In state building, which is not always similar to nation building, the achievement of the Indonesian state has been arguably left behind for decades, which makes it unworthy of being called a modern democracy.
By
Yudi Latif
·5 menit baca
ANTARA/AKBAR TADO
Residents take a close look on Friday (15/1/2021) at the West Sulawesi Governor\'s Office that collapsed in the earthquake in Mamuju, West Sulawesi. Officials of the West Sulawesi office of the Regional Disaster Mitigation Agency (BPBD) are still assessing the number of casualties and damaged buildings as a result of the 6.2 magnitude earthquake.
In state building, which is not always similar to nation building, the achievement of the Indonesian state has been arguably left behind for decades, which makes it unworthy of being called a modern democracy.
Francis Fukuyama in Political Order and Political Decay (2014) describes the existence of a modern democracy as a country with a political order based on three key elements: impersonal political organization and government, rule of law and democratic accountability.
In pre-modern countries, the character of the state was patrimonial, which treated the state and government administration as the asset and extension of the ruler and his relatives and friends. The emergence of the modern state was marked by the change in the political organization from personal relationship based on kinship and cronyism toward impersonal governance.
In its earlier stage, the phenomenon of the modern state began to appear in China about the third century, with the introduction of a recruitment system for civil servants based on impersonal criteria, such as merit, education and technical knowledge with an examination-based selection system.
The democracy is not followed by meritocracy, and it, instead, strengthens the oligarchy by taking the advantage of democratic procedures.
From this point of view, the Indonesian political system still shows its patrimonial character. For example, the leadership of political parties, regional governments, state officials, to the recruitment of the civil servants are still influenced by personal relationships of descent, kinship and cronyism. The democracy is not followed by meritocracy, and it, instead, strengthens the oligarchy by taking the advantage of democratic procedures.
The impersonal modern state requires the strict enforcement of the rule of law. In simple terms, the rule of law can be interpreted as the upholding of the rules that indiscriminately bind anyone, including the most powerful political actors. Law enforcement and law obedience should be impersonal and should not be based on personal deals.
Judging from that point of view, the Indonesian state cannot yet be called a “healthy legal government”. The tendency to personalize the law still occurs at all activities. The public still complains about the phenomenon of partiality in law enforcement. There is still resistance to law enforcement by law enforcement officials and other powerful people, although this is difficult to prove.
KOMPAS/AGUS SUSANTO
President Joko Widodo (center) visits earthquake survivors at the Manakarra Stadium, Mamuju, West Sulawesi, on Tuesday (19/1/2021).
Finally, it is difficult to uphold democratic accountability in a country without meritocracy and strong rule of law. The concept of democratic accountability places every citizen in the same position with the same rights, who deserve equal public service. Democratic accountability, therefore, needs to ensure justice, both horizontally (for all generations) and vertically (for future generations), which require inclusive and sustainable development.
The democratic accountability must not only be based on the aspirations of citizens from all walks of life and groups, but also on the "aspirations" of the living environment, flora and fauna that support the sustainability of life. Moreover, for the life of a nation along the ring of fire with a high level of disaster threats, the reluctance to listen to "the voice of nature" can bring disaster to the socio-political order.
At this point, the accountability we are fighting for should not only be based on democracy with an anthropocentric bias (hearing only human aspirations), but also on cosmocracy (hearing the aspirations of the universe). However, if democratic accountability has not been properly fulfilled, it will be difficult to achieve accountability which is based on the aspirations of nature.
KOMPAS/DIONISIUS REYNALDO TRIWIBOWO
A resident of Pekauman Hulu, Banjar Regency, South Kalimantan, stands in front of his house which was flooded on Sunday (24/1/2021).
The deficiencies in the character of the state, rule of law and democratic accountability make this country a disaster surplus. We tend to quickly blame natural factors as the culprit. In fact, behind the recurring plane crashes, forest fires during the dry season, flash floods during the rainy season, in general, we can find the weaknesses in state governance, law enforcement, and public accountability.
Humans are not animals that are solely subject to the condition of nature, but can also learn and respond to the challenges of nature, without destroying them. As a result, if there is a disaster caused by natural factors, the blame is not only on nature, but also on our capacity to overcome natural problems.
For this reason, the institutionalization of genuine consensus-based deliberative democracy is the right vehicle.
One of the ways to respond to these various ecological disasters is by presenting a political structure that is friendly to the environment, by strengthening a culture of eco-centric democracy with a “green” character. For this reason, the institutionalization of genuine consensus-based deliberative democracy is the right vehicle.
In the view of Robyn Eckersley (2004), the open nature of deliberative democratic procedures that accommodate various forms of popular representation (not just political party representation), while emphasizing the rationality of arguments and wisdom, makes it more likely that ethical-ecological values are accepted.
Kompas
Yudi Latif
The short-term perspective of decisionmakers in liberal democratic systems leaves environmental considerations in the competition for interests and power. Therefore, if democracy really wants to include environmental considerations, it must be ensured that deliberation (not competition) is the determining factor in the structure or decision-making process in a democracy.
Yudi Latif,expert at Aliansi Kebangsaan (National Alliance network)
(This article was translated byHendarsyah Tarmizi).
