By Samsul Muarif
Author of Police in the Contemporary Era (2018)
“The police are the public and the public are the police.”
— Sir Robert Peel, Principles of Law Enforcement (1829)
BORDER JOURNAL — The Indonesian National Police (Polri) is once again at the center of a crucial national debate — one that will shape not only law enforcement, but also the quality of Indonesia’s democracy. Public criticism over declining trust, allegations of abuse of power, and concerns about political instrumentalization have revived a long-standing question: how should Polri be reformed, and where should it institutionally stand?
The debate is often framed narrowly — whether Polri should remain directly under the President or be placed under a civilian ministry. Yet this is not merely a bureaucratic issue. It goes to the heart of democratic governance: accountability, civilian oversight, and the principle that the police must serve the state and society, not the government of the day or political interests.
Beyond Structure: A Deeper Crisis
Any meaningful police reform must begin with an honest assessment. Public trust in Polri has eroded, not without reason. Repeated cases involving excessive force, ethical violations, and alleged political interference—particularly during electoral periods—have weakened public confidence and raised doubts about institutional neutrality.
Two decades after Reformasi, the core structural and cultural problems remain largely unresolved. While Indonesia succeeded in separating the police from the military, reform has not fully transformed policing culture. Lingering militaristic attitudes, weak internal accountability, and ambiguous relations with political power continue to shape public perceptions of Polri — not merely as a law enforcement body, but at times as an extension of power.
Polri under the President: The Reform Consensus
Placing Polri directly under the President was a deliberate outcome of the 1998 reform agenda. The objective was clear: to ensure professionalism, neutrality, and national coherence, while preventing domination by sectoral bureaucracies or partisan interests.
This arrangement offers two main advantages. First, it reflects the post-authoritarian consensus that removed police subordination to the military and reaffirmed civilian control under an elected head of state. Second, it allows policing to be integrated into national security and law enforcement priorities without excessive bureaucratic fragmentation.
Importantly, Indonesia’s Constitution defines Polri as an instrument of the state, tasked with maintaining public order, enforcing the law, and protecting society. It does not mandate placement under a particular ministry. The current structure was designed to protect the police from narrow political or bureaucratic capture, not to insulate it from accountability.
The Case for Ministerial Placement
Still, some argue that Polri should be placed under a civilian ministry to strengthen checks and balances and administrative supervision. From a democratic theory perspective, the argument is understandable: institutions with coercive power must be subject to strong civilian oversight.
Supporters believe ministerial control would reduce excessive concentration of authority and improve coordination across government agencies. However, critics warn that such a move could undermine police independence and revive political interference—precisely the problems Reformasi sought to address. Bureaucratic control does not automatically guarantee democratic accountability; in some cases, it merely shifts the locus of political influence.
Lessons from Other Democracies
International experience suggests that effective policing depends less on formal placement and more on oversight mechanisms, professionalism, and public legitimacy. Japan’s police operate under a National Public Safety Commission, supported by the koban system that embeds officers within communities. South Korea employs independent oversight structures integrated with both executive and legislative branches. Singapore emphasizes meritocracy, integrity, and strong public accountability.
These models reflect the principle of democratic policing: legitimacy comes from public consent. Strong civilian oversight and transparency can coexist with operational effectiveness—if institutions are designed and cultures are cultivated accordingly.
The Role of Parliament and Kompolnas
In Indonesia, strengthening external oversight is critical. Parliament (DPR) must exercise its legislative and oversight roles more effectively—ensuring transparency, accountability, and respect for human rights without interfering in day-to-day police operations.
Similarly, the National Police Commission (Kompolnas) should be empowered beyond an advisory role. As a policy-review and accountability body, it can help monitor professionalism and neutrality, and provide credible public assurance that complaints and systemic issues are addressed. Oversight should not be seen as an obstacle, but as a foundation for legitimacy.
What Truly Matters
The debate over whether Polri should be under the President or a ministry often misses the core issue. Institutional placement, by itself, will not restore public trust. What matters is how Polri operates, how it is supervised, and whether its internal culture genuinely reflects professionalism, neutrality, and service to the public.
Without meaningful internal reform—merit-based promotion, ethical enforcement, human rights training, and transparency—structural change will remain cosmetic. Weak oversight, opaque decision-making, and transactional culture will continue to undermine reform, regardless of where Polri is placed institutionally.
A Democratic Imperative
Police reform is not simply an administrative exercise. It is a democratic imperative. Indonesia needs a police force that acts as an instrument of the state — accountable to law and society, not to political power or partisan interests.
This requires three concrete steps: strengthening transparency and accountability through parliamentary and independent oversight; implementing substantive internal reforms rooted in professionalism and meritocracy; and fostering openness to public scrutiny and constructive criticism.
Ultimately, reforming Polri is inseparable from Indonesia’s democratic maturity. It demands political courage—from national leaders, legislators, police leadership, and civil society alike. Only then can the vision of a professional, neutral, and trusted police force become a reality.
“Effective policing is not measured by the absence of crime, but by the presence of public trust.”
— David H. Bayley, Democratizing the Police Abroad (2001)
***
Komentar