Guardians of Order or Mirrors of Power? (5)

Many observers have expressed scepticism following the inauguration of the Police Reform Acceleration Team in Indonesia. Their concerns stem not from the idea of reform itself, but from the composition and perceived intent behind the team. While the initiative was announced with fanfare, promising a new era of transparency and accountability, critics argue that the team’s makeup undermines its credibility. The inclusion of several former high-ranking police officials—individuals deeply embedded in the institution’s legacy—has raised eyebrows. To many, it feels less like a bold leap forward and more like a cautious shuffle within familiar corridors.

The absence of civil society representatives, independent academics, and human rights advocates has further fuelled doubts. Reform, they argue, cannot be orchestrated solely by those who once held the reins. It requires external scrutiny, fresh perspectives, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. Some have even questioned whether this team is genuinely tasked with transformation, or merely with managing public perception in the wake of recent scandals. In short, while the word “reform” has been loudly proclaimed, the substance behind it remains elusive.

If civil society representatives, academics, and activists were genuinely involved in the reform of Indonesia’s police force, their roles would be both critical and transformative. Academics would contribute rigorous analysis, policy frameworks, and comparative insights from global policing models. Their presence ensures that reform is not merely reactive, but grounded in evidence and long-term institutional design.

Activists, particularly those engaged in human rights and legal advocacy, would serve as watchdogs and conscience-keepers. They would highlight systemic abuses, amplify marginalised voices, and push for accountability mechanisms that go beyond internal reviews. Their lived experience and proximity to affected communities make them indispensable in shaping reforms that are just and inclusive.

Civil society at large—journalists, community leaders, and grassroots organisations—would act as a democratic counterweight. They would ensure transparency, monitor implementation, and foster public trust. Without their involvement, reform risks becoming an insular exercise, detached from the realities it seeks to address.

These groups would not merely advise—they would challenge, provoke, and co-create. Their inclusion would signal a shift from top-down control to collaborative governance, where the police are not above society, but embedded within it. 

Observers and members of the public have offered mixed but largely critical assessments of the newly inaugurated Police Reform Acceleration Team. While the formation of such a body could have marked a turning point in institutional accountability, many analysts argue that its composition undermines that potential. The team, chaired by former Chief Justice Jimly Asshiddiqie, includes several former police generals and high-ranking officials, such as Idham Aziz, Badrodin Haiti, and the current Chief of Police, Listyo Sigit Prabowo.

This dominance of insiders has prompted concern. One of the prominent policing analysts noted that the team’s makeup risks weakening the legitimacy of the reform process. He argued that without representatives from civil society, academia, or human rights organisations, the team may lack the critical distance needed to challenge entrenched practices. Some have even suggested that the team could duplicate or dilute the role of Kompolnas, the existing oversight body, rather than complement it.

Although figures like Mahfud MD and Yusril Ihza Mahendra bring legal gravitas, their political affiliations have also raised questions about impartiality. In essence, critics fear that the team may serve more as a symbolic gesture than a genuine engine of transformation.

Power is not merely the ability to command; it is the burden of responsibility. In the context of policing, authority must be exercised not for self-aggrandisement or political expediency, but for the welfare of society. The history of Polri, from its colonial legacy to the post-Reformasi era, illustrates that the misuse of power corrodes both legitimacy and trust. A police force that relies on fear rather than respect becomes an instrument of oppression rather than a guardian of justice.

Philosophically, leadership in policing is inseparable from ethics. Ethical leadership demands not only adherence to law but alignment with moral principles. The leader’s role is to set the tone for behaviour, to cultivate a culture where integrity, transparency, and accountability are not optional but foundational. As Max Weber noted in his studies on authority, legitimacy stems from perceived morality and rationality, not mere coercion. Without ethical guidance, reforms risk being superficial, constrained to uniforms, protocols, and slogans, while the soul of the institution remains unaltered.

