Imanuddin Razak, Jakarta – At a glance, there was nothing significant about the proposal by departing Indonesian Military (TNI) chief Gen. Endriartono Sutarto that soldiers be allowed to exercise their right to vote in the 2009 general election.

The general's statement, made around the time he was being replaced by Air Marshal Djoko Suyanto in the middle of last month, should simply have been ignored, as it was made by an officer who was leaving his post and thus had no authority to issue strategic policies.

Some observers have taken Endriartono's remark as trying to influence his successor, delivering a "must-do" list to Suyanto.

This is certainly not unprecedented. A few days before he was replaced as TNI chief by Endriartono in June 2001, Adm. Widodo AS made the equally controversial announcement that the TNI wished to remain in the national legislature until 2009.

What made Widodo's statement so controversial was that it was made while deliberations were underway on the bill on general elections – submitted by the government in May 2001 to the House of Representatives, and which proposed allowing members of the TNI, along with the National Police, to vote in the 2004 elections.

Widodo was referring to the 2000 People's Consultative Assembly decree that granted seats to the TNI/National Police in the Assembly until 2009, in exchange for which members of the military and police would not be allowed to vote in elections. The decree also states that both forces must remain neutral and stay out of politics.

Widodo's statement was strongly criticized by the public and the House/People's Consultative Assembly, which responded by issuing a regulation that abolished the "automatic representation" of the TNI/Police in the House and/or Assembly in the 2004 elections. At the same time, the regulation delayed giving the vote to TNI members until 2009.

However, unlike Widodo's statement, which received near unanimous rejection from the public and the House/Assembly, Endriartono's proposal has divided the nation.

Those who back Endriartono base their argument on the 2003 laws on presidential elections and legislative elections, which grant all Indonesians – regardless of their occupation – the right to vote in the elections. On the other side, those who oppose the proposal say it could lead to the sort of military abuses the country witnessed in the past.

Despite the splitting of opinion, there are questions about just how significant Endriartono's statement really is, given that if the proposal were endorsed, it would only affect some 500,000 votes of active military soldiers, roughly equal to one seat in the House.

But we should not forget that in a direct presidential election, 500,000 votes could be enough to swing the election for a candidate.

And that figure is even larger if you include active officers of the National Police, who are eligible to vote in the elections and might be influenced by the existing chain-of-command principle applied in both the military and police institutions.

Include family members of active and retired TNI soldiers and police officers, grouped in the Association of Retired Indonesian Military Personnel, the Association of Wives of Indonesian Military Personnel, the Association of Children of Active and Retired Indonesian Military Personnel and different police organizations, then the proposal for TNI soldiers to be given the right to vote in the 2009 elections becomes much more significant.

It is not inconceivable that, if allowed to vote, the military could decide a direct presidential election. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono received 69,266,350 votes, or 60.68 percent of the total vote in the 2004 presidential election, with many observers pointing to his military background as the reason for his strong showing.

Perhaps now is the time for the country to allow military soldiers and police officers to exercise their right to vote in elections.

But first we need clear regulations to prevent this huge potential block of votes from being manipulated to support a presidential candidate, without thought for that candidate's track record, credibility, capability and, last but not least, acceptability.