Continuing our exploration of the question posed in our previous session—“Should we prepare our country to become a military state?”—is a multifaceted endeavour. This inquiry is intricately woven into the fabric of historical context, geopolitical dynamics, and the priorities of internal governance. While national security remains a paramount concern, the path of militarization often entails substantial economic and political trade-offs that cannot be overlooked. Balancing these factors requires careful consideration and a nuanced understanding of their implications for our society and future.Historically, democracies have maintained strong militaries without fully transforming into military states. Countries like the United States, India, and France have robust defence sectors while still prioritizing democratic values. The key is to balance security preparedness with the preservation of civil liberties, economic stability, and diplomatic engagement.In democratic societies, maintaining a clear distinction between military and police roles is essential to uphold civil supremacy and democratic governance. The military is primarily tasked with defending the nation against external threats, while the police are responsible for maintaining internal order and enforcing laws.In The Perils of Praetorianism in Latin America (2002, Penn State University Press), Kirk S. Bowman examines the negative effects of military influence on democratic institutions and development. Bowman argues that excessive military involvement in politics erodes democratic norms by undermining civilian control of the government. This often leads to the militarization of policymaking and governance, limiting democratic accountability.Military interventions, whether through direct coups or behind-the-scenes influence, create cycles of instability where elected governments struggle to function effectively. This instability discourages long-term democratic development.Under military-influenced regimes, freedoms such as free speech, press, and political participation are often curtailed. This weakens civil society and makes it harder for democratic institutions to flourish.Bowman highlights how militarized governments often prioritize security spending over economic and social development. This can lead to inefficient resource allocation, economic stagnation, and increased inequality.Military influence in politics often results in legal impunity for the armed forces, weakening judicial independence and the enforcement of laws. This undermines trust in democratic governance.Even after military rule ends, its legacy can persist in weakened institutions, polarized societies, and recurring authoritarian tendencies. Bowman suggests that countries with strong military influence take longer to develop stable democratic systems.In A Violent Peace: Race, U.S. Militarism, and Cultures of Democratization in Cold War Asia and the Pacific (2020, Stanford University Press), Christine Hong examines the intricate relationship between postwar U.S. military strategies and democratization efforts in Asia and the Pacific. She argues that the United States' promotion of democracy in the region was deeply entwined with militaristic endeavours, often leading to outcomes that contradicted the democratic ideals professed.Hong highlights how the U.S. occupation of Japan serves as a prime example of this complex dynamic. While the occupation aimed to establish democratic institutions, it simultaneously imposed military control, reflecting a paradox where democratization was pursued through authoritarian means. This approach often prioritized strategic interests over genuine democratic development, leading to tensions between the imposed political structures and the local populations' aspirations.Furthermore, Hong explores the racial dimensions of U.S. militarism, illustrating how racial ideologies influenced military policies and interactions with local communities. The desegregation of the U.S. military, for instance, was portrayed as a step toward racial equality and democratic progress. However, this narrative often masked the underlying imperialistic motives and the continuation of racial hierarchies, both abroad and within the United States.In the context of the Korean War, Hong discusses how U.S. military interventions were framed as efforts to defend and promote democracy. Yet, these actions frequently resulted in significant civilian casualties and the suppression of local movements that sought alternative political pathways, thereby undermining the democratic principles the U.S. claimed to support.Hong also addresses the domestic implications of these military strategies, noting that tactics used to control populations abroad were mirrored in the suppression of dissent within the United States. The militarization of police forces and the surveillance of civil rights activists reflected a broader pattern where militaristic approaches to governance impacted both foreign and domestic policies.In summary, A Violent Peace reveals that postwar U.S. military strategies in Asia and the Pacific often compromised democratization efforts, as military objectives took precedence over the establishment of genuine democratic institutions. This interplay between militarization and democratization highlights the contradictions inherent in U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War era.In Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (2024, Haymarket Books), Noam Chomsky critically examines how the United States' pursuit of global hegemony through military means has shaped international relations and affected democratic movements worldwide. Chomsky argues that the U.S. government's aggressive strategies to maintain dominance often undermine international law, destabilize regions, and suppress democratic aspirations.Chomsky highlights instances where the U.S. disregards international bodies when they oppose its objectives. For example, after the International Court of Justice condemned U.S. actions in Nicaragua, the U.S. dismissed the ruling, labeling the