Sosiologi Politik Universitas Pamulang
Ratri Istania
www.raconquista.wordpress.com
SISTEM POLITIK INDONESIA MENUJU DEMOKRASI
08/05/2007 04:08 WIB
Sengketa Pilkada Kini Ditangani MK
Ramdhan Muhaimin - detikcom
Jakarta - Sengketa hasil penghitungan suara kerap mewarnai pelaksanaan
pilkada tingkat gubernur di berbagai daerah. Banyak persengketaan yang
berakhir di Mahkamah Agung (MA).
Pilkada DKI yang akan digelar Agustus mendatang tidak tertutup kemungkinan
terjadi persengketaan serupa seperti yang terjadi di daerah lain. Namun
berdasarkan UU 22/2007 tentang penyelenggara pemilu kepala daerah dan wakil
kepala daerah, penyelesaian persengketaan pilkada tidak lagi menjadi
kewenangan MA, melainkan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK).
"Yang berbeda dari UU 22/2007 ini adalah gugatan pilkada itu langsung ke MK,
tidak lagi MA," ujar Ketua KPUD, Juri Ardiyantoro, dalam diskusi bertajuk
'Legalisasi Pilkada DKI Jakarta 2007: UU 32/2004 atau UU 34/1999?' di Hotel
Accasia, Jalan Salemba Raya, Jakarta, Senin (7/5/2007).
Menurut Juri, setelah disahkan oleh DPR pada 16 April lalu, UU 22 tersebut
berlaku mengikat bagi pelaksanaan Pilkada di DKI Jakarta. Bahkan DKI Jakarta,
lanjut dia, menjadi provinsi pertama yang melaksanakan UU tersebut.
Juri mengatakan, UU 22/2007 secara khusus mengatur tentang penyelenggara
pemilu baik untuk tingkat pusat maupun lokal. "Penyelenngara itu seperti KPUD
Provinsi, KPU Kabupaten/Kotamadya, PPK, PPS, dan KPPS diatur UU 22,"
imbuh Juri.
Selain itu, Juri juga menjelaskan jika rekapitulasi hasil penghitungan suara
langsung diserahkan ke Panitia Pemilihan Kecamatan (PPK) dari TPS tanpa
melalui Panitia Pemungutan Suara (PPS) tingkat kelurahan.
"Ini untuk menyederhanakan distribusi rekapitulasi hasil penghitungan suara,"
jelasnya.
Hal-hal lain yang bersifat teknis, lanjut Juri, tidak diatur dalam UU tersebut.
Melainkan, tetap mengacu pada UU 32/2004 dan PP 6/2005.
"Tapi untuk hal yang teknis, seperti persentase pemenang pemilu harus
mencapai 25 persen plus satu, tetap diatur UU 32/2004, dan hal-hal lain dalam
PP 6/2005," pungkasnya. ( rmd / ary )
Carothers, Thomas 1956-
The End of the Transition Paradigm
Journal
of Democracy - Volume 13, Number 1, January 2002, pp. 5-21
Sosiologi Politik Universitas Pamulang
Ratri Istania
www.raconquista.wordpress.com
Anatomi Kerusuhan Pilkada
(13 Nov 2007, 467 x , Komentar)
Andi Haris, Dosen Fisip Unhas
http://www.fajar.co.id/news.php?newsid=45594
Harus diakui bahwa membangun sebuah proses politik yang demokratis sudah
pasti memerlukan biaya politik yang cukup mahal. Akan tetapi, tentu saja hal itu
tidak berarti bahwa pelaksanaan pilkada harus pula dibayar dengan berbagai
bentuk kerusuhan.Baik itu yang namanya kerusuhan politik, kekerasan komunal
yang biasanya berselimut SARA (suku, agama, ras dan antar golongan) maupun
kekerasan properti misalnya dalam bentuk pengrusakan terhadap sarana fisik.
Selanjutnya, apabila masalah ini kita runut lebih jauh ke belakang tentu saja
konflik politik memiliki akar sejarah yang sangat panjang. Masalahnya, konflik
politik dalam pilkada selalu potensial hadir dalam intensitas yang tinggi dan ini
disebabkan karena masyarakat memiliki ikatan emosional yang sangat kuat
dengan isu yang sengaja diembuskan oleh pihak yang terlibat dalam konflik
politik.
