The clash between the
police and the Indonesian military forces has proliferated as a commonplace
event. The latest case that took place in Ogan Komering Ulu, South Sumatra
depicts the high friction between these two state agencies that have been
separated since 1999. These agencies have been complicit in a conflict that
repeats itself annually for a decade with different causes. Two mainstream
explanations for the most recent clash are the access to resources and the
structural problems that lead to the accumulation of social jealousy. However,
both the military and police should exercise their duties in protecting
citizens based on their functions as state coercive apparatus. One direct
corollary from the military-police conflict is concerns about the incapacity of
the state to exercise coercive power effectively over these agencies. The
recent clash signifies the problem of legitimation of the state, and it affects
the democratization process.
Both the military and
the police practice their organizational function based on their duties and
rights. These functions lead to a plethora of both important and petty rules
which seek to control and guide officers’ actions within the department as well
as on either military missions or policing the street. Both agencies employ
leadership, supervisory, and management techniques, and typical rewards and
sanctions to ensure officer accountability, increase efficiency, and limit the
abuse of power. In contrast, the organizational function is breached when these
agencies misuse their force against each other and other state actors. In this
regard, they abuse coercive power by exercising force that is more repressive
than protective.
In the case in South
Sumatra, the traffic police abused its power by shooting to death a military
officer who violated a traffic law. The shooting sparked subsequent action by
more than a hundred military officers to abuse their power by attacking the police
station and police officers (the Jakarta Post 3/10/2013). Even the
chiefs of both institutions were surprised about the extent of the conflict on
ground. This clash and the rising number of unpredictable conflicts between
these state apparatuses represent the failure of the state to control its
apparatus and undermine its legitimacy. The use of force by both state
agencies against each other leads to further public distrust and revives the
image of an unmanageable state.
The repressive and
protective forces that are embodied within the coercive apparatuses shape the
state legitimacy of exercising power throughout its population and territory.
As pointed out by Otwin Marerin, the repression functions largely in a directly
instrumentalist way for the state, but ultimately also can have legitimating or
delegitimating consequences. Protection, in contrast, mainly affects the
ideological processes through which states become legitimized (Greenberg &
Mayer, 1990). By upholding the traffic law, the police officer exercised his
function toward another agency that violated that law. The police exercised the
protective function. However, shooting to death was not an appropriate way to
deal with that issue. The later responses by the military officers exacerbated the
misuse of the repressive function. On the other hand, the protective function
of the police has declined following external pressure from citizens regarding
the significant number of allegations of corruption among generals.
Coercive legitimation
can be applied just as effectively as coercive apparatus performance and social
norms. However, it can be reduced or disappear entirely when the legitimation
of the state is exercised as happened in South Sumatra. The overused repressive
force of these agencies, as aforementioned, undermines the eminent principle of
exercising duty as a protector of state and citizenry. It has been
highlighted by allegations raised by some groups about the use of torture by
the police special counterterrorism unit Densus 88 to interrogate suspected
terrorists. Meanwhile, the Indonesian military forces are allegedly violating
the human rights of the indigenous Papuan people. This method reinforces the
concerns about the misuse of repressive forces.
The repeated conflict
between these state agencies severely affects the quality of democracy within
the state. After the 13-year reform period, Indonesia is still facing the
problem of the unmanageability of these agencies. The more they divert from the
principles of the Constitution by wielding the repressive forces, the more the
democratic consolidation process will be in danger. The state would be
stateless if the dominant roles of government were not able to tackle the
problem of the misuse of state authority by its apparatuses.
The military
overlooked its primary function as the protector of state institutions by
attacking the police. One prominent feature of the democratic consolidation
process is the tight control of the elected government over its state
apparatuses to exercise their primary duties. This does not mean the government
can intervene in the organizational process within the state apparatuses, but
instead, it should ensure that these state agencies exercise their duties based
on their interest as state institutions in line with constitutional
requirements.
By towing the line of
the Constitution, both the military and the police uphold the democratic
quality of the state. It is noteworthy that the source of power over these
agencies is primarily coercive power. This is largely different from other
state agencies that do not have the same source of power. Accordingly, the
military and the police have the capacity to exercise their power without any
control. This situation is immensely harmful for the existence of other state agencies
and civil society groups. To a certain degree, the state is allowing radical
groups to act violently toward other social groups has empowered the military
and the police to act in a similar disobedient fashion. The state response in
both cases has been insufficient to deal with this issue. In the quest for a
stable democratic system, the state must ensure that all societal components,
in particular the military and the police act in a principled manner.
By: HYRW
No comments:
Post a Comment