In The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation (1947, Free Press), Max Weber frames police legitimacy within his broader concept of legitimate authority, arguing that the public’s acceptance of police power depends on the social belief that this authority is exercised according to recognised and valid norms. Weber explains that coercive institutions cannot rely on force alone; they must be grounded in a shared understanding that their commands are justified within the prevailing order. He identifies three foundations of legitimacy—traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational—and the police, as a modern bureaucratic institution, draw their authority primarily from the legal-rational type, meaning that citizens grant legitimacy when they perceive officers as operating through impersonal rules, formal procedures, and predictable conduct. In Weber’s view, legitimacy is maintained when the police embody bureaucratic professionalism, act consistently with codified laws, and avoid arbitrary or personalised uses of power, thereby reinforcing trust in the system that authorises their actions. Ultimately, Weber suggests that political order depends on a stable belief in the validity of lawful authority, and the police maintain legitimacy by continuously demonstrating that their coercive powers serve the public good under a rational and impartial framework.

In Why People Obey the Law (2006, Princeton University Press), Tom Tyler argues that legitimacy arises not from the fear of punishment but from a deeper belief that legal authorities act fairly and embody moral principles shared by the community. He explains that when people perceive the police and courts as procedurally just—treating individuals with dignity, offering neutral decision-making, allowing people to voice their concerns, and demonstrating transparency—they are more willing to accept outcomes even when those outcomes are unfavourable. Tyler maintains that moral alignment plays an equally crucial role: citizens obey the law when they feel that legal authorities reflect their own sense of right and wrong, thereby transforming compliance from a response to coercion into an expression of social belonging. He concludes that a coercive state may secure short-term obedience, but only procedural fairness and moral resonance can sustain long-term legitimacy, because they foster voluntary cooperation rather than reluctant submission.

Tom Tyler argues in Why People Obey the Law (2006, Princeton University Press) that people comply with legal rules primarily because they view the law and its institutions as legitimate rather than because they fear punishment. He explains that legitimacy is earned when legal authorities demonstrate procedural justice, meaning that individuals are treated with respect, given a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and offered decisions that appear impartial and transparent. When citizens believe that the process is fair, they are far more willing to accept outcomes, even unfavourable ones, because they trust the intentions and integrity of those who exercise authority. Tyler further emphasises that obedience grows stronger when the law aligns with the community’s moral values, making compliance feel like an affirmation of shared principles rather than a coerced response. Ultimately, he concludes that stable and enduring legal order depends on voluntary cooperation, and such cooperation flourishes only when people experience fairness, dignity, and moral resonance within the systems that govern them.

James Ortmeier, in his Leadership, Ethics, and Policing: Challenges for the 21st Century (2020, Pearson), emphasises that ethical leadership is not a mere accessory to organisational function but the backbone of an effective police force. Ortmeier argues that officers at all levels must internalise values such as integrity, transparency, and accountability. These values must be demonstrated consistently by leaders, who serve as role models, reinforcing the idea that ethical conduct is not optional but central to institutional legitimacy. His perspective directly supports the argument in this chapter that Polri’s reform is not merely structural, but fundamentally moral: without leaders who exemplify ethics, no amount of procedural reform can achieve lasting impact.

Michael McLean, in Understanding the Bounds of Legitimacy: Weber’s Facets of Legitimacy and the Police Empowerment Hypothesis (2021), provides a theoretical framework that complements Ortmeier’s practical focus. McLean applies Max Weber’s legitimacy theory to modern policing, illustrating how public trust depends not solely on legal authority but on moral perception and procedural fairness. He argues that a police force gains sustainable effectiveness when its power is perceived as legitimate by the community it serves. This reinforces the chapter’s assertion that Polri must cultivate legitimacy through ethical leadership, transparency, and adherence to procedural justice, rather than relying on coercive power or fear.

Both Ortmeier and McLean converge on a critical insight: reforming a police institution is inseparable from shaping the moral character of its leaders. Ortmeier provides the operational lens, highlighting leadership strategies and ethical practices, while McLean offers the theoretical lens, explaining why legitimacy and public trust are indispensable for police effectiveness. Integrating these perspectives underscores that ethical leadership is both a philosophical and practical necessity, forming the foundation upon which Polri’s ongoing reform must rest.

The integration of Ortmeier and McLean’s scholarship into the discussion strengthens the claim that Polri’s reform must be ethical, principled, and legitimacy-driven. Leadership that models integrity, accountability, and fairness not only guides officers’ behaviour but signals to the public that the police are a trusted institution, capable of exercising power responsibly and morally. Without this dual focus on ethics and legitimacy, reform risks being superficial and short-lived.

