Marianne Kearney, Jakarta – Removing the military from politics was one of the key agendas of the reform movement in 1998, yet legislators on a People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) committee recommended this week that the military retain its dual role until 2009.

Analysts say that an unwarranted fear by political parties about how the armed forces (TNI) would react if it was removed from the MPR, coupled with the military's own ability to lobby the parties, has allowed it to maintain the status quo.

The military, which has already agreed to give up its allocation of seats in Parliament by 2004, has argued in favour of continuing to retain seats in the MPR as a means of having a say in the decision-making process and minimising the potential for political conflict.

But as political analyst Dr Dewi Fortuna Anwar saw it, the military conned parties into believing that its personnel were not yet ready to be given the vote – hence the need to retain its allocation of seats in the legislature.

If the military did lose its 38 seats, then its personnel must be allowed to channel their political aspirations by having the vote.

But the TNI warned it could not be responsible for the consequences if that happened. "Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of the military," Dr Dewi said. "Although they all agree on the need to contain it, they don't want to upset it. Nobody thinks it is capable of a coup, but it can do a lot of damage."

Defence Minister Juwono Sudarsono said he was surprised that parties which had previously vowed to remove the military from Parliament by 2004 had allowed the military to keep its MPR seats until 2009. However, he agreed that fear of the TNI may have been a major reason.

Numerous military and police leaders have hinted at the consequences of allowing the military to take part in polls as ordinary citizens. "It will be dangerous if differences occur among groups of armed people. The military and the police should stay neutral by not voting," said Mr Hari Sabarno from the military faction.

The military, obscuring the issue somewhat, has also equated the right to vote with the right to join a political party – and noted that, as armed members of a political party, they could be very dangerous.

Political analyst Tomi Legowo said: "There is a strong perception that if you give them the right to vote, this can easily be manipulated by the political parties. And I think this is the dilemma in the Indonesian context." He argues for a five-year transitional period before troops be given the vote.

Ironically the strongest reformist party, the Indonesian Democratic Party-Perjuangan (PDI-P), which has suffered most at the hands of the military, has been behind the push to allow TNI to retain its seats.

Dr Dewi said the PDI-P has been one of the most conservative parties on the issue, despite party leader Megawati Sukarnoputri's unfortunate history with the military.

PDI-P legislator Panda Nababean said in response to questions about the party's position: "The assembly represents all layers of society throughout the country. What will happen if certain groups of people are not allowed to vote?"

Whether party members have been persuaded to allow the military to retain their seats out of fear of violent conflict or because of backroom horse trading, many commentators regret what they see as a backward step on the path to full democracy.

And as The Jakarta Post said in an editorial, the military's efforts to hold on to political power until 2009 could be a sign that it has no intention of leaving politics.