"In Wayang Kulit's performance, the story is intricate and extensive, typically portraying epic tales, requiring time to develop characters, plotlines, and moral lessons throughout the performance. Wayang Kulit is not merely a passive performance but an interactive experience where the audience participates through reactions, applause, and sometimes even dialogue with the Dalang. It serves as a communal event where people from all walks of life come together, fostering social cohesion and cultural exchange. The length of performances allows for deeper reflection on the themes presented, encouraging introspection and discussion among viewers.Our Ki Dalang tells us that one night, a group of villagers decided to test their courage by venturing into a haunted forest where it was said a ghost liked to play pranks on visitors.As they walked, a ghost suddenly appeared, trying to scare them. But instead of fear, the villagers burst into laughter because the ghost had the wrong costume, accidentally painted itself with pink colours and wearing a cute soft rabbit ears headband while preparing its spooky look.Confused by the laughter, the ghost tried various tricks to be frightening but only ended up looking sillier each time. The villagers, amused by the ghost’s antics, eventually made friends with it, turning a night of terror into a night of laughter and fun, dancing to the rhythm of dangdut of Cici Faramida's Wulan Merindu.""Civilian leadership is like the helm of the ship of state, steering its course through policy and direction, while the military serves as the rudder, manoeuvring and guiding the ship through turbulent waters with skill and discipline. In a democracy, the military acts as a sentinel, guarding the nation's borders and security, while civilian leadership serves as the compass, guiding the direction and values of the state. The military stands as a watchtower, vigilant and prepared to defend, while civilian oversight acts as a lighthouse, guiding the military's actions with principles and legal boundaries.Civilian leaders are like an orchestra conductor, orchestrating policy and strategy, while the military acts as the virtuoso players, skillfully executing their roles to harmonise with the conductor's direction. The military is the shield that protects the nation's interests and security, while civilian control serves as the sword of authority, directing and shaping the military's defensive and strategic actions," said Seruni while looking at the Civilian War Memorial, Singapore, a monument dedicated to civilians who perished during the Japanese Occupation of Singapore (1942–1945)."Samuel P. Huntington explores the relationship between military and civilian institutions and offers a theoretical framework for understanding the role of the military in a democratic society. Huntington argues for a clear distinction between military and civilian roles to prevent the military from exerting undue influence over political matters. He emphasizes the need for a professional military that is apolitical and focuses on its primary role of national defence. Huntington highlights the importance of military professionalism, which includes expertise, responsibility, and corporateness. He stresses that a professional military is critical to maintaining national security and ensuring that the armed forces remain loyal to the state rather than to any particular political leader or party.Huntington's argument for a clear distinction between military and civilian roles is a fundamental aspect of his theory in 'The Soldier and the State'. The military's primary role is to defend the nation against external threats and to maintain security. It operates under a strict code of discipline and hierarchy, with a focus on operational efficiency and strategic planning. By maintaining a clear distinction, the military can focus on its core functions without becoming entangled in political processes or conflicts of interest.Civilian institutions, including elected officials and public servants, are responsible for making and implementing policies that reflect the will of the people. They are accountable to the electorate and must navigate the complexities of democratic governance. Civilians should control the broader policy decisions, including when and how to use military force, while the military provides expertise and executes these decisions within its realm of operations.A distinct separation ensures that the military does not overstep its bounds and interfere with political matters, which can lead to undue influence or even military coups. Involving the military in political decision-making can compromise its objectivity and professionalism, leading to decisions that prioritize military interests over national or democratic interests.In democratic societies, civilian control of the military is essential to prevent authoritarianism. Democratically elected leaders should control the military to ensure that it serves the people and upholds democratic principles. The military's involvement in politics can undermine democratic processes and erode public trust in both military and civilian institutions.A clear distinction helps maintain the professionalism of the military. By focusing on their expertise in defence and security, military leaders can develop and execute strategies without political distractions. Professionalism in the military includes adherence to ethical standards, discipline, and a commitment to serving the state rather than any political faction.Huntington