Apalagi, dalam suatu komunitas yang sifatnya heterogen yang terdiri dari aneka
ragam kepentingan terutama yang bersentuhan dengan kekuasaan, status dan
kebutuhan materi maka persoalan seperti ketegangan dan pergolakan politik
bukanlah merupakan hal yang sifatnya abstrak dan berada nun jauh di sana
melainkan gejala sosial semacam ini sudah menjadi bagian integral dalam
sebuah masyarakat pluralistik. Meskipun demikian, sesungguhnya kerusuhan
politik dalam pilkada dapat saja dicegah atau setidak-tidaknya frekuensinya bisa
diminimalisir kalau sekiranya mereka yang terlibat dalam konflik politik memiliki
kematangan, kedewasaan serta kesadaran politik yang tinggi dalam
berdemokrasi sehingga impian untuk pelaksanaan pilkada yang berlangsung
dengan aman, tenteram dan damai dapat tercapai.
Radikalisasi Massa
Pilkada yang hanya berkutat dengan konflik boleh dianggap sebagai indikasi
lahirnya kemerosotan dan pembusukan dalam proses politik. Di samping itu,
bentrokan yang terjadi di antara massa pendukung calon kepala daerah tidak
terlepas dari perspektif ketidaksetaraan antargolongan dalam akses mereka
pada sumber kekuasaan.
Kendatipun berbeda-beda motivasi dan penyulutnya, yang jelas apapun bentuk
dan tipe kerusuhan itu tetap mempunyai dimensi politik yang sama dan akan
memengaruhi kinerja ekonomi secara makro sehingga dapat mengganggu
akselarasi pembangunan. Karena itu, konflik yang berlangsung di tengah
masyarakat pada dasarnya merupakan gambaran dari kenyataan tidak
simetrisnya antara harapan dengan apa yang mungkin diwujudkan pada saat ini
atau dalam istilah sosiologi politik, deprivasi relatif . Dan bahayanya, mereka
yang mengalami frustasi sosial dapat saja memanfaatkan pilkada yang lagi
Sosiologi Politik Universitas Pamulang
Ratri Istania
www.raconquista.wordpress.com
kacau sebagai momentum yang tepat untuk melampiaskan kekecewaan yang
sudah lama terakumulasi.
Jika masalah ini dianalisis lebih mendalam, maka ada beberapa faktor yang
amat rentan menjadi pemicu munculnya rasa kekecewaan itu. Antara lain
menipisnya kepercayaan publik terhadap pemerintah, kesenjangan sosial
ekonomi yang semakin lebar antara si kaya dan miskin, tumbuh suburnya praktik
korupsi, meningkatnya jumlah pengangguran dan kemiskinan, adanya perlakuan
diskriminatif terhadap golongan tertentu, harga kebutuhan pokok yang terus
melonjak dan berdampak pada semakin terpuruknya kehidupan ekonomi lapisan
bawah, kasus penggusuran tanah rakyat yang tidak mendapat kompensasi yang
wajar serta adanya kelompok tertentu yang mampu mengakomodasi dan
mengorganisir semua keluhan dan keresahan yang dialami oleh masyarakat lalu
dikemas dalam bentuk tindak kekerasan.
Sejalan dengan itu, penting pula dijelaskan di sini tesis yang pernah
dikemukakan pakar ilmu politik Samuel P Huntington dalam karyanya Political
Order In Changing Societies (1968) yang antara lain mengatakan bahwa
kekerasan dan ketidakstabilan politik lahir sebagai akibat dari semakin
kencangnya perubahan sosial dan cepatnya mobilisasi kelompok yang
melibatkan diri dalam politik, meningkatnya tingkat pendidikan masyarakat,
berkembangnya proses industrialisasi serta meluasnya ruang lingkup komunikasi
massa. Dengan demikian, kadar intensitas kerusuhan yang muncul dalam pesta
demokrasi semisal pilkada memang sangat dipengaruhi oleh cepat atau tidaknya
mobilisasi massa untuk bertindak secara reaktif dan konfrontatif serta peran
media massa sebagai alat sosial kontrol dalam menyajikan berita pada publik.
Karena itu, mungkin juga memang ada benarnya komentar yang pernah ditulis
ilmuan Perancis Ernest Renan yang mengatakan bahwa tindakan kekerasan
selalu menjadi benih terciptanya kesatuan politik yang senantiasa dibina dengan
cara yang brutal. Dalam konteks pilkada, radikalisasi massa yang diwujudkan
dalam tindakan anarkisme sudah pasti gagal membangun proses demokratisasi
politik yang sehat dan bahkan perilaku politik semacam ini justru mengarah ke
demoralisasi politik khususnya di kalangan kader partai dan massa
pendukungnya di lapangan. Namun demikian, suatu hal yang perlu pula untuk
diketahui adalah bahwa pada dasarnya pilkada yang berlangsung rusuh tidak
lepas dari adanya sejumlah pelanggaran, penyimpangan, serta kecurangan yang
dilakukan oleh pihak tertentu sehingga kelompok lain yang merasa mendapat
perlakuan yang tidak adil akan melakukan perlawanan dengan cara kekerasan
yang dinilainya sebagai saluran yang terbaik untuk melampiaskan kekesalan dan
kekecewaan mereka.