Ethical Leadership: Global Challenges and Perspectives (edited by Carla Millar & Eve Poole, 2011, Palgrave Macmillan) presents a wide‑ranging exploration of ethical leadership in a globally connected world, focusing on its challenges, multiple cultural perspectives, and future trajectories. Some of the contributors offer ideas directly relevant to policing reform. For example, the chapter by Kurt April, Kai Peters, Kirsten Locke & Caroline Mlambo titled “Leading Ethically: What Helps and What Hinders” examines both enablers and obstacles to ethical leadership in organisations. They argue that ethical leadership depends not only on admirable values but on systems, culture, visibility of role models, and institutional accountability. These themes resonate with the necessity in policing reform of moving beyond rules and into culture, example‑setting, and public legitimacy.

Another relevant contribution is Lindsay J. Thompson’s “A Moral Compass for the Global Leadership Labyrinth”, where the argument is made that modern organisations must embed moral purpose into their leadership practices, and that legitimacy arises when leaders act out of value rather than purely out of power or expediency. For policing reform, this suggests that building legitimacy for Polri means embedding ethical purpose and values into everyday practice, not just restructuring or rearming.

In sum, the book offers three key takeaways for a reforming police institution like Polri: first, ethical leadership is foundational (not optional); second, legitimacy and trust are built through consistent ethical action, cultural embedding, and institutional architecture;; and third, global‑local nuances matter—leadership must reflect local values, context and culture rather than simply importing external models. Police reform is not just about procedures, but about morals and philosophy. 

Reforming Polri requires confronting the dual challenge of institutional inertia and societal expectation. Officers are not blank slates; they inherit habits, attitudes, and biases embedded over decades. Leaders must therefore combine firmness with empathy, discipline with discernment. Ethical guidance cannot be imposed by decree alone; it must be internalised, exemplified, and rewarded. Leadership becomes a form of moral pedagogy, where every decision teaches a lesson about justice, fairness, and duty.

Power, in this context, is a trust. The police wield authority on behalf of the people, and with that authority comes the obligation to act with restraint and discernment. Shakespeare’s observation in Measure for Measure, “Liberty is yet to be learned,” resonates deeply here: freedom and authority coexist only when guided by conscience. Polri’s reforms are therefore not merely structural or procedural, but philosophical — they must cultivate officers capable of exercising judgment informed by ethics, empathy, and the public good.

Transparency is central to ethical leadership. In a society where citizens can instantly record and broadcast misconduct, concealment is impossible and accountability is inevitable. Leaders must not only sanction wrongdoing but anticipate systemic vulnerabilities. Preventive ethics — cultivating honesty, respect, and impartiality before crises arise — is far more powerful than reactive punishment. Ethical leadership, in this sense, is proactive, pedagogical, and visionary.

Moreover, the philosophy of power in policing acknowledges human imperfection. No leader or officer is infallible; mistakes will occur. The difference lies in how the institution responds. A culture that punishes without reflection breeds fear and deception, whereas one that investigates, educates, and reforms strengthens both individuals and the collective. Leadership must therefore integrate humility into authority, recognising that power exercised without wisdom is self-defeating.

Reform in Polri is also about reconciling the tension between security and liberty. Policing cannot thrive on unchecked power, nor can society endure without safety. Ethical leadership finds the balance, ensuring that measures taken to protect citizens do not erode the very rights they are meant to uphold. In practical terms, this means protocols, oversight, community engagement, and continual moral education, all under the supervision of leaders committed to justice rather than convenience.

Ultimately, the moral horizon of Polri reform emphasises sustainability. Reforms that ignore philosophical underpinnings risk collapse when leadership changes. Ethical leadership ensures that reforms are institutionalised, embedded in the culture, and resilient to political and social fluctuations. In other words, a police force that internalises the principles of integrity, responsibility, and public service becomes not just a mechanism of law, but a pillar of democratic society.

Reforming Polri is a moral and philosophical enterprise. It is about more than procedures, ranks, or equipment; it is about cultivating a culture of ethical authority, responsible power, and leadership that consistently aligns with the public good. Polri’s future depends not solely on regulations, but on the conscience and character of its leaders, who must embody the principles they seek to instil in every officer.

[Part 6]
[Part 4]

Bahasa