points to historical examples where blurred lines between military and civilian roles led to instability and conflict. For instance, military involvement in politics in many Latin American and African countries has resulted in coups and prolonged periods of military rule. Conversely, countries with a strong tradition of civilian control, like the United States, have generally enjoyed stable civil-military relations and robust democratic institutions.Why is this important? Clear separation helps maintain national stability and security by ensuring that the military remains focused on external threats and not internal political conflicts. It reduces the risk of the military becoming a tool for political factions, which can lead to internal strife and weaken national defence.Democracies thrive on the principle that civilian leaders, accountable to the public, make policy decisions. This separation ensures that the military is subservient to elected officials, upholding the principle of civilian supremacy. It reinforces the idea that the military is a neutral entity that serves the nation as a whole, not any particular political party or ideology.Military leaders with significant political power can undermine civilian governance and potentially abuse their authority. This separation helps prevent the concentration of power that could lead to autocratic rule or a military dictatorship. It also prevents the politicization of the military, which can lead to conflicts of interest and corrupt practices.When the military refrains from political involvement, it builds public trust in its role as a defender of the nation. Civilians are more likely to support and respect a military that is seen as impartial and dedicated to national security rather than political ambitions. This trust is crucial for effective civil-military collaboration, especially in times of crisis.Huntington's emphasis on a clear distinction between military and civilian roles aims to preserve the integrity of both institutions and protect democratic governance. By advocating for this separation, he seeks to ensure that the military remains a professional and neutral force dedicated to defending the nation, while civilians retain control over political decisions and governance. This balance is vital for maintaining national stability, security, and democratic values.Dale R. Herspring examines the dynamics of civil-military relations through the lens of four different countries: the United States, Russia, Germany, and China. He explores how these nations manage the delicate balance between military and civilian control and the concept of shared responsibility in governance and defence.Herspring introduces the idea that effective civil-military relations require a shared responsibility between civilian leaders and military professionals. This means that both parties must collaborate and respect each other’s expertise and roles. He emphasizes that a successful relationship is not just about civilian control or military professionalism alone but a cooperative effort that integrates both elements.In the U.S., the emphasis is on maintaining civilian control over the military while ensuring that military professionals have the autonomy to manage defence matters effectively. The U.S. model is characterized by a strong legal framework and institutional norms that reinforce the separation of military and civilian spheres, but also promote constructive dialogue and cooperation.Russia’s approach has been shaped by its Soviet legacy, which involved important military influence over political matters. Herspring discusses the transition to a more balanced model where civilian leaders seek to assert control while grappling with a powerful and influential military establishment.Germany’s model is informed by its experiences during World War II and the subsequent emphasis on ensuring that the military remains subordinate to civilian authorities. The German system promotes a strong ethical and legal framework to prevent the military from becoming politicized or involved in governance.China’s model is characterized by the close integration of the military with the Communist Party, where the military serves as a tool of the party rather than an independent institution. Herspring highlights the challenges of this approach, including the potential for the military to become overly politicized and the difficulties in ensuring professional autonomy within a highly controlled political system.Herspring explores the tension between giving the military enough autonomy to effectively manage defence matters and ensuring that it remains under civilian control to prevent overreach and maintain democratic principles. He argues that finding the right balance is crucial for national security and political stability.Herspring highlights the importance of strong institutional and legal frameworks in maintaining effective civil-military relations. These frameworks help define the roles and responsibilities of military and civilian leaders, providing guidelines for interaction and collaboration.By emphasizing the concept of shared responsibility, Herspring underscores the importance of cooperation, mutual respect, and the integration of both civilian oversight and military professionalism in maintaining effective civil-military relations.Herspring's and Huntington's ideas on civil-military relations do have some parallels, but there are also key distinctions between their approaches and emphases. Both scholars emphasize the