
disaster emergency Threshold of intervention
Threats (normal condition)
Role of army’s territorial Political decisions on

Closing the
Contingency planning structure deployment of military forces
Threat- Institutionalization of emergency
Response approach
Ad hoc political decision Politization of commitment- Special task force or
Gap
capacity gap (of the police) authoritative agency
Transitionary management,
Institutional Functionalization; strengthening Reposition Chief of POLRI under
Systemic restructuring
Design capacity of government function certain department.
Indirect policy approach
61
Table 3
Comparing Three Proposals
Department of Defence National Police (POLRI) Lemhannas
Human security (individual, public security)

Defence, internal security (state security), and State security
Scope Defence, state, public, human security
public security
Security and prosperity
Early detection, prevention, action,

Early detection, prevention, deterrence, Early detection (crimes), prevention, and law
Range of rehabilitation
defence and rehabilitation enforcement
Approach
Perseverance Maintenance
Resilience
Emergency (possible use of military Contingency (with possibility of joint task Emergency
Dealing with
operation other than war) force)
Escalatory
Threats
Subjective threshold (impact on normalcy) objective threshold (violation of law) Subjective threshold (impact on normalcy)
Stability (no specific proposal for structural

Institutional Systemic restructuring Sectoral functionalization
change)
Designs
62

Monograph No-12 On Bridge Over Troubled Water - Convergence and Divergence in The Formulation of National Security Bill in Indonesia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Monograph No-12 On Bridge Over Troubled Water - Convergence and Divergence in The Formulation of National Security Bill in Indonesia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Monograph No.

Convergence and Divergence in

Jakarta / 1 October 2008

Chapter One / Policy Process on National Security:

Chapter Two / Conception on National Security and

Chapter Three / Department of Defence’s Proposal 18

Chapter Four / The Actors: Institutional Preferences and

Chapter Five / War of the Roses:

Chapter Seven / A Concluding Note:

The Epilogue / Capacity-Building, Coalition of Ideas, and

Appendix 1 / Recommendation for Short-term Measures:

Chapter 1 British in the United Kingdom. Since

perceived as threats to sub-nationalities. community” – and imagined as both

This should not necessarily become as well-being of the populace. As efforts

However, imposing an agenda, subject well as concerned from what occurring

and of course, respect to others. As in beneficial to anticipating future. Not only

this reason alone, the proposal would Chapter 2

Sailing into Incomplete Regulatory

Reform has been started. Regulations

Law on Indonesia Armed Forces (UU competence, differentiating the source

some institutional designs to strengthen armed forces must be regulated in Law.

constrained or truly emanates from Headquarters managed depolitization of

Tsaury. More strategic post, including It may be fair to conclude that

Djoko Sujanto, the Headquarter was The Fall-out of Reforming Security

Defence must accord themselves to the therefore could be seen as politization of

This suggests that a progressive yet all

Chapter 3 arrangements, security remains keep in

The amendment of the 1945

strategic and tactical level. Therefore, Guerrilla strategy “should

capacity, indeed by management of comprehensive understanding of

Without such disaggregation of In January, Minister of Defence Juwono

defence and state security be used as civilianizing policy-making process in

non-military threats that likely to relevance to national security, to

cautious enough to mention about Department of Defence is not quite

reference to the policy was nowhere in Chapter 4

Interestingly, such significant changes The Actors: Institutional

gain from negotiation. Nevertheless, conducted unofficially by military

Foreign Affairs should have strategic department, such as department for

is to include the existence of the state, recognizes how importance is inter-

Department of Defence does – national military is basically on request by other

to be used. This is not without disaster management and communal

Chapter 5 clashes are always from the second-

We also need specific task

well be more difficult to reach. Beyond Therefore, selective securitization

more on the separation of power Group” was set up to find legal

a serious challenge to Department of But it could well be no if what we want is

Chapter 6 department, POLRI should subordinate

among laws can also be resolved by omission.34 ProPatria Institute published

as unresolved. Specific domain of The paper quoted academic circle that

police works in normal condition. A Final Notes

called inherent executive power in shows intention of hostility. Every soldier

In similar vein, attempt at regulating

This is not to suggest that the bill is free

Chapter 7 oversee the Department’s Working

The National Police may not be happy

Nevertheless, the process itself Comparative study shows that there is

The second assessment is by ProPatria Institute.40 Recognizing the importance of

an integrative adequate sequential action that in each stage considers escalation of

Discourse on national security should go well beyond policy as well as academic

A paradigm shift is a contemporary in nature in Indonesia in this reform era. The 10 –

Policy on Defence and Military

Policy on Internal Security and Police