court as a "hostile forum." This behavior, Chomsky suggests, erodes the credibility of international institutions and sets a precedent for unilateral actions. He critiques the U.S. adoption of preventive war—a strategy of initiating conflict to eliminate perceived future threats—as a violation of international norms. Chomsky contends that such actions, exemplified by the 2003 invasion of Iraq, constitute war crimes and destabilize global order by promoting the use of force over diplomacy. The pursuit of military dominance, including initiatives like the militarization of space and opposition to arms control treaties, is seen by Chomsky as exacerbating global tensions and sparking arms races. These policies, he argues, prioritize power projection over cooperative security measures, increasing the risk of conflict. Chomsky documents instances where the U.S. has supported authoritarian governments that align with its strategic interests, often at the expense of democratic movements. By providing military aid and political backing to such regimes, the U.S. hinders the development of democratic institutions and suppresses grassroots movements advocating for change.Direct interventions, both overt and covert, have been employed to overthrow democratically elected governments perceived as threats to U.S. hegemony. These actions not only disrupt the political sovereignty of nations but also serve as warnings to other countries considering policies independent of U.S. influence.The global emphasis on military solutions and the war on terror, as discussed by Chomsky, have led to the curtailment of civil liberties both domestically and internationally. Governments, under the guise of security, implement measures that restrict freedoms, thereby weakening the democratic fabric of societies.Chomsky's analysis suggests that the U.S.'s militaristic quest for dominance not only strains international relations but also poses significant obstacles to the growth and sustainability of democratic movements worldwide.In democratic societies, maintaining a clear distinction between military and police roles is essential to uphold civil supremacy and democratic governance. The military is primarily tasked with defending the nation against external threats, while the police are responsible for maintaining internal order and enforcing laws.The military should focus on national defense and operate under the direction of civilian authorities. Their involvement in civilian governance should be minimal to prevent the erosion of democratic institutions. According to the Handbook on Civil-Military Relations and Democratic Control of the Security Sector (2003, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces), effective democratic control requires that the armed forces remain under the authority of elected civilian officials, ensuring that military influence does not overshadow civilian governance.Recent developments in Indonesia highlight the importance of maintaining these distinctions. The passage of a law allowing military personnel to hold a broader range of civilian positions has raised concerns about a potential resurgence of military influence in government, reminiscent of past authoritarian rule. Critics argue that such moves could undermine democratic institutions and civil supremacy.To preserve democracy and ensure civil supremacy, the military should be confined to roles directly related to national defense under civilian oversight, while the police should focus on maintaining internal order and enforcing laws with a commitment to democratic principles and human rights.The police serve as the primary interface between the government and its citizens, tasked with upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights. They should operate with transparency, accountability, and respect for human rights. As noted in The Role of Police in a Democratic Society (1969, Northwestern University School of Law), the police have a policymaking responsibility and should not merely follow orders without considering their impact on democratic processes.In Indonesia, the proposed Indonesian National Police Bill (RUU Polri) has raised concerns among civil society organizations and legal experts, primarily due to its potential to transform the National Police (Polri) into a "superbody" with expansive powers.The bill grants Polri authority over cyberspaces, including the power to conduct surveillance, impose sanctions, block or slow down internet access, and enforce cyber security measures. This broad authority lacks clear parameters and oversight mechanisms, raising fears of potential misuse to suppress freedom of expression and control information flow.Polri would be empowered to conduct intelligence operations, including collecting data from other intelligence agencies such as the State Intelligence Agency (BIN), the National Cyber and Crypto Agency (BSSN), and the Strategic Intelligence Agency of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (BAIS). This could lead to overlapping functions and potential misuse of intelligence for purposes beyond national security.The bill provides Polri with wiretapping capabilities without a clear regulatory framework or oversight, raising concerns about violations of privacy rights. Unlike the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), which requires approval from its supervisory board for wiretapping, Polri's authority in this area would be unchecked.Polri would have the authority to oversee and recommend the appointment of civil servant investigators (PPNS) and other investigators, potentially undermining the independence of agencies like the KPK.The bill proposes the formation of community security forces under Polri's guidance, reminiscent of past practices that led to human rights violations. This raises concerns about the potential for abuse and the revival of controversial security practices. Critics warn that these expanded powers could undermine democratic principles and civil liberties. The extensive powers granted to Polri, particularly in cyber surveillance