significance of civil-military relations in ensuring national security and political stability. They agree that the relationship between military and civilian authorities is crucial for the effective functioning of a state. Huntington and Herspring both acknowledge the necessity of civilian control over the military to prevent the military from overstepping its bounds and to maintain democratic governance. They highlight the risks associated with military intervention in politics and advocate for frameworks that ensure civilian oversight.Both stress the importance of a professional, apolitical military that is focused on its primary role of national defence rather than engaging in political matters. They agree that the military should maintain a high level of expertise and adhere to ethical standards to effectively fulfil its duties. Huntington and Herspring both discuss the need for clear frameworks to define the roles and responsibilities of military and civilian leaders. These frameworks are essential for managing interactions and ensuring effective governance.Huntington emphasizes a strict separation between military and civilian roles, advocating for 'objective control' where the military operates independently within its professional sphere while civilians handle political matters. His model is built on the notion that a clear boundary prevents the military from exerting undue influence over politics and maintains the integrity of both institutions.Herspring, on the other hand, promotes the idea of 'shared responsibility,' where there is an active collaboration between military and civilian leaders. He believes that effective civil-military relations involve mutual respect and cooperation. Herspring's approach suggests that the military and civilians should work together, integrating their expertise and perspectives to achieve national security and governance objectives.Huntington's model discourages close interaction between military and civilian spheres to avoid politicization of the military and to keep the military focused on defence. He is concerned that too much interaction could lead to the military gaining undue political influence or civilians interfering in military affairs.Herspring advocates for active and ongoing interaction between military and civilian leaders. He sees this collaboration as essential for addressing complex security challenges and ensuring that both perspectives are considered in decision-making. He believes that healthy interaction can lead to better mutual understanding and more informed decisions.Huntington's framework is largely developed in the context of Western democratic societies, particularly the United States, and focuses on maintaining a professional military that operates under civilian control within a democratic framework. His emphasis is on preventing military overreach in political systems that prioritize individual freedoms and democratic governance.Herspring’s analysis is more comparative and takes into account diverse political and cultural contexts, including those of the United States, Russia, Germany, and China. He explores how different historical and cultural backgrounds influence civil-military relations. His approach is more flexible, acknowledging that different countries may require different models of civil-military relations based on their unique contexts.Huntington’s work is more theoretical, providing a rigorous framework for understanding civil-military relations through the concepts of 'objective' and 'subjective' control. His focus is on developing a theoretical model that can be applied to various contexts to understand and predict civil-military dynamics.Herspring’s work is more practical and comparative, offering insights into how civil-military relations function in different countries. He is interested in the real-world application of concepts and the practical challenges that arise in managing these relationships. His approach is less about developing a strict theoretical framework and more about understanding the nuances and complexities of civil-military interactions.While both Herspring and Huntington emphasize the importance of civil-military relations and the need for civilian control over the military, their approaches differ significantly. Huntington advocates for a strict separation between military and civilian roles to maintain professional and apolitical military operations, particularly within the context of Western democracies. Herspring, on the other hand, promotes a model of shared responsibility, emphasizing active collaboration and mutual respect between military and civilian leaders, and considers a broader range of historical and cultural contexts. These distinctions highlight different strategies for managing civil-military relations based on varying political and social landscapes.In the next episode, we will discuss Thomas C. Bruneau and Scott D. Tollefson's idea of 'Who Guards the Guardians and How.' Biidhnillah."Afterwards, Seruni recited a poem,In democracy’s light, the soldiers stand tall,Under civilian command, they answer the call.A balance of power, a careful design,To guard freedom’s flame, and rights that align.In the hands of the people, the power to sway,With respect and duty, they keep danger at bay.
Citations & References:
- Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations, 2000, The Belknap Press
- Dale R. Herspring, Civil-Military Relations and Shared Responsibility: A Four-Nation Study, 2013, The Johns Hopkins University Press
