In 12 April, 2025, Socialist Union (Perserikatan Sosialis) and Socialist Youth (Organisasi Kaum Muda Sosialis) Indonesia organized a discussion and meeting to build international solidarity against militarism under the shadow of Prabowo's regime in Indonesia. The discussion not only attended by Indonesian diaspora, but also socialist organization in several countries such as Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea, Germany and Australia.
The discussion opened by the cadre of Socialist Union of Indonesia, Leon Kastayudha. Kastayudha starts with explaining the origin of military and militarism in Indonesia. There are three elements that formed it, firstly those who were educated as KNIL (Koninklijk Nederlands Indisch Leger) officers. Secondly, the ex-PETA (Defence of the Motherland) soldiers and thirdly the people's army (laskar) that were established during the revolution.
After the independent of Indonesia in 1945, when Amir Sjarifuddin became a Prime Minister (July 1947–January 1948), he proposed the programme of Reorganisasi & Rasionalisasi (RERA) to unified the military groups as a single body with emphasizing the concept of people's military and unified peoples' militias. But it was failed, and replaced by Hatta's policy that focused on the professionalization of the military and disbandment of the people's militias.
Following the Madiun Affair in 1948[1], the military was given justification to eliminate leftist forces and consolidate power. Nasution formulated the "Middle Way": the military could participate actively in political, economic, and social life as individuals. During the New Order, this concept was institutionalized as Dwi Fungsi ABRI, placing the military into all aspects of civilian life with their structured territorial military from province to the village. The military became not only a tool of power but a new bourgeois class, managing state enterprises such as Pertamina (state enterprise of oil mining), BULOG (state enterprise of logistic distribution), etc.
In this discussion, Kastayudha also explained that the militarism in Indonesia is directly linked to global imperialist forces. Countries like the US, Israel, and Australia are well known provide training, technology, and weapons to the Indonesian military and police.
The second speaker, Surya Anta of the People's Liberation Party, articulated a critical perspective on militarism in Indonesia, situating it within the broader historical trajectory of Indonesian capitalism. He argued that militarism is intrinsically linked to a form of capitalism inherited from colonial structures – an externally imposed system that failed to produce a robust indigenous bourgeoisie. The consequence, he noted, is a weak capitalist class, incapable of initiating or sustaining meaningful structural reform. Surya stressed that the persistence of militarist influence in both the political and economic spheres of post-Suharto Indonesia is a direct result of this stagnation.
He pointed to several indicators that illustrate the enduring power of militarism: the continued operation and protection of military-owned businesses; the existence of a separate military judiciary that perpetuates impunity; and the reactivation of authoritarian-era programmes such as the Komponen Cadangan (reserve components), Pam Swakarsa, and GRIP – all of which are vestiges of the New Order regime. These phenomena, he argued, exemplify the failure to dismantle the military's entrenched position within civilian life.
Surya further contended that militarism has, in fact, deepened during the Reformasi period, particularly following the impeachment of President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur). This resurgence, he claimed, is less a result of overt military ambition and more a consequence of the political elite's duplicity and unwillingness to confront militarism head-on. Rather than undertaking comprehensive institutional reforms, the post-Reformasi political elites has accommodated the military's expanded role. For instance, the proposed Military Assistance Bill reflects an attempt to formalize military involvement in civil affairs – a move Surya described as a dangerous legitimation of military intrusion into democratic space. He noted that segments of the liberal-democratic camp have even supported such initiatives, driven by a desire to preserve capitalist order amid perceived instability.
Finally, Surya addressed the issue of Papuan self-determination, asserting that the Papuan struggle for independence must be recognized and supported as part of a broader anti-militarist and anti-colonial agenda. The expansion of territorial military commands in Papua, he warned, serves only to intensify repression and militarized violence in the region. In this context, Surya emphasized the importance of international solidarity, particularly in efforts to disrupt the flow of arms to Indonesia's military and police forces, thereby weakening the apparatus of coercion deployed against the Papuan population.
Both speakers also emphasize that today, the social movement in Indonesia still cannot move from the spontaneous characteristic. This spontaneous characteristic often emphasized the slogan of "civilian supremacy" which is insufficient – it often becomes an empty compromise. Both speakers emphasized that what must be pursued is the supremacy of the people, led by the workers and the poor. The anti-militarism struggle is not the agenda of civilian elites but a structural struggle against armed capitalism.
Building upon Kastayudha's analysis of the entanglement between militarism in Indonesia and the interests of imperialist powers, Surya elaborated on the imperative of forging international solidarity, particularly in the context of the material consequences faced by the Papuan people. He outlined four key strategic directions. First, the articulation of political statements coupled with coordinated international interventions. Second, the cessation of all foreign military training programs provided to the Indonesian armed forces. Third, the suspension of military aid and logistical support that sustains Indonesia's repressive apparatus. Fourth, the consolidation of transnational alliances with anti-militarist and grassroots movements within Papua. To realize these objectives, Surya underscored the necessity of disrupting the global chains of military provision and training that underpin Indonesia's coercive state power.
Learn from the evolution of leftist anti-militarism in Indonesia after Reformasi, Surya also told us that many leftist groups do not place anti-militarism as a core agenda. The anti-militarist narrative only gains temporary momentum (e.g., during Prabowo's rise in 2014), but lacks continuity. Historically, movements or alliance like Indonesia Tanpa Militerisme (2014) and the Musyawarah Rakyat (2015) were not sufficiently expanded.
Following the presentations, a number of participants contributed critical reflections and interventions. A comrade from Socialist Alternative Malaysia pointed to the differing historical and structural expressions of militarism in the Malaysian and Indonesian contexts, while simultaneously reaffirming their organisation's commitment to advancing international solidarity grounded in a shared anti-militarist praxis. A participant from Germany provided further analysis on the longstanding entanglements between Indonesia's military apparatus and major religious mass organisations such as Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah – institutions that have maintained a symbiotic relationship with the armed forces since the authoritarian period under Suharto's New Order. It was observed that NU, in particular, has received financial support through state defence programs, highlighting the opportunistic and material basis of military-religious alliances. A representative from an Australian socialist organisation expressed their commitment to raise awareness within the Australian people about the ongoing anti-militarist struggle in Indonesia.
For the closing statement, the speakers articulated three key conclusions. First, the necessity of reinforcing international strategies for anti-militarist mobilization. Second, the importance of situating contemporary forms of militarism within a historical materialist framework, ensuring that critiques remain politically incisive. Third, the need to differentiate clearly between the liberal demand for civilian supremacy and the more radical, transformative struggle for popular supremacy – a distinction that is fundamental to any emancipatory left project. Socialist Union also urge to build International Solidarity Committee Against Militarism. We hope that more discussions can be held and that we can start to launch consolidation and anti-militarism campaigns and protest in various cities outside Indonesia.
1. About the Madiun Affair, you can read the defence plea of D.N Aidit at the trial in the Jakarta State Court, February 24th, 1955 so called "We Accuse "Madiun Affair", https://www.marxists.org/history/indonesia/1955-AiditMadiun.htm.