Sebetulnya, awal bibit perpecahan dan rasa permusuhan di antara kandidat yang
ikut berkompetisi dalam pilkada sudah dapat dibaca pada saat menjelang
kampanye dilaksanakan. Misalnya, ini dapat dilihat dari perilaku politik masingmasing kandidat, tim sukses dan massa pendukungnya yang senantiasa
Sosiologi Politik Universitas Pamulang
Ratri Istania
www.raconquista.wordpress.com
diwarnai oleh munculnya isu saling melempar kesalahan, menjelek-jelekkan
serta ada upaya untuk memojokkan satu sama lain. Meskipun perilaku politik
yang terkesan gontok-gontokan ini seringkali dapat dibaca melalui media massa,
namun iklim politik yang tidak begitu kondusif sudah barang tentu dapat
memengaruhi opini politik.
Tertib Politik
Sebagai sebuah proses politik yang bergerak secara kontinu dengan melibatkan
semua komponen masyarakat, maka pemilihan kepala daerah hanya bisa
berjalan dengan lancar dan tertib manakala calon kepala daerah serta massa
pendukungnya mengikuti aturan main yang sudah menjadi konsensus bersama
yang disepakati sebelumnya. Adalah sesuatu yang mustahil untuk menciptakan
stabilitas sosial dan politik dalam nuansa yang didominasi oleh perilaku politik
yang menyimpang dari prinsip demokrasi.
Oleh sebab itu, upaya yang dapat dilakukan untuk mengantisipasi jangan sampai
terjadi kerusuhan baik sebelum maupun setelah pilkada berlangsung, maka ada
beberapa hal yang sangat penting untuk diperhatikan. Antara lain; pertama,
netralitas KPUD; kedua, hindari praktik politik uang, kampanye terselubung serta
premanisme politik; dan ketiga, sebaiknya kandidat yang ikut bertarung tidak
dengan emosional dan secara berlebihan membangkitkan nasionalisme
kedaerahan serta fanatisme yang sempit terhadap golongan, suku dan agama.
Sebab bagaimanapun juga, ikatan primordialisme yang amat kental sangat
berpotensi untuk membuka peluang munculnya benturan di antara kelompok
yang memiliki latar belakang sosial budaya yang berbeda-beda. Bahkan,
sebaliknya yang perlu dipelihara adalah memperkuat rasa solidaritas sosial di
antara semua golongan dengan tetap menjunjung tinggi nilai sportivitas dalam
setiap kompetisi politik termasuk di dalamnya pilkada. Lagi pula, fakta selama ini
menunjukkan bahwa kepemimpinan kharismatis cenderung primordial dan
komunal, serta mengakibatkan tidak adanya kritisisme.
Di satu sisi, adalah tidak mungkin mengharapkan munculnya sikap kritis atau
kontrol dari para pengikut pemimpin yang kharismatis tersebut, dan di sisi lain
massa pendukung primordial itu biasanya tidak bisa menerima jika ada kelompok
lain yang mengkritik pemimpin pujaan mereka. Konsekuensinya, yang kemudian
berkembang adalah rasa kebencian, permusuhan dan sikap saling curiga satu
sama lain yang mana fenomena sosial ini akan menjadi bibit perpecahan di
antara sesama anak bangsa.
Dan apa yang disebut sebagai kemajemukan sudah sepatutnya dikembangkan
sebagai kekuatan bersama dalam mempertahankan jati diri dan integrasi politik
di daerah sehingga harapan untuk menciptakan tertib politik dapat direalisasikan
dalam kehidupan berbangsa dan bernegara.
Sementara itu, KPUD sebagai penyelenggara pilkada selalu dituntut untuk
Sosiologi Politik Universitas Pamulang
Ratri Istania
www.raconquista.wordpress.com
bersikap terbuka, independen dan memberi perlakuan yang sama pada semua
calon yang ikut bertarung di pilkada. Sebagaimana diatur dalam pasal 67 UU No.