and control, pose a threat to freedom of expression, press, and privacy. Such measures could suppress dissent and limit citizens' ability to access and share information freely. The bill lacks robust oversight mechanisms for Polri's expanded powers, increasing the risk of abuse and impunity. This undermines democratic principles that rely on checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power. The potential for human rights violations resulting from unchecked police powers could damage Indonesia's international standing. Countries and international organizations may view these developments as a regression in democratic governance and human rights protection, affecting diplomatic relations and foreign investment.While the RUU Polri aims to enhance national security, its provisions risk undermining civil liberties, democratic oversight, and Indonesia's international reputation. Lawmakers must reconsider the bill's content, ensuring that any expansion of police powers is accompanied by stringent oversight and accountability measures to protect the rights and freedoms of Indonesian citizens.The enactment of the Indonesian National Police Bill (RUU Polri), which significantly expands the powers of the police, could have negative effects on international trust and the investment climate in Indonesia.The expansion of police authority, which could turn Polri into a "superbody," raises concerns about Indonesia’s commitment to democracy and human rights. Powers such as cyber surveillance, internet restrictions, and wiretapping—without clear oversight—may be perceived as repressive measures that limit freedom of expression and individual privacy. This could damage Indonesia’s reputation in the eyes of the international community and human rights organizations, leading to increased criticism and diplomatic pressure.Foreign investors typically seek a stable, transparent, and legally secure environment. The implementation of the RUU Polri, with its broad and unchecked authority, may create legal uncertainty and increase investment risks. Concerns about potential abuse of power, human rights violations, and lack of accountability may lead investors to reconsider their decisions to invest in Indonesia. Additionally, a negative perception of Indonesia’s political and legal situation could lower the country’s competitiveness in the global investment market.The expansion of Polri’s powers in the bill could create overlapping responsibilities among institutions and trigger unwanted power conflicts, giving the impression of forming a super-powerful police force.Implementing the RUU Polri without strong oversight and accountability mechanisms could harm Indonesia’s international reputation and weaken investor confidence. Therefore, the government and legislature must carefully consider these broader impacts and ensure that any legal changes align with democratic principles, human rights protections, and legal certainty to support a conducive investment climate.If a democratic country were to prepare itself for a more militarized stance, several factors must be considered. A military buildup should be driven by genuine security threats rather than internal power consolidation. When militarization becomes excessive, it risks undermining democratic institutions, as seen in nations where military influence extends into civilian governance.A highly militarized state often diverts significant resources toward defence at the cost of education, healthcare, and social welfare. While military investment can spur technological innovation (as seen in the U.S.), an overemphasis can lead to economic inefficiencies and public dissatisfaction.Nations facing external threats may find it necessary to strengthen their military. However, an arms race or aggressive military posture can escalate tensions rather than ensure long-term security. A diplomatic approach—while maintaining a capable defence force—often proves more sustainable.A democracy preparing for militarization must establish safeguards to prevent the erosion of civil rights. If military authority begins to outweigh elected governance, a country may slide into authoritarianism, diminishing democratic freedoms.Ultimately, a democratic country should ensure national security without compromising its core values. Investing in a strong military is wise, but it should be complemented with diplomatic engagement, technological advancements, and economic resilience. Militarization should serve as a means of defense, not a tool for political dominance.We are entering a period of great transformation. Power will no longer be measured only in military strength but in who controls global supply chains, who owns the most advanced technology, and who dominates the financial networks of the future.This means that nations, corporations, and even individuals will need to adapt quickly. Governments will invest heavily in AI, cybersecurity, and energy independence. Businesses will shift their focus toward digital finance and automation. Ordinary people will have to navigate a world where traditional jobs disappear, economic power shifts rapidly, and financial systems evolve in unpredictable ways.The future will not be about which nation has the most soldiers, but about who has the most control over the infrastructure of global power. The new world order is not a return to military empires, but the rise of technological, financial, and energy-based empires.In "Power Shift: The Global Political Economy of Energy Transitions" (2021, Cambridge University Press), Peter Newell examines how changes in energy production and consumption reshape economic and political power globally. He emphasizes that energy transitions are not just technological shifts but also involve significant political and economic transformations. These transitions can alter the distribution of power among nations, influence global trade patterns, and impact domestic policies. Newell argues that understanding these dynamics is crucial for navigating the complexities of moving towards sustainable energy systems. In "The World