Under President Prabowo Subianto, a former general, Indonesia’s military has steadily expanded its influence beyond its core duties. What was once a painful lesson of the country’s past—the entanglement of the armed forces in politics, business and civilian governance—now appears to be resurfacing in new forms.
For many Indonesians, the military remains one of the few institutions consistently deserving of respect and trust. Surveys repeatedly show that the armed forces enjoy the highest approval ratings among state institutions, a striking contrast with the declining confidence in political parties, parliament, or law enforcement agencies.
This trust is not without reason. During natural disasters, it is often soldiers who arrive first, establishing shelters, distributing aid and restoring infrastructure. And during moments of national insecurity, including confrontations in the South China Sea and border disputes, Indonesians look to the military as the ultimate guarantor of sovereignty. The image of disciplined, selfless service has cemented the military’s special place in the national imagination, a legacy dating back to Indonesia’s independence struggle.
Despite this, lines must be drawn between military and non-military duties.
A major concern is the increasing presence of retired generals and officers in state-owned enterprises. The footprint of military veterans in the economy is unmistakable, including in energy, transport, infrastructure and agriculture. While the government argues that their discipline and experience benefit corporate management, critics say this displaces civilian professionals and fosters a culture of hierarchy over merit. This also risks creating a new oligarchy, with networks of ex-officers consolidating influence across the state and the economy.
Active duty officers were also reportedly placed in civilian positions, a practice formally banned since democratic reforms in 1998. Proponents cite coordination and stability as justifications, but critics see it as blurring institutional lines and undermining civilian supremacy. Such moves echo a time when the military wielded authority over both defence and domestic governance, raising concerns of a slow return to that model.
The expansion of territorial commands has also drawn scrutiny. New regional commands have been established across several provinces, ostensibly to improve local security and bring the military closer to communities. Yet history reminds Indonesians that the territorial command structure once served as a tool for authoritarian control under president Suharto, when the military was embedded in political and civilian life. Critics also warn that this expansion risks duplicating local civilian authority and weakening decades of decentralisation.
The military’s involvement in government programs unrelated to defence, such as food security initiatives and the National Nutrition Agency, has provoked further criticism. Officials tout the military’s logistical strengths, but policy experts caution that this encroachment militarises civilian policy, weakening ministry capacity and undermining accountability.
Controversy also surrounded the proposed revision of Indonesia’s military law, which sought to officially broaden the military’s mandate into domestic governance and non-defence sectors. Civil society groups condemned the move as legitimising practices long criticised as backdoor expansions of power. While the bill has yet to advance decisively, its very introduction signals the military’s growing confidence to reclaim an authority that democratic reforms once curtailed.
These trends were vividly illustrated when mass protests erupted against government policies in August. Military units were deployed alongside police to manage crowds and secure public spaces. While some citizens viewed this presence as maintaining order, others saw it as intimidation and a return to the heavy-handed tactics of the past. The deployment underscored the fragility of civilian control over security operations.
All these developments raise urgent questions about the state of Indonesia’s democracy. Modern civil-military theory emphasises that militaries exist to defend the nation, not to govern it. Democracies require clear boundaries: civilians set national priorities while militaries execute defence policy, within professional limits. When soldiers become administrators, corporate managers or political actors, they risk eroding their professionalism and undermining democratic institutions.
Indonesia’s post-1998 reforms—including abolishing the military’s authority over domestic governance; separating police and military forces; and strengthening civilian oversight—were designed to prevent authoritarian backsliding. Yet the trajectory of recent years suggests these safeguards are weakening. Each appointment of a general to a state-owned enterprise, each new territorial command and each revised law incrementally expand military influence in civilian spheres, quietly reclaiming space for the armed forces.
The question is not merely how much respect Indonesians afford the military, but how much power they are willing to cede back to it. Trust and admiration are valuable assets, but they can mask deeper risks. A popular military with unchecked reach may feel little incentive to restrain itself. Meanwhile, democracy suffers as civilian institutions lose influence and authority.
Indonesia’s military deserves recognition for defending Indonesia and assisting citizens in times of crisis. Yet its greatest service may lie not in expanding influence, but in exercising restraint. Professionalism requires understanding where the uniform should not tread. Without such discipline, Indonesia risks seeing its democratic promise erode under the shadow of a powerful, overreaching military.