32 / 2004 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah yang pada dasarnya secara rinci
menjelaskan kewajiban KPUD antara lain dalam melaksanakan tugasnya, KPUD
harus bersikap adil untuk seluruh calon kepala daerah selain menetapkan
standardisasi seluruh kebutuhan selama penyelenggaraan pilkada dan
menyampaikan kegiatannya pada masyarakat dan juga melaporkannya kepada
DPRD untuk setiap tahap kegiatan pilkada.
Begitu pula halnya dengan Panwaslu harus mampu memainkan perannya
secara optimal dalam melakukan pengawasan dan mengambil tindakan yang
tegas sesuai dengan aturan yang berlaku bagi semua bentuk pelanggaran yang
terjadi selama pilkada berlangsung. Mengingat pentingnya posisi dan peran
Panwaslu dan KPUD dalam menyukseskan pilkada, maka tidak mengherankan
apabila kedua lembaga tersebut harus diisi oleh mereka yang kredibel, kapabel
dan memililki komitmen moral kuat untuk bersikap independen melalui proses
pengrekrutan politik yang dilakukan secara selektif, fair dan terbuka sehingga
kinerja KPUD dan Panwaslu memiliki kredibilitas yang baik di mata publik.
Jika tidak demikian tentu saja pranata politik ini akan mendapat perlawanan
keras dari publik khususnya bagi mereka yang kandidatnya kalah dalam pilkada
karena merasa dicurangi oleh aturan main yang sudah ditetapkan sebelumnya.
Sedangkan dalam kaitannya dengan praktik kecurangan, misalnya politik uang,
kampanye terselubung dan premanisme politik masih kerap kali terjadi dan
terasa sulit dihindari walaupun dalam skala kecil terutama pada masyarakat yang
berada dalam proses transisi menuju demokrasi sekalipun pilkada itu dilakukan
secara langsung. Oleh sebab itu, perlu dilakukan penataan proses politik yang
diorientasikan ke arah terbentuknya tertib politik pada setiap kegiatan pilkada
maka rasanya tidak ada pilihan lain kecuali mengubah perilaku dan budaya
politik pemilih yang di dalamnya juga meliputi pentingnya penegakan hukum,
tertib administrasi, hilangkan prasangka buruk dan perbaikan kesejahteraan
masyarakat. **
Carothers, Thomas 1956-
The End of the Transition Paradigm
Journal
of Democracy - Volume 13, Number 1, January 2002, pp. 5-21
Sosiologi Politik Universitas Pamulang
Ratri Istania
www.raconquista.wordpress.com
Political Parties and Consolidation of Democracy: The Case
of Russia Hongwu OUYANG
Perspectives, Vol. 1, No. 6 1. Are Political Parties Still Necessary for
Democracy? No matter how we define modern democracy, one thing is for
sure: a democratic system requires intermediary groups between state and
society as well as institutional mechanisms for the articulation and
advocacy of diverse views and policy preferences. The challenge for
scholars is to find out whether the intermediary mechanism should
necessarily be political parties. As modern technology progresses,
especially as the Internet emerges as a powerful communication medium,
many writers have doubted the necessity of political parties for that proper
functioning of democracy based on several reasons. First, electronic
communication shortens the distance between voters and political
candidates, who can now appeal to their constituency directly via
electronic mass media and the Internet. Therefore, there is no need for
political parties to play the role of intermediary. Second, the flourishing of
civil society and various interest groups makes political parties less
important in politics. All interests, views or ideologies can be represented
by interest groups. Larry Diamond describes eight functions played by civil
society: (1) providing a basis for limiting the state power and checking the
potential abuses of power; (2) supplementing the role of political parties in
stimulating political participation, increasing the political efficacy and skill of
democratic citizens, and promoting an appreciation of the obligations as
well as the rights of democratic citizenship; (3) serving as an arena for the
development of other democratic values such as tolerance, moderation,
willingness to compromise, and respect for opposing viewpoints; (4)
creating channels other than political parties for the articulation,
aggregation, and representation of different interests; (5) helping to
generate a wide range of interests that may cross-cut, and thus mitigate,
the principal polarities of political conflicts; (6) recruiting and training new
political leaders; (7) helping build democracy such as through monitoring
elections; and (8) disseminating information to help citizens to pursue their
interests. Apparently there is a great deal of overlapping among the
functions of political parties and interest groups. Third, the convergence of
political parties in policies and ideologies makes inter-party competition far
less important. In modern democracies, the differences between political
parties regarding ideologies and policy programs tend to decrease. The
convergence of policies of the British Labor Party and Conservative Party
is a good example. Seeking median voters' votes drives political parties to
position themselves so as to appeal to the majority of voters. As a result,
political parties become less differentiated than before. Since political
parties are converging, competition between parties becomes unnecessary
Sosiologi Politik Universitas Pamulang
Ratri Istania
www.raconquista.wordpress.com
and a waste of resources. Hence, there is no need to hold on to party
politics. On top of the analytical reasons, modern voters also become
disgusted by political parties and career politicians, and view them as
being corrupt and the obstacles to reform and policy innovation. Political
establishments have come to be viewed as formidable barriers to
progresses. Therefore, some writers argue, that less party politics might be
better for development and reform. In my opinion, a political party is a
network organized and steered by politically ambitious people who share
similar ideologies and try to enlist people interested in politics in order to
