The Complexity of Coordination Among Indonesian State Intelligence Institutions

Sunarko ,Sumartono Sumartono ,M.r Khairul Muluk ,Bambang Santoso Haryono

doi:10.7176/rhss/9-2-13

Abstract

The reforms in Indonesia have given birth to innovations in institutional arrangement and has become one of the priorities for democracy that is still being fought for. The problem that arises after the reforms have taken place is not all state institutions are arranged and in accordance with the values and principles of democracy, including the arrangement of state intelligence institutions in Indonesia. The existing State Intelligence Institutions (besides Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) and Indonesian National Police (POLRI)) have Task Implementation Operational Standards (SOPT) which are based on the duties and capabilities possessed, but are not supported by adequate capacity building, so that these institutions are less able to carry out the mandate stated in Article 2 of Law No. 17 Year 2011. Not all existing National Intelligence Institutions’ personnels (besides TNI and POLRI) have professional resource capabilities in the intelligence implementation as mentioned in Article 2 and Article 3 of Law No. 17 Year 2011. Almost most of the people or citizens in Indonesia assess intelligence as someone who is looking for information about crime and only in the scope of POLRI and TNI. The complexity of State Intelligence Institutions’ Coordination in Indonesia is not something that needs to be made a scapegoat for the failure of intelligence’s tasks. On the contrary, it must be seen as a source to achieve the success in carring out the tasks. Therefore the solution that can be done is by the Development of Capacity Building of the State Intelligence Institutions which is supported by the Network Type Command (NTC) coordination model, namely HTM, MTM and NTM model developments. The NTC model is a large coordination model with a broad network but still under one control or command, so that information processing can become increasingly faster and more accurate which in turn can increase high power in carrying out early detection and warning. This model is also able to make a more significant contribution in developing the operational plans and strategies of state intelligence institutions in order to achieve the role, purpose and function of state intelligence effectively. Keywords: Complexity, Institution, Intelligence, The Republic of Indonesia DOI : 10.7176/PPAR/9-1-05

Highlights

Regarding the intelligence implementation, various forms and sources of information in early detection are a first and fundamental step in administering intelligence operational strategies
Findings and Discussion The legal basis for coordination among Intelligence institutions in Indonesia is in accordance with Article 28 paragraph (2) of Law No 17 Year 2011 concerning State Intelligence, which stated that; “The State Intelligence Agency (BIN) administers the coordinating function of the State Intelligence”
There is not yet a place that unites in the implementation of coordination among state intelligence institutions in Indonesia

Summary

Introduction

Various forms and sources of information in early detection are a first and fundamental step in administering intelligence operational strategies. Public administration science is expected to carry out the mandate in providing solutions to various problems, including intelligence institutions in Indonesia. “The dynamism of state/public administration in an effort to provide its expediency for the sake of public service has given birth to several models, namely, originating from contemporary state administration, seen from the mindset of classical bureaucratic models that have two important components, namely the structure or framework of an organization and ways used to administer people and jobs within the framework of the organization. The institutional model emphasizes the discussion of the real pattern of organizational behavior. The human relations model emphasizes the pattern of group dynamics, sensitivity training and organizational development. The public choice model focuses more on promoting employee satisfaction, personal development, individual dignity and public choice, (Frederickson, 2010)”

Methods

Results

Conclusion