Jakarta, Indonesia – Proposed amendments to the Indonesian Military (TNI) bill are drawing criticism from civil society groups, who fear the changes could undermine democratic reforms. The contentious issue centers on the military’s potential involvement in drug enforcement, a move that critics argue blurs the lines between civilian and military responsibilities. deliberations on the bill are ongoing in the House of Representatives amid growing unease.

The heart of the debate lies in Article 7, Paragraph 2, Point 17 of the proposed amendment. This provision aims to authorize the military to assist the government in combating drug abuse,precursors,and other addictive substances. The absence of this stipulation in the original Law No. 34/2004 on the TNI has fueled concerns about the motivations behind its inclusion and the potential ramifications for Indonesia’s democratic trajectory.

Ma’ruf Bajammal, a public counsel at the community Legal Aid Institute, has voiced strong opposition to the amendment.Bajammal argues that drug policy is fundamentally a civil matter requiring a science-based health approach, rather than military intervention. He emphasized the need for a different outlook on addressing drug-related issues, advocating for treatment and prevention over militarized enforcement.

There is no justification for military intervention in drug enforcement.

Ma’ruf Bajammal, Community Legal Aid Institute

Bajammal made this statement on Wednesday, according to tempo.co, underscoring the urgency and importance of the issue. His remarks highlight the broader concerns among civil society groups that involving the military in drug enforcement could lead to human rights abuses and a militarization of public health issues.

Echoing these concerns, Muhammad Isnur, chairman of the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), warned that involving the military in drug enforcement could have far-reaching negative consequences.isnur suggested that such involvement could revive the military’s dual-function role, a concept known as “dwifungsi,” which historically allowed the military to play a role in both defense and socio-political affairs. This, Isnur argues, could pose a significant threat to Indonesia’s democratic progress.

The concept of “dwifungsi” was a hallmark of the New Order regime under President Suharto, where the military held considerable political power. Critics fear that expanding the military’s role into areas like drug enforcement could lead to a resurgence of authoritarian tendencies and undermine civilian control. This historical context adds weight to the current concerns, as indonesia has worked to establish a clear separation between the military and civilian spheres of governance.

Instead of pursuing the proposed amendment, Isnur urged the government to reconsider its approach to drug policy. He advocated for the adoption of a science-based health approach, emphasizing treatment, rehabilitation, and prevention strategies over militarized enforcement. this approach aligns with international best practices in drug policy, which prioritize public health and human rights.

The debate surrounding the TNI amendment bill underscores the ongoing tension between security concerns and the preservation of democratic principles in Indonesia. As deliberations continue, civil society groups remain vigilant, advocating for policies that prioritize human rights, the rule of law, and evidence-based solutions to complex social problems. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of Indonesia’s democracy and its approach to drug policy.

Senior editor, world-today-news.com: The Indonesian military, currently ranked as a top global military power, plays a crucial role in national defense and humanitarian efforts. However, a proposed bill could expand this role to include drug enforcement, sparking intense debate. Is this a path to bolstering security or is it a potential threat to indonesia’s democratic progress?

Dr. Anya Sharma (Expert in Indonesian political and military affairs): the proposal for the Indonesian military to engage directly in drug enforcement is a pivotal moment. It raises profound questions about Indonesia’s democratic trajectory. The core issue is whether involving the military—with its historically significant role—in non-military areas is a wise decision,especially given the potential consequences for civil liberties and institutional balance.

Understanding the Controversy

Senior Editor: Could you break down the specific concerns surrounding the proposed amendment to the TNI bill? What are civil society groups most worried about?

Dr. Sharma: The primary concern that civil society groups have regarding the proposed amendment lies in Article 7, Paragraph 2, Point 17. this addition seeks to authorize the military to assist the government in addressing drug abuse and related substances, which represents a considerable shift from the prevailing legal framework. Civil society groups suggest that this alteration deviates from the spirit of reform, especially concerning the military’s potential involvement in drug enforcement. Civil groups fear that the military’s involvement in civilian matters sets a perilous precedent. They emphasize the need for a science-based health approach, not military intervention, to deal with drug-related issues. The absence of this stipulation in the original Law No.34/2004 on the TNI raises serious questions about its rationale and potential implications.

The Shadow of “Dwifungsi”

Senior Editor: The article mentions the concept of “dwifungsi.” Could you explain what that is and why it’s such a sensitive issue in the Indonesian context?

Dr. Sharma: “Dwifungsi,” or dual function, is a highly charged term in Indonesia because it refers to the military’s historical role in both defense and socio-political affairs. During the New Order regime under President Suharto,the military held significant political power,influencing policies and playing a crucial role in civilian governance. Critics fear that expanding the military’s role into areas like drug enforcement could lead to a resurgence of authoritarian practices and undermine civilian control. Therefore, concerns regarding “dwifungsi” are rooted in the potential erosion of democratic principles and the re-emergence of past political dynamics that Indonesia has, at least in part, moved beyond.

Option Approaches: A Path Forward?

Senior Editor: Rather of military involvement, what alternative strategies could be employed to combat drug abuse in indonesia?

Dr. Sharma: Rather of militarizing drug enforcement, the government should consider the following science-based strategies:

• Prioritize Public Health: Focus resources on prevention programs, harm reduction strategies, and evidence-based treatment for drug addiction.
• Invest in rehabilitation: expand and improve rehabilitation centers to provide complete care and support for individuals struggling with substance abuse.
• Strengthen Law Enforcement: Improve the capabilities and training of civilian law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate and prosecute drug-related crimes.
• Foster International Collaboration: Enhance cooperation with international organizations and other countries to share best practices and resources for combating drug trafficking.

Maintaining democratic Principles

Senior Editor: Ultimately, what are the potential long-term effects of this policy shift, and what should Indonesian policymakers prioritize?

Dr. Sharma: the long-term effects of involving the military in drug enforcement hinge on the preservation of democratic principles and the rule of law. Policymakers must prioritize the following to uphold these values:

• Civilian Oversight: Ensure robust civilian oversight of the military, particularly when it is indeed involved in non-military operations.
• Transparency and Accountability: Implement transparency in decision-making processes and hold all actors accountable for their actions.
• Human Rights: Guarantee that all law enforcement activities,including drug enforcement,adhere strictly to human rights standards.
• Independent Judiciary: Safeguard an independent judiciary to ensure fair trials and due process for all individuals.

These steps are essential to prevent a resurgence of authoritarian tendencies and retain the progress Indonesia has made in consolidating its democracy over the last few decades.

Senior Editor: Thank you, Dr. Sharma, for your insightful analysis. It’s clear that this decision has significant implications for Indonesia’s future.

Dr. sharma: My pleasure.

Key Takeaways

The proposed amendment to the Indonesian Military (TNI) bill, particularly Article 7, Paragraph 2, Point 17, could allow for military involvement in drug enforcement, but it is highly contentious.

Civil groups warn that having the military involved in what’s fundamentally a civil matter will only undermine democratic progress.

Alternative strategies include science-based health approaches, the bolstering of civilian law enforcement, and international collaboration to combat drug trafficking.

Policymakers must prioritize civilian oversight of the military, in addition to transparency, respect for human rights, and an independent judiciary to prevent a resurgence of authoritarianism.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Do you believe the military playing a role in drug enforcement will benefit Indonesia or hinder its progress? Share your opinions in the comments below!