Policy Discussions and Networking

Policy Discussions and Networking

In order to socialize its work and agenda, ProPatria also organized policy discussion meetings and focused group discussions in an informal setting with the military, parliamentarians, and NGOs. Drawing its strength from personal networks of its members, ProPatria’s policy discussion series managed to attract a substantial number of participants. Many of them were key stakeholders and occupied impor- tant policy-making positions within the military, Ministry of Defense, and the Parliament. Minister of Defense Juwono Sudarsono himself often participated in these meetings and gave his support to the process. Indeed, several members of ProPatria WG are his former students at the University of Indonesia, while others

have maintained close association with him in one form or another. 6 These meetings

6 During his post-graduate years at the London School of Economics, Rizal Sukma, for example, worked under Professor Michael Leifer, with whom Minister Sudarsono also worked when he was

a Ph.D. student at the same school. Edy Prasetyono and Andi Widjajanto were Minister Sudarsono’s students when he was a professor at the University of Indonesia. Minister Sudarsono was also an external examiner to Kusnanto Anggoro when he was defending his Ph.D. thesis at the University of Glasgow, UK. Many members of the Commission I of the Indonesian Parliament, which deals with foreign affairs and defense, are also close and long time personal friends of members of ProPatria WG.

7 The Role of Civil Society in Indonesia’s Military Reform 157

often took place in the evening, as one member of ProPatria WG puts it, “after office hours when officers can think and talk like civilians.” 7 The good use of networking capacity, particularly cultivated carefully and tirelessly by ProPatria Executive Director Hari Prihatono, proved to be one of the most crucial assets of the group in broadening its acceptance not only by NGO activists and the media, but also by military officers and government officials. In this context, it is also important to note that close personal networking with, and support from, pro-reform elements within the military itself proved to be crucial for the success of ProPatria WG. 8

Networking and close working relationships with broader civil society actors also constitute an important feature of ProPatria’s strategies. Members of ProPatria WG were also regularly invited by human rights NGOs to share their knowledge and expertise on military and defense affairs. For example, Imparsial, a leading human rights NGO that run a number of courses on security sector reform for journalists, often invited members of ProPatria WG to give lectures and lead the discussions in such programs. Individual members of ProPatria WG also participated in various press conferences held by NGOs on certain aspects of military reform. Additionally, they made themselves available to the media who regularly asked for their opinions on the subject. Members of ProPatria WG also provided a pool of talents for talk shows broadcasted by television and radio across the country. In other words, the media served as an important conduit for these civilian military reformers to raise public awareness on the imperative of reforming the military and bringing it under the civilian control.