Reforming POLRI

Before we proceed with matters concerning the UN and cooperatives, let us first touch upon a brief topic: the reform of the Indonesian National Police (POLRI). When this subject arises, one might reasonably ask—what exactly is there to reform?

Reforming the Indonesian National Police, POLRI, is a task that demands both vision and courage. It is not merely about changing structures or issuing directives; it requires a cultural revolution that penetrates every level of the organisation. The police must return to their fundamental mission: to serve and protect the public while enforcing the law impartially. Without a genuine commitment to this purpose, any reform effort risks being superficial and symbolic.

The culture within POLRI must shift from one that tolerates corruption, nepotism, and coercion to one that prioritises integrity, professionalism, and empathy. Education and training should instil these values from the earliest stages of recruitment and continue through the ranks. Officers must understand that their legitimacy comes not from fear or connections, but from public trust and adherence to the law.

Transparency is a non-negotiable requirement. Recruitment, promotions, and disciplinary procedures must be open and merit-based, ensuring that no officer advances due to personal connections or bribery. At the same time, internal oversight mechanisms alone are insufficient; independent bodies must exist to monitor performance and investigate misconduct without fear or favour.

Depoliticisation is equally essential. POLRI must operate independently of political pressures, whether from parties, government officials, or powerful business interests. Any perception that officers are serving private or political agendas undermines the credibility of the institution and damages public trust.

Modernisation must accompany cultural reform. The police force should be technologically competent and intellectually prepared to deal with contemporary challenges, including cybercrime, terrorism, and digital surveillance. However, efficiency must not come at the cost of humanity. Citizens must feel protected rather than intimidated, and technology must be employed to enhance justice rather than facilitate oppression.

Public participation is indispensable. In the digital age, citizens are empowered by information and social networks. Reform cannot succeed in isolation from the people it serves. Engaging communities, listening to their concerns, and being responsive to feedback ensures that reforms are not only implemented but also accepted and respected.

Addressing corruption within POLRI is critical. From petty street-level bribery to systemic abuses in promotions and procurement, corruption erodes legitimacy. Reform efforts must tackle these issues decisively, creating a culture where misconduct is neither tolerated nor hidden.

A transparent and accountable approach must also be applied to budgeting and resource allocation. Public awareness of how funds are used builds trust and reduces the opportunity for waste or misappropriation. Technology and open reporting systems can assist in maintaining oversight.

Community-oriented policing should be a guiding principle. Officers must engage as partners rather than distant enforcers, cultivating trust and cooperation. Visible acts of fairness, responsiveness, and protection reinforce the credibility of POLRI.

Mental health and welfare of officers should not be overlooked. Overworked, underpaid, or traumatised personnel are more prone to misconduct. Investments in well-being not only protect officers but also safeguard the public they serve.

International collaboration can strengthen reform by providing best-practice models for accountability, transparency, and professional policing. Learning from other democracies can inspire innovations suited to Indonesia’s unique challenges.

Resistance is inevitable. Those who benefit from existing hierarchies and networks may attempt to block change. Political will, civic pressure, and transparent communication are necessary to overcome these obstacles.

Before the Presidential Committee on Police Reform was officially established, the Chief of Police had already formed his own internal reform team. Analysts and media reports suggest that the existence of these two bodies raises a very real potential for overlap and tension. The concern is not only about duplication but also about questions of authority, legitimacy, and the possibility of political manoeuvring within the reform process.

One of the most obvious risks is duplication of function. Critics warn that both groups are essentially working on similar issues, namely the evaluation of POLRI’s structure, culture, and internal mechanisms. Without a clear framework for coordination, their work could easily overlap, producing recommendations that confuse rather than clarify, or worse, contradict one another.

Another challenge lies in the hierarchy and legitimacy of the two initiatives. The Chief of Police’s team operates internally and is formally under his authority, while President Prabowo’s Committee carries the weight of a presidential mandate. This dynamic could lead to clashes of authority: the police leadership may resist directions coming from an external body, while the presidential committee will naturally wish to assert its independence by issuing strong recommendations.

Observers have also highlighted the danger of politicisation. Many observers argue that the National Police Chief’s decision to form an internal reform team before the Presidential Committee was officially established can be interpreted as an act of politicisation, even if it remains formally legitimate. The timing of the move was significant, as the internal team was created prior to the Presidential Decree on the Reform Committee. This sequence of events gave the impression that the Police Chief was attempting to seize the initiative, shaping the narrative of reform as something driven from within the institution rather than a response to external oversight or presidential direction. By doing so, the leadership projected an image of autonomy, yet also risked undermining the credibility of broader institutional reform.

The risk of politicisation is further heightened when reform is initiated from the very top of a structure still tightly controlled by the same leadership. Critics suggest that such a team can easily turn into an instrument of legitimisation for the Police Chief’s authority, rather than a genuine vehicle for structural and cultural transformation. Instead of being a catalyst for change, the internal reform team could prioritise protecting the image of its leader, deflecting external scrutiny while leaving entrenched problems untouched.

Public perception is equally crucial. To many, the formation of the internal team appeared to be a strategic manoeuvre to capture the political moment and craft a narrative of proactive change. This impression became even stronger once the Presidential Reform Committee was announced, led by prominent public figures such as Prof. Mahfud MD.

Public perception is another crucial factor. Citizens may struggle to understand who actually holds responsibility for reform, creating confusion that fosters scepticism. This ambiguity can erode trust in the process as a whole. 