extend their influence and strengthen their drive for public positions. With
this definition of a political party, I will argue that political parties are still
indispensable for modern democracies even in the electronic age. First,
although electronic communication provides individual voters with better
access to desirable information and gives ambitious politicians more
opportunities to directly appeal to voters, voter mobilization as well as
ideology and policy articulation, two major functions of political parties, still
cannot be replaced. On-line appeals and persuasion is still passive, and its
effectiveness limited. Candidates need local party networks, which are
more effective in influencing and mobilizing voters. Furthermore, only
relying on electronic media and excluding political parties might enable a
few wealthy individuals to become candidates and win elections simply
because they are able to afford to dominate the electronic media. Second,
civil society and various interest groups do not replace, but only
supplement, political parties in many regards. Although overlapping
functions do exist between these two organizations, political parties are
more power-oriented and action-oriented, and have more comprehensive
programs with regard to a wide range of social, political, economic and
cultural issues. Civil groups usually target certain segments of the society
and address specific issues. When an interest group addresses a large
number of issues concerning a large number of segments of the population
and takes actions to influence government polices and even the
composition of the government, this interest group is not much different
from a political party. Germany's Green Party is a good example in this
regard. With appropriate conditions, interest groups can turn into political
parties. Third, the convergence of parties in policies and ideologies poses
new challenges to political parties, but it does not declare the end of party
politics. Convergence does not mean that parties have the same position
on every single issue. Different political parties still provide choices for
voters. After all, voters are like customers who prefer choosing among
many brands of toothpaste, even though there is no big difference among
these brands. Finally, the fact that people have become disenchanted by
corruption and partisan politics does not mean that parties should be
removed from the political stage. It only suggests that some partisan
Sosiologi Politik Universitas Pamulang
Ratri Istania
www.raconquista.wordpress.com
practices should be changed and that parties should be reformed. In short,
the aforementioned four reasons for taking political parties out of politics
are actually four challenges that modern political parties face, and they are
also the opportunities for parties to reform themselves and to perform
traditional functions better. Political parties will remain major players in
modern democracies because political parties are still the most efficient
and effective organizational means for politically ambitious people to win
power. 2. Which Parties Are Beneficial to Democratic Consolidation and
Proper Functioning of Democracy, and Which Are Not? The consolidation
of democracy is the process by which democracy becomes so broadly and
profoundly legitimatised among its citizens that it is very unlikely to break
down. When democracy is consolidated, it has been accepted by most
citizens as the only game in town. The consolidation of democracy
involves behavioral and institutional changes that normalize democratic
politics and narrow its uncertainty. This normalization requires the
expansion of citizen access, development of democratic citizenship and
culture, broadening of leadership recruitment and training, the functioning
of a mature civil society and more importantly, political institutionalization.
Consolidation requires that habituation to the norms and procedures of
democratic conflict regulation be developed. A high degree of institutional
routinization is key to such a process. The principal indicator of democratic
consolidation is the percentage of voters who consider democracy as an
indispensable way of life. Russia certainly does not fare well in this regard.
In a 1994 survey, when asked how they evaluate the communist regime
and the current regime, fifty one percent of the sample gave the
communist regime a positive appraisal. Forty eight percent viewed the
current regime negatively. In a recent survey, forty four percent agreed that
Russia does not need parliament and elections, but instead a strong leader
who can make decisions and put them into effect quickly. Fifty four percent
supported the argument that experts, not parliament or government,
should make the most important economic decisions. Putin's easy win and
his lackluster campaign in the latest presidential election also show how
much Russians prefer to put a strongman into power. As for the
performance of democracy, the quality of democracy can be observed in
the following areas: protection of human rights, defense of justice and
equality, responsiveness and effectiveness of governance, and nonviolent
political expression. Russia has done poorly in these areas. In a 1994
survey, when Russians were asked to compare the communist regime and
the current system in eight areas of social life -- freedom in choosing
religions, freedom to join any organization one wants, the right to say any
thing one wants to say, the freedom to take an interest in politics, the
freedom to travel or live anywhere one wants to, fear of illegal arrest, the
expectation that government treats everyone equally, and the respondent's
Sosiologi Politik Universitas Pamulang
Ratri Istania
www.raconquista.wordpress.com
sense that people like themselves can influence the government -- over
half of the respondents favored the current system in the first four areas
and felt that conditions had not changed much in the latter four areas.