Under Pressure: How China and India Are Influencing the Global Economy and Environment" (2012, Stanford University Press), Carl J. Dahlman examines the profound effects of the rapid economic growth of China and India on various global dimensions, including trade, technology, environment, security, and governance structures.Newell's analysis highlights that energy transitions are deeply intertwined with issues of governance, equity, and justice. He suggests that the move towards renewable energy sources presents both opportunities and challenges, particularly concerning who benefits from these changes and who may be disadvantaged. By examining these aspects, Newell provides a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted impacts of energy transitions on global political and economic structures.The ascent of China and India has significantly altered global trade dynamics. Their expanding economies have increased demand for resources and diversified export markets, leading to shifts in trade balances and the emergence of new economic alliances. This transformation challenges established trade relationships and necessitates adaptations in global trade policies.Both nations have prioritized technological advancement as a cornerstone of their development strategies. By investing heavily in research and development, they have not only enhanced their domestic industries but also contributed to global technological innovation. This progress fosters competition and collaboration on the international stage, influencing global technology standards and practices.The environmental implications of rapid industrialization in China and India are profound. Increased industrial activities and energy consumption have escalated pollution levels and intensified resource depletion. These environmental challenges have far-reaching consequences, affecting global climate patterns and prompting international discussions on sustainable development and environmental responsibility.The growing economic and political influence of China and India has implications for global security. Their expanding interests necessitate a reevaluation of regional and international security arrangements. This shift can lead to both cooperation and competition, influencing geopolitical strategies and alliances worldwide.Dahlman highlights that the rise of these two nations places considerable pressure on existing global governance frameworks. The current international system faces challenges in accommodating the interests and influences of emerging powers, leading to calls for reforms in institutions like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and International Monetary Fund to better reflect the contemporary global power distribution.Dahlman underscores that the rapid economic growth of China and India is reshaping global systems, introducing both opportunities and challenges across multiple sectors. He advocates for proactive adjustments in international policies and governance structures to effectively manage these shifts and promote global stability and sustainability.Dahlman menggarisbawahi bahwa pertumbuhan ekonomi yang pesat di Tiongkok dan India tengah membentuk kembali sistem global, yang menghadirkan peluang dan tantangan di berbagai sektor. Ia menganjurkan penyesuaian proaktif dalam kebijakan internasional dan struktur tata kelola untuk mengelola perubahan ini secara efektif dan mendorong stabilitas dan keberlanjutan global.In a world increasingly leaning towards militarism, as we've discussed, is there still a need for civilian leaders, or should they be replaced by military commanders?While military leaders bring expertise in strategy, discipline, and crisis management, democratic systems fundamentally rely on civilian leadership to ensure accountability, inclusivity, and adherence to the rule of law.Civilian leaders are essential in maintaining democratic control over the military. As highlighted in civil-military relations theory, civilian supremacy ensures that the military remains a servant of the state rather than a dominant force capable of overriding democratic institutions. Civilian leaders are tasked with balancing military advice with broader societal considerations, including economic policy, human rights, and diplomatic efforts. Their role is critical in preventing the militarization of governance, which can lead to authoritarianism or a narrow focus on security at the expense of other priorities.However, as militarism grows, civilian leaders face challenges in maintaining effective control. Studies show that civilian leadership often struggles with expertise gaps in national security policy, leading to heavy reliance on military elites. This reliance risks undermining civilian authority and allowing military perspectives to dominate strategic decision-making. For example, modern technologies like artificial intelligence and hypersonic weapons blur the lines between civilian oversight and military operations, requiring close collaboration but also exposing vulnerabilities in traditional civilian control frameworks.Replacing civilian leaders with military ones could exacerbate these issues by concentrating power within a single institution. Military leadership tends to prioritize efficiency and order but may lack the broader perspective needed for democratic governance. Historical examples demonstrate that when military leaders assume political control, democratic norms often erode, as seen in military regimes that suppress dissent and limit political freedoms. While military leaders excel in operational contexts, they may struggle with the complexities of balancing diverse societal needs.While militarism poses significant challenges for democratic governance, civilian leadership remains indispensable for upholding democratic values and ensuring balanced decision-making. The solution lies not in replacing civilian leaders but in fostering stronger civil-military relationships where trust, expertise-sharing, and mutual respect enable effective governance in an increasingly militarized world.
[Episode 3]
