Indonesian Army's Business Interests Spark Criticism

In 2004, Indonesia passed a law that was designed to strengthen civilian rule after the end of the Suharto era. The law stipulated that the military should give up all its commercial enterprises by the end of 2009.

But nothing like that has happened, says Lisa Misol, the author of a recent study by Human Rights Watch.

“We think that it is time for civilian authorities really to take seriously their responsibility as leaders, and to understand that under the law, they have to exercise control, and that the armed forces have said they'll follow the civilian leaders,” Misol says.

“This is an opportunity to put that to the test and really exercise authority that they have under the law, and to remove from the military these independent sources of power that are dangerous for Indonesia's government and for the people because of the human rights abuses and the impunity that they help to fuel."

Lack of accountability facilitates corruption

A lack of accountability facilitates corruption and other crimes in sectors such as timber. The army's role in the country’s private security services has also become controversial. They have been accused of extorting money.

A former defence minister admitted last year that "rogue elements" in the military could be behind the killing of gold mine employees in Papua province.

The army and politicians have traditionally justified the involvement of the military in business with the need to raise more money for troops.

Lisa Misol rejects this, pointing to an increase in the defence budget over the years. “These businesses are not helping soldier welfare, contrary to the claims,” she says. “They really are benefitting the elite military officers, and the soldiers really need to be benefitting from funds that come from the government and are subject to democratic accountability of the parliament!"

Government reluctant to alienate army

Aurel Croissant, a political scientist at the University of Heidelberg who specialises in civil-military relations in Indonesia, thinks the government is reluctant to alienate the armed forces.

“Although Indonesia has been a quite successful case of democratisation in Southeast Asia and the Asia-Pacific in general, the military still is a powerful and important domestic player. Every government in Indonesia has to take into account the interests of the military," Croissant says.

Besides its business operations, the army also retains a limited influence in some policy fields, such as defence and security. However, Aurel Croissant insists that the military is not an alternative power centre in Indonesia.

"It is more like a network system and not so much a coherent institutionalized system which would mean the real political power in the country is the military -- that is not the case! It is not like Thailand, where we have a military para-state since 2006."

As long as they can make some extra money, Indonesia’s army officers seem committed to democracy and nobody is afraid of a new coup in Indonesia. An important reason why the Indonesian government is being slow in its efforts to reform military businesses is that it does not want to jeopardise the equilibrium between the interests of the civilian and military elites.

Author: Thomas Bärthlein
Editor: Anne Thomas