Irine Hiraswari Gayatri, Jakarta – Militarism, broadly understood as the dominance of military institutions, values and interests in civilian spheres, poses an enduring challenge to democratic governance.
In the case of Indonesia, a nation that has struggled to consolidate democratic reforms since the fall of Soeharto's authoritarian New Order regime in 1998, the re-emergence of militarism, particularly through legal instruments like the 2025 revised Indonesian Military (TNI) Law, raises urgent questions about the future of democracy, civil liberties and gender equality.
While the Reformasi era was marked by steps toward limiting the military's political role and restoring civilian supremacy, recent legal and policy shifts suggest a creeping re-militarization that threatens to reverse those gains.
The revision of Law No. 34/2004 on the TNI, which includes provisions expanding military engagement in non-defense affairs, signals a worrisome shift. It not only undermines democratic oversight and participatory governance, but also aggravates the structural marginalization of women, compromising Indonesia's commitments to gender justice and human rights.
The revised TNI Law expands the scope of military functions beyond conventional defense roles, legitimizing military involvement in areas such as disaster management, agriculture, food security, infrastructure development and counterterrorism.
In practice, this formalizes the military's presence in everyday civilian life, blurs the boundaries between military and civilian jurisdictions and reinstates the logic of "dual function" that Reformasi had explicitly sought to dismantle.
The law also permits active-duty military personnel to occupy civilian positions, reviving practices that had previously allowed the military to dominate key areas of governance during the New Order era.
Equally troubling is the military's growing role in internal security affairs, a domain that should fall under the purview of civilian law enforcement agencies. By expanding military authority in domestic security without strong civilian oversight, the law dilutes mechanisms of democratic accountability and promotes a top-down, coercive approach to governance.
Such a security-centered model of governance severely undermines civic rights. One of the most immediate consequences is the shrinking of civic space. When military institutions are empowered to operate within civilian domains, they often do so without transparency or public scrutiny.
This emboldens a culture of surveillance, intimidation and repression against civil society actors. Human rights defenders, student organizations, activists and journalists increasingly find themselves labeled as threats to national security.
The imposition of new regulations requiring foreign journalists to seek police permits to report from within Indonesia exemplifies this trend, constraining press freedom and the right to information.
The expansion of military authority also discourages critical thinking. Military culture typically favors hierarchical, command-based structures that are inherently resistant to dialogue and dissent.
This clashes with the democratic ideals of deliberation and debate. In educational institutions, for instance, military presence often results in the surveillance of student activities and the criminalization of protests or dissenting viewpoints.
During recent mass protests against the revised TNI Law, demonstrators were met with heavy-handed responses, including arbitrary detentions and violence. Such actions signal a disturbing shift toward authoritarian tendencies within a formally democratic system.
Another concern is the issue of impunity. Military personnel have long enjoyed a level of legal protection that exempts them from the jurisdiction of civilian courts. This impunity weakens the rule of law and denies justice to victims of military abuses.
A prominent example is the 2014 Paniai case in Papua, where military personnel opened fire on civilians participating in a peaceful protest. Despite the findings of the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM), accountability has been limited, illustrating the difficulty of subjecting military actors to civilian judicial processes. Such cases reinforce a culture of unaccountability that further undermines trust in democratic institutions.
Militarism also has profound gendered implications. It is not a gender-neutral phenomenon; rather, it is deeply embedded in patriarchal norms that valorize aggression, dominance and control; traits historically coded as masculine.
These norms marginalize feminine-coded values such as care, cooperation and dialogue. In this way, militarism reinforces regressive gender stereotypes and obstructs the development of inclusive, gender-sensitive governance.
Women are especially vulnerable in militarized environments. One of the most visible consequences is the prevalence of gender-based violence (GBV) particularly in conflict-prone regions. These acts are not isolated incidents but reflect a systemic pattern in which violence against women is used as a tactic of control and intimidation.
Despite numerous reports, justice remains elusive due to structural impunity and the military's dominance in security narratives.
Beyond physical violence, militarism also results in the structural exclusion of women from political and public life. The increased role of the military in governance often sidelines women from key decision-making processes, particularly in peace and security matters.
Although Indonesia has formally adopted the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda as outlined in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, the growing influence of the military in civilian domains undermines efforts to implement this agenda meaningfully.
The marginalization of women from security policymaking not only violates their rights, but also deprives the nation of inclusive and sustainable approaches to conflict resolution and governance.
Papua offers a sobering example of how militarization affects women at every level. As one of Indonesia's most militarized provinces, Papua has long endured military operations, surveillance and repression.
Studies reveal how militarism perpetuates fear, trauma and displacement, particularly for indigenous Papuan women. Women have recounted experiences of witnessing family members tortured, being forcibly displaced from their homes and living in impoverished conditions due to ongoing military presence.
Reports from Papuan women's groups and human rights organizations document patterns of abuse, including violence and intimidation. These abuses persist in part because of the military's dual role as both an enforcer of security and a provider of development, in building infrastructure, for example, thus complicating public narratives and suppressing dissent.
In such environments, women are politically silenced, economically marginalized and isolated from access to essential services and participation in public life.
The entrenchment of militarism jeopardizes Indonesia's hard-won democratic gains. The post-1998 transition was grounded in the dismantling of military dominance in politics and the establishment of civilian-led governance.
By allowing the military to re-enter the civilian sphere under the guise of national resilience or crisis management, Indonesia risks regressing into authoritarian patterns. The revision of the TNI Law is not merely a technical or bureaucratic adjustment; it reflects a fundamental shift in power dynamics that privileges coercion over participation and secrecy over transparency.
Proponents argue that the military's expanded roles are necessary to address pressing national challenges such as terrorism, natural disasters or food insecurity. However, these challenges must be met through democratic means, not by circumventing the principles of civilian oversight, legal accountability and inclusive governance.
The encroachment of militarism into civilian life stands in direct conflict with Indonesia's obligations under international human rights frameworks such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the WPS agenda.
These frameworks call for gender equality, the protection of civic space and inclusive peacebuilding, all of which are undermined by unchecked military power.
In conclusion, militarism in democratic Indonesia, which is embodied most recently through the revised TNI Law, represents a serious threat to civil liberties, democratic accountability and gender justice.
It potentially re-legitimizes authoritarian practices, entrenches patriarchal norms and exacerbates the vulnerability of women, especially in conflict-prone and marginalized regions.
To protect its democratic achievements and honor its human rights commitments, Indonesia must resist the normalization of military involvement in civilian governance.
This includes reaffirming civilian supremacy, limiting military roles to strictly defense-related matters and ensuring that gender perspectives are at the center of all governance reforms.
Only through such deliberate and sustained efforts can Indonesia safeguard both its democracy and the rights of all its citizens.
[The writer is a senior researcher at the Research Centre for Politics, the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN).]