When over half of the citizens consider the system no better than the
communist regime, when there is no serious improvement in protecting
freedom and political equality, and when the government can hardly collect
taxes from its citizens, it is difficult to say that democracy has consolidated
in that country. Unfortunately, Russia is the case. Now the question is,
what might explain the failure of Russia's democratic consolidation? It is
easy to pick a number of candidates: the short period of change, the lack
of a history of democracy, and the mercurial ex-president Yeltsin. I would
add the weak, fractured and uninstitutionalized political parties as one of
the principal reasons. In Russia, the weak, fractured and uninstitutionalized
party system undermines the performance of democracy in several ways.
First, the fractured party system means that no party can consistently
obtain electoral majorities or near majorities. In the 1995 Duma election,
when forty-three parties competed for votes, the biggest party, the
Communist Party, won only 22.3 percent of the votes; the second largest
party, the Liberal Democrats, won 11.2 percent of the votes. The third
party, Our Home is Russia, and the fourth party, Yabloko, won 10.1
percent and 6.9 percent, respectively. In the 1999 Duma election, the
Community Party garnered 24.2 percent of the votes, the Unity Party
collected 23.4 percent, Fatherland-Russia won 12.6 percent, the Union of
Right-wing Forces got 8.7 percent while Yabloko and the Zhirinovsky bloc
picked up 6.1 percent. Almost all parties are very narrowly based, which
makes it difficult for them to resist narrow class or sectoral interests. The
situation is even worse because the party system is fractured and
individual parties are so financially weak that they are easily manipulated
by oligarchies and completely lose the function of aggregating and
mobilizing the popular base. Second, an uninstitutionalized party system
means that parties have shallow roots in society. One indicator of party's
roots in society is the percentage of voters who trust parties, have a party
preference, or identify with a party. On a scale of 1 (no trust) to 7 (full
trust), only two percent believe that parties can be trusted. Sixty percent
chose 1 to 2 on the scale. Only twenty two percent of the respondents
identify with a party, while in advanced democracies, at least sixty to
seventy percent of the voters identify with a party. The shallow roots of
parties harm democracy in at least two ways. First, the low rate of party
identification among voters leads to high electoral volatility. Some parties
could garner a large number of votes in one election but might lose most of
them in the next. In the four post-Soviet elections, the change rate was
35.3 percent while in advanced democracies, the change rate is 9.7
percent. Comparing the results of the 1999 Duma election with those of the
Sosiologi Politik Universitas Pamulang
Ratri Istania
www.raconquista.wordpress.com
1995 Duma election, we can see how volatile the Russian politics is. In the
1995 Duma election, Our Home Is Russia won 66 seats while it got only 7
seats in 1999; Yabloko got 46 seats in 1995 while in 1999 it only won 22;
the Unity Party got 76 seats in 1999 even though it was formed two
months before the election and the Union of Right-Wing Forces which was
formed four months before the election won 63 seats. The high volatility
makes the system, especially the party system, very opaque to citizens.
Moreover, the volatility makes it difficult for citizens to understand on
where different contenders stand or develop some party identification. This
situation will only lead to unrepresentative government and major policy
instability. Second, in an uninstitutionalized party system, voters vote
according to personal perceptions or connections instead of party lines.
