Problems of law enforcement and security in Indonesia are related to the role and position of the National Police (NP) as an institution in homeland security affairs.
Some cases that violate the public’s rights relating to security
affairs, such as the forced dispersal of Irshad Manji’s book discussion
by the Islam Defenders Front (FPI) and threats against religious
activities of the Ahmadiyah community, indicate that the NP as an
institution does not optimally perform its role and functions.
However,
the NP are also considered incapable of solving anarchistic cases, like
violent motorcycle gangs that involve military personnel.
In a
broader sense, the NP are not able to solve social conflicts
successfully. Conflicts in Bima, West Nusa Tenggara, and Mesuji in
Lampung are evidence that the presence of NP in these land and mining
conflict areas only makes matters worse.
Meanwhile, the recent
unsolved shootings of foreigners and local civilians in Papua reflect
poor security management in the region as a result of a less prudent NP
role in security and order.
An institution like the NP with its
inherent corruption requires strong leadership by a visionary leader. If
we use the analogy of a broom, the head of the NP must be a clean and
committed person who will sweep all dirt away from the institution.
In
addition, police force leaders must also be free from political
interests. This can be difficult when the NP’s head enjoys close
relations to political elites or leads the institution based on
political agreements.
It renders the police chief a political hostage during the period of his leadership.
It is not the first time that the chief of police has become a political hostage of the ruling government.
The
two previous regimes also heralded the NP chief as part of efforts to
protect government policies. Strong leadership from the institution’s
head would ensure the collectivity of the NP as an institution, which is
sadly lacking with the current NP chief, Gen. Timur Pradopo.
A
series of controversial decisions made by Pradopo indicates political
obligations on his part. One of his decisions that raised questions was
when he signed the draft of the National Security Bill as the NP had
previously agreed that the draft be approved by the House of
Representatives.
Three former NP chiefs rejected the bill,
arguing that being assessed would be detrimental to the NP as an
institution. In addition, the NP was “cheated” when the Social Conflict
Management Bill was passed into law by the House.
The law
authorizes the military’s involvement in the management of social
conflicts, a Homeland Security issue that is actually the responsibility
of the NP.
The impact on the NP is poor synchronization of its
personnel to the institution’s roles and functions. Various programs and
policies introduced by previous NP chiefs, such as the NP Grand
Strategy, have become nothing more but formalities.
The period
of 2010-2015 is the second period of building police partnerships, where
the NP should be more open to and with the public and create public
partnerships to improve the country’s internal security.
Community
Policing, the main NP program introduced under the leadership eras of
Sutanto and Bambang Hendarso Danuri, has sunk without trace.
The
NP are merely repeating their previous role and function of “hit and
run”, with no encouragement and careful planning as would be expected
from a professional police force.
Steps taken are based more on
image and clarification of a number of issues involving the NP, taken
from the road map for managing professional institutions.
Based
on above facts, the NP are about to go back to the dark ages where it is
seen as being part of circumstances with unresolved political debts and
politicization within the institution.
Even worse, without a concept, strong leadership or a commitment to clean up the institution will only drag the NP down further.
A
professional police force is greatly desired by the public. Therefore,
encouragement for the NP to become committed with norms and to perform
their roles and functions optimally should be effectively carried out.
One
of those is to encourage the NP leadership to return to the Grand
Strategy program and continue the excellent programs that were initiated
by previous NP chiefs.
Without it, the NP will surrender to circumstances, which will negate the commitment to promote professionalism.
Therefore, the government, the House and the public must work together to continually supervise the NP.
The writer is a lecturer at the School of Governance Studies, Padjadjaran University, Bandung