Ultimately, the success of POLRI reform is measured by the lived experience of citizens. When ordinary Indonesians encounter fairness instead of extortion, protection instead of intimidation, and accountability instead of impunity, the reform is genuinely meaningful. The intersection of digital technology, global threats, and public expectation makes timely, effective reform both urgent and complex. POLRI must adapt continuously, balancing innovation with ethics, authority with empathy, and power with accountability.

Reform must also address structural legacies, ensuring that ranks, divisions, and operational procedures serve the mission of justice rather than entrenching power for personal gain. Every policy, every regulation, and every operational decision must reinforce this orientation. Collaboration between internal and external reform teams is critical. Internal teams provide operational insight, while external commissions offer independent perspectives and public accountability. Coordination between these groups is necessary to avoid conflicting recommendations and to ensure cohesive implementation.

Finally, the overarching principle of reform must be the restoration of public trust. Without trust, legitimacy erodes, and the police risk being perceived as an instrument of power rather than a servant of justice. Trust is earned through consistent, fair, and transparent practices that place the citizen at the centre of all decisions.

The police as an institution did not emerge suddenly but developed gradually as societies sought mechanisms to maintain order, protect communities, and regulate behaviour within growing populations. At its core, the idea of policing has always revolved around three essential functions: the protection of life and property, the enforcement of laws and norms, and the preservation of public order. In early human societies, these tasks were usually informal, handled by kinship groups, elders, or community councils. Over time, particularly with the rise of cities and the centralisation of political authority, these responsibilities shifted towards more formalised, state-controlled bodies, giving birth to the prototype of what we now call the police.

A helpful perspective on this historical trajectory comes from Jean-Paul Brodeur’s The Policing Web (2010, Oxford University Press). Brodeur explains that policing has never been limited to a single organisation but has always existed as a “web” of practices, where formal state police coexist with other actors, from private guards to community enforcers. He concludes that the fundamental purpose of policing is not only to fight crime but also to symbolise authority and reinforce social order. In his words, policing represents “the visible arm of the state’s claim to maintain order” (Brodeur, 2010: p. 45). This shows that policing has always been as much about projecting authority and legitimacy as it has been about delivering security.

Another classic reference is David H. Bayley’s Police for the Future (1994, Oxford University Press), where he argues that the police exist not merely to catch criminals but to “reassure the public by making social order visible.” Bayley points out that across history, the symbolic presence of the police—patrolling streets, mediating disputes, or responding to emergencies—has been as important as their ability to enforce law. His conclusion underlines that the institution of policing is a social response to the need for reassurance in the face of uncertainty, conflict, and disorder.

Taken together, these insights suggest that the creation of police forces is inseparable from the evolution of political authority and the social contract. As states claimed the monopoly on legitimate violence, policing became the most visible manifestation of that power in everyday life. Whether in ancient civilisations or modern democracies, the police have stood as both guardians of safety and representatives of authority, embodying the tension between protection and control.

The historical establishment of policing as a formal institution was deeply connected to the broader ambitions of states to consolidate authority, regulate populations, and ensure stability within increasingly complex societies. At its heart, the purpose of founding police organisations was not simply the suppression of crime, but the broader goal of securing social order, protecting property, and legitimising the power of governments. The police were designed to embody the presence of the state in everyday life, to project the idea that law and authority were always close at hand, and to make the public both reassured and regulated. In this sense, policing was as much about control and governance as it was about protection and safety.

The earliest modern form of policing is often traced back to eighteenth-century Europe, particularly to the establishment of the London Metropolitan Police in 1829 under the leadership of Sir Robert Peel. Although earlier forms of organised law enforcement existed in places like France with the Lieutenance Générale de Police in Paris (created in 1667), Peel’s model in London is considered the first modern police force because it was civilian in nature, uniformed, publicly accountable, and explicitly tasked with the prevention of crime rather than simply reacting to it. Peel’s vision set the template for policing worldwide, built on principles such as policing by consent, visibility through patrol, and the notion that the legitimacy of the police depends on public trust.

Philosophically speaking, the task of the police, as revealed through its historical origins, is to act as the everyday mediator between authority and society. From the moment the first police forces were created, their role was not simply to chase criminals but to embody the constant presence of law and order in the daily lives of people. The philosophical foundation of policing lies in balancing two dimensions: protection and control. On the one hand, the police are tasked with safeguarding citizens, ensuring that people can live without fear of violence or theft. On the other hand, they serve as instruments of governance, reinforcing the authority of the state by ensuring obedience to rules, norms, and legal frameworks.

This duality is reflected in the writings of thinkers such as Max Weber, who famously described the modern state as holding the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. The police are the most visible expression of this monopoly: they are the hands of the state that touch everyday life. Unlike the military, whose function is external and exceptional, the police operate continuously within society, shaping behaviour not only through force but also through their mere presence. Philosophically, their role is preventative as much as reactive, meant to reassure the public while reminding them of the state’s authority.

Thus, from its inception, policing was meant to be more than law enforcement—it was a social institution designed to create order out of potential chaos. Its ultimate task is to embody the idea that freedom and security coexist only when there is a trusted authority to mediate conflict, enforce agreements, and regulate behaviour. This paradox—that the police protect liberty by enforcing constraint—remains at the heart of their philosophical purpose.

The goals, therefore, were twofold: to professionalise the enforcement of laws in a way that distanced it from military coercion, and to construct a body that could stand as a constant reminder of civic order. This ambition reflected a profound shift in political thought, as rulers recognised that stability could not be maintained solely through armies or ad hoc punishments, but required an institution dedicated to the ongoing, everyday management of rural and urban life.

Bahasa