On Thursday last week, the world’s third-largest democracy took a step back in time. The Indonesian House of Representatives unanimously passed revisions to the 2004 Armed Forces Law, significantly expanding the military’s role in public life. That risks a dangerous return to the country’s authoritarian past, undoing decades of hard-won democratic progress since the fall of former Indonesian president Suharto’s military dictatorship in 1998.
That is not just Indonesia’s problem. It is part of a global trend where strongmen exploit democratic systems to consolidate power. The archipelago sits at the heart of the US-China rivalry in the Indo-Pacific region, and a return to military influence could have far-reaching consequences for regional stability.
Civilian groups and students are expected to protest the decision in the coming days, but those demonstrations are unlikely to have much of an impact. Under the revised law, active military officers can now hold key civilian positions without retiring or resigning. Retirement ages have been extended, too, from 60 to 63.
Those changes might seem procedural — they are not. I grew up in Suharto’s Indonesia, where the army’s tanks and color berets were a regular fixture on the streets. For many, that legislation will revive memories of dwifungsi, or the military’s “dual function.” Under that system, high-ranking soldiers dominated political, economic and civilian life.
During Suharto’s three-decade rule, the Indonesian armed forces exercised economic power through control of formal and informal businesses, Princeton University said. However, because of the murkiness of the system, there was no clear data about the extent of its economic holdings. In 2007, the government estimated that military foundations and cooperatives controlled businesses with gross assets of US$350 million, but that figure was likely to have been much higher during Suharto’s New Order era.
That level of power also brought with it widespread corruption. By the late 1990s, concerns over a currency crisis, a weak banking system and a lack of transparency in the way businesses were run led to economic collapse. GDP had shrunk by 12 percent in the first half of 1998 and the currency dropped 85 percent in less than a year.
In 1998, Suharto was brought down by student street protests. The army’s role in public life diminished, and I watched firsthand how Indonesia transitioned from a dictatorship to a democracy. At the time, many in and outside the nation wondered whether it would break into smaller states like Yugoslavia did. That did not happen, and after a period of chaos, Indonesia held its first direct presidential elections in 2004, paving the way for democracy to take root.
Since then, optimism has been warranted. Civil society and the media have flourished, and the nation has been regularly ranked as one of the freest in the world, although that has declined in the past few years. The 2014 election of a non-military president, Joko Widodo, symbolized a break from the past. However, by his second term, Jokowi, as he is commonly known, had begun reversing many civil liberties, setting the stage for democratic backsliding.
That now risks accelerating under Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto. A former special forces commander and Suharto’s former son-in-law, Prabowo has long faced allegations of human rights abuses, which he denies. He insists he supports democracy, along with focusing on economic goals such as free school lunches and broader health checks.
Indonesians do not have many options to reverse those changes, but they should consolidate their efforts. One route could be to file a judicial review to the Constitutional Court, which has the power to revoke them if they are found to contravene the constitution.
Prabowo would be wise to listen to voters’ concerns, many of whom might take to the streets in mass protests in the coming days. He could delay implementation and propose further revisions if the public backlash grows. Those changes are coming at a time when Indonesia is facing challenges on multiple fronts. A stock market rout last week is just the latest indication of a lack of confidence in the president’s economic management.
He should consider the lessons from his former father-in-law, who ignored the complaints of his people for far too long, convinced that staying in power was more important than delivering on his promises. History has shown what happens when an Indonesian leader neglects to heed the sentiments of his people.
Karishma Vaswani is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia politics with a special focus on China. Previously, she was the BBC’s lead Asia presenter and worked for the BBC across Asia and South Asia for two decades.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
RSS