Thus, shallow roots of political parties give more chances to nonpartisan
candidates to win elections, especially the presidential elections. The votes
Yeltsin and Lebed received in the 1996 presidential election and the recent
victory of Putin, who is not affiliated with any party, demonstrate how
nonpartisan candidates can win presidential elections. We see similar
situations in other elections. In the 1993 Russian parliamentary elections,
half of the single-member-district candidates for the lower chamber had no
party affiliation, and only 83 of the 218 deputies elected in these races
belonged to some party. In 1995, more than 1,000 of the 2,700 candidates
for the single-member-district seats were independent. Independents won
78 of the 225 single-member-district seats. The largest single party could
muster only 58 seats in the 1995 election and 45 seats in the 1999
election. And because candidates in inchoate systems mainly rely on direct
links with the masses, they are more attached to publicity than long-term
policy impact. Populism and anti-politics are more common in countries
with weakly institutionalized parties. In addition, the mechanism of
democratic accountability is weaker and political leaders are more likely to
be erratic and to violate unspoken rules of the game in an
uninstitutionalized party system. In more institutionalized systems, party
labels are powerful symbols, and party commitments are important. Party
labels and programs give citizens a way to understand who is who in
politics without the need to read all the fine print, and this facilitates
accountability. Third, uninstitutionalized parties have a low level of
organization. As a consequence, in inchoate systems, political parties are
easily dictated by a few party leaders, and the fortune of parties also
heavily relies on individual party leaders. Individual leaders' rating and
popularity can determine the fate of the party. The surprising victory of the
Unity party in the 1999 Duma election is a good example in this regard.
The Unity Party is a party established by the Kremlin in October 1999 and
it has no organization or program. Because of the endorsement of Putin
who became popular in Russia for his toughness in the matter of
Sosiologi Politik Universitas Pamulang
Ratri Istania
www.raconquista.wordpress.com
Chechnya, however, the Unity Party won 23.4 percent of the votes. In an
inchoate party system, parties are more or less personified, which makes it
difficult to foster organizational loyalty. In Russia, between the December
1993 parliamentary election and the October 1995 election, 128 of 450
Duma members switched parties. The major consequence is that it
becomes difficult for parties to be consolidated and stabilized. Without
consolidated and stable parties, voters cannot be effectively represented,
organized or mobilized, political participation cannot be structured, and the
weak and mercurial parties cannot be expected to fulfill the functions of
monitoring and checking government leaders. To sum up, Russia's political
parties are basically fractured and uninstitutionalized and have failed to
aggregate social interests, represent specific constituencies, structure
votes during elections, and serve as intermediaries between state and
society. 3. Explaining the Underdevelopment of Russia's Political Parties
There are many possible reasons for the underdevelopment of Russia's
political parties. First, there is only a very short history of democracy in
Russia. Russia's democracy has a history of nine years. Russians still
distrust their parties and there are still many people who do not identify
with any party. Most parties in Russia are under the control of a few
celebrities or manipulated by powerful industrial groups. After nine years,
there has been no serious change to the parties' relations with society. If
we compare the performance of political parties in Russia with that in
Taiwan that opened its political system only thirteen years ago, however,
we can hardly say that a short history is a sufficient explanation for the
poor performance of parties. Here I propose two variables to explain the
underdevelopment of the Russian political parties: the revolutionary nature
of Russia's democratization and the timing of the first series of elections in
Russia. When political changes are revolutionary, they are so sudden that
there is not much time for the political elite to organize parties. In addition,
revolutionary changes also put some celebrities in the spotlight and turn
them into the symbols of political changes. The consequence of this
situation is twofold. First, it gives the celebrities fewer incentives to
organize parties. Fame and popularity can be the most important resource,
which suffices to get them elected as presidents or members of parliament.
For instance, Yeltsin never thought of forming a party in 1991 when his
popularity reached its high point. Second, the behavior of famous political
figures sets an example for other elites with political ambitions. For the less
famous elite, individual stunts are more important than organizing voters.
The flourishing media, seeking outspoken people and bold moves, also
provide the elite with ample opportunities to focus on their own marketable
moves instead of organizations. Now, how many parties do we know in
Russia? Few. But we do know Yeltsin, Yavlinsky, Gaidar, Zhrinovsky and
Putin. The other variable that can help explain the status of Russia's
Sosiologi Politik Universitas Pamulang
Ratri Istania
www.raconquista.wordpress.com
political parties is the timing of the first elections, which is also related to
the revolutionary nature of Russia's democratization. Usually, when a
political change is radical and when radical forces get the upper hand, the
fear that the incumbent might play tricks and anxiety for a share of power
motivate opposition forces to demand a quick election. What happened in
Indonesia in 1998 is a good example. As such, the election is usually held
before parties have a chance to get organized and have some roots.
Without party identification or organization as supporting resources,
political elites have to rely on themselves to create individual identities.
Hence, individual stunts are emphasized. Furthermore, the quick election
also makes it impossible to draft appropriate election laws to shape the
political party system and force the political elites to base their power in
political parties instead of government positions or individual fame. The
fact that Yavlinsky and Gaidar formed parties only after the 1993 election
means that Russia missed a major opportunity for developing political
parties as a result of the quick elections. In conclusion, a lesson we can
draw from Russia is that a fractured and uninstitutionalized political party
system serves the consolidation of Russia's democracy poorly. To avoid
this problem, the political elite need on the one hand to spend more time
and efforts organizing parties and making the parties grow at the
grassroots level. On the other hand, the political elites should be careful
about initiating revolutionary changes. (The author is a Ph.D. candidate in
Political Science at Yale University.)
DEFINING DEMOCRACY Government of the People
Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood
and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have
attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves.
Yet the power of the democratic idea has also evoked some of history's most
profound and moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in
ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel in the modern Czech Republic, from Thomas
Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei Sakharov's last speeches
in 1989. In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people in
which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or
by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham
Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the
people." Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are
not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom,
but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded
through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization
of freedom. For this reason, it is possible to identify the time-tested fundamentals of
constitutional government, human rights, and equality before the law that any
society must possess to be properly called democratic. Democracies fall into two
basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens,
without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making
public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers
of people--in a community organization or tribal council, for example, or the local
Sosiologi Politik Universitas Pamulang
Ratri Istania
www.raconquista.wordpress.com
unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues
and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Ancient Athens, the world's
first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may
have numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons--perhaps the maximum number
that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy. Modern
society, with its size and complexity, offers few opportunities for direct democracy.
Even in the northeastern United States, where the New England town meeting is a
hallowed tradition, most communities have grown too large for all the residents to
gather in a single location and vote directly on issues that affect their lives. Today,
the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50
million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political
decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good. In the name
of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful
and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy that is often
impractical for the vast majority of private citizens. How such officials are elected can
vary enormously. On the national level, for example, legislators can be chosen from
districts that each elect a single representative. Alternatively, under a system of
proportional representation, each political party is represented in the legislature
according to its percentage of the total vote nationwide. Provincial and local elections
can mirror these national models, or choose their representatives more informally
through group consensus instead of elections. Whatever the method used, public
officials in a representative democracy hold office in the name of the people and
remain accountable to the people for their actions. Majority Rule and Minority Rights
All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by
majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic: No one, for
example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population
to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic
society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights
that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities--whether ethnic, religious, or
political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation.
The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot
be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because
democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens. Diane Ravitch,
scholar, author, and a former assistant U.S. secretary of education, wrote in a paper
for an educational seminar in Poland: "When a representative democracy operates in
accordance with a constitution that limits the powers of the government and
guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, this form of government is a
constitutional democracy. In such a society, the majority rules, and the rights of
minorities are protected by law and through the institutionalization of law." These
elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter
how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as
nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government--majority
rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can be found in
Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India. Democratic Society
Democracy is more than a set of constitutional rules and procedures that determine
how a government functions. In a democracy, government is only one element
coexisting in a social fabric of many and varied institutions, political parties,
organizations, and associations. This diversity is called pluralism, and it assumes that
the many organized groups and institutions in a democratic society do not depend
upon government for their existence, legitimacy, or authority. Thousands of private
organizations operate in a democratic society, some local, some national. Many of
them serve a mediating role between individuals and the complex social and
governmental institutions of which they are a part, filling roles not given to the
Sosiologi Politik Universitas Pamulang
Ratri Istania
www.raconquista.wordpress.com
government and offering individuals opportunities to exercise their rights and
responsibilities as citizens of a democracy. These groups represent the interests of
their members in a variety of ways--by supporting candidates for public office,
debating issues, and trying to influence policy decisions. Through such groups,
individuals have an avenue for meaningful participation both in government and in
their own communities. The examples are many and varied: charitable organizations
and churches, environmental and neighborhood groups, business associations and
labor unions. In an authoritarian society, virtually all such organizations would be
controlled, licensed, watched, or otherwise accountable to the government. In a
democracy, the powers of the government are, by law, clearly defined and sharply
limited. As a result, private organizations are free of government control; on the
contrary, many of them lobby the government and seek to hold it accountable for its
actions. Other groups, concerned with the arts, the practice of religious faith,
scholarly research, or other interests, may choose to have little or no contact with
the government at all. In this busy private realm of democratic society, citizens can
explore the possibilities of freedom and the responsibilities of self-government-unpressured by the potentially heavy hand of the state.
THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY
Sovereignty of the people.
Government based upon consent of the governed.
Majority rule.
Minority rights.
Guarantee of basic human rights.
Free and fair elections.
Equality before the law.
Due process of law.
Constitutional limits on government.
Social, economic, and political pluralism.
Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise