DEMOCRACY IS A SYSTEM FORM OR MECHANISM

DEMOCRACY IS A SYSTEM FORM OR MECHANISM

Democracy is a form or mechanism of a country’s government system as an effort to realize the sovereignty of the people (the power of citizens) over the state to be exercised by the government of that country. All citizens have equal rights in decision making that can change their lives. One of the pillars of democracy is the principle of trias politica which divides the three political powers of the state (executive, judicial and legislative) to be realized in three types of state institutions that are independent (independent) and are ranked equally with each other. Alignment and independence of these three types of state institutions are needed so that these three state institutions can supervise and control each other based on the principle of checks and balances. Democracy has been the choice of the Indonesian people since its inception. The development of the democratic system lasted from 1945 to the present. The development of democracy in Indonesia underwent several changes in conception. In the early phases of modern Indonesian history, the effort to conceptualize democracy boils down to two large streams of thought about democracy that developed in the West. First, liberal democracy is rooted in the spirit of pluralism where the people are given a great opportunity to determine the course of the state. This model places the role of the state at a minimum only as implementing the free will of the people. Secondly, social democracy is rooted in integral spirit. This model places the state in an organic nature so that it has a greater role in the social and economic fields. Indonesia is one of the countries that upholds democracy, for in Southeast Asia Indonesia is the country with the best democracy, maybe we can feel proud of the situation. In the practice of state life since the beginning of independence until now, it turns out that the understanding of representative democracy carried out in Indonesia consists of several models of representative democracy that differ from one another. The New Order was born from a determination to make a total correction of the deficiencies of the political system that had been run before. With the determination or commitment of all the deficiencies in the previous period, the New Order formulated its objectives clearly namely implementing the Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution in a pure and consistent manner. Since the beginning of the New Order Government in 1966, which is in line with the shift of focus from the issue of fostering the nation to the problem of economic development, serious attention has arisen to reorganize a political system that is expected to be able to support economic development activities. In building a potential system that can guarantee stability as a prerequisite for economic development oriented to growth as reflected in the First Long-Term National Development, a series of efforts to restore the government bureaucracy as an important instrument will sustain and facilitate development efforts (economy) the. This means that effort 2 creates a modern, efficient and effective bureaucratic system. The New Order period is the longest reign in the Indonesian state which lasted approximately 30 years. The change of leadership from Sukarno’s hands to Suharto marked the end of the Old Order and the start of the New Order. During the New Order era, the concept of democracy applied in Indonesia seemed not to be implemented as it should, because during the New Order all Indonesian people were required to comply with every decision issued by the president. The New Order government is a rearrangement of the entire life of the nation and the state and is a starting point for the correction of past abuses. The New Order can be interpreted as an order that has an attitude and a deep determination to serve the people and serve the national interests based on the Pancasila philosophy and uphold the principles and joints of the 1945 Constitution. “The New Order can also be interpreted as

an orderly society and a state based on law, where there is a balance between individual and community interests and citizens have leaders or authorities who are subject to applicable provisions “B. Problem Formulation Based on the background of the above problems, the issues to be discussed in this paper later is about how the development of democracy in Indonesia from time to time. 1. What is the history of the development of democracy in Indonesia? 2. What was the state of democracy in Indonesia during the New Order government? Discussion The final round of the Old Order government was a period of guided democracy. Guided democracy was born due to the failure of the Djuanda cabinet which resulted in political and ideological conflicts in the government which then emerged a conception from President Soekarno namely “guided democracy”. To carry out the conception of President Soekarno, Djuanda proposed to “return to the 1945 Constitution”. The main ideas in the 1945 Constitution were re-enacted and added with several important points. The proposal from Djuanda was accepted by President Soekarno, who then discussed the matter with Mr. Moh Yamin, Mayjen Nasution and Dr. Lemeina. The proposal from Djuanda was also approved by the House of Representatives (DPR), cabinet ministers, and also major parties such as the PNI (Indonesian National Party), NU (Nathadul Ulama), Masyumi, and other small parties. The chaotic constituent situation because the absence of a majority of votes in the vote resulted in political tensions in the constituents which resulted in the dissolution of the constituents. It is feared that the dissolution of constituents can result in chaos in society. Therefore, President Soekarno issued a Presidential Decree signed on 5 July 1959. Presidential Decree 5 July 1959 fundamentally changed the structure of state governance. The decree re-enacts the 1945 Constitution and does not apply to the Constitution. Whereas the first presidential cabinet is the Karya cabinet accompanied by the formation of new departments in government. Problems around democracy are not something that is natural and can grow by itself in the life of the nation. the issue of democracy is solely a human creation, which on the one hand reflects the limitations and objective harmony outside the human being. Moving on from the spirit and framework of the proposition above, the melting of democratic and egalitarian features as the true ideals of Indonesian culture is strongly influenced by social, economic and political developments in Indonesia. Can be taken as a case when the transfer of Dutch beamtenstaal power to the Republic, it did not bring significant change. Changes that occur more move on the aesthetic-symbolic rank rather than the substantive ethesis. The egalitarian spirit of democratic culture engraved in the delusions of society vanished, after the statement of independence was attempted to be realized politically in the form of choices in liberal and parliamentary democracy, and economically in the form of choices towards the creation of a strong native middle class. The obsession with this kind of political and economic choice is the formation of a capitalist economic system capable of sustaining a civil society. If this can be realized, it is hoped that democracy will manifest itself clearly. The failure of the practice of earthing of liberal and parliamentary democracy was then reduced as a failure of the adoption of Western-style democracy that was contrary to the identity and culture of the Indonesian people. It seems intentionally ignored the fact that the failure to implement Western-style democracy is actually more due to the fragility of the building of a political system that is based on ideology-culture and the collapse of the economic system at that time. So then, Sukarno tried the Guided Democracy system, which he said became a typical Indonesian democracy. Even though Sukarno said that his government adhered to a democratic system,

but the widespread practice in the life of the nation and state is precisely the power that is completely centralized (centralized) in Sukarno himself. Bung Karno as the President even demonstrated the dictatorship by dissolving the Constituent Assembly, PSI, and Masjumi and marginalizing his critical political opponents. The anti-democratic authoritarian power of the Old Order period was finally toppled in 1965. Along with the failure of the earthing of democracy in the Old Order period, elements outside the community slowly grew and developed into a vehicle for the growth of logic and a new translation of Indonesian culture . “The March 11, 1966 Order or Supersemar was the starting point for the birth of the New Order” because it was with Supersemar that Suharto then disbanded the PKI and took actions of political reform and stabilization. And it was with Supersemar that actually Sukarno’s power with the Guided Democracy political system had vanished. The disappearance of Sukarno’s power was later strengthened by the decree of the MPRS which, through a special session in 1967, appointed Lt. Gen. Soeharto as Acting 3 President, so that as a symbol Soekarno was not recognized as the holder of power. Then in March 1968 the MPRS nodded and installed Lieutenant General Suharto as President. The change of leadership from Sukarno’s hands to Suharto marked the end of the Old Order and the start of the New Order. During the New Order era, the concept of democracy applied in Indonesia seemed not to be implemented as it should, because during the New Order all Indonesian people were required to comply with every decision issued by the president. The New Order government tended to apply the concept of authority that was authoritarian and centralistic. Every decision produced is regulated by the central government and must be in accordance with the wishes of the president. The application of the authoritarian and centralistic concept of power makes the Indonesian people inevitably have to comply with every decision issued by the government, even though the decision is sometimes beneficial for one party. During the New Order era, the freedom of the Indonesian people to express their opinions was very limited, especially those which opposed the government would be dealt with firmly. Suharto’s background, which came from the military, influenced the leadership style adopted during his reign and made Indonesia a country that was slowly moving in a militaristic direction. This was indicated by the implementation of ABRI’s dual function in Indonesia during the New Order. With the implementation of the ABRI’s dual function during the New Order era, the TNI, especially the Army, did not only go down in the defense sector but also the TNI could also engage in politics. The implementation of ABRI’s dual function meant that almost all the existing government structures were at that time held by military forces. In other words, the TNI is spread throughout Indonesia so that security in Indonesia can be controlled directly by the TNI, especially the Army. However, the spread of security forces in almost all government structures in Indonesia does not necessarily make Indonesia safe from various riots or terrorist movements. The fact is, during the New Order period there were a number of riots or criminal acts which caused damage to public facilities and even claimed lives such as the anti-China movement, the Malari incident, Tanjung Priok and so forth. The involvement of the military in preparing the New Order agenda which was indeed to prepare the military to lead this regime, had a profound impact on various lines of life of the people throughout the New Order era. The military was involved in every institution built by the New Order to support and exercise its power. Especially in the political and economic fields, the military plays a major role. To get rid of the remnants of Soekarno’s influence and the elements of the PKI in the government, the New Order effort was to secure the Political Election agenda planned in 1968 from the old parties which were thought to be still stored remnants of Soekarno’s influence. From this came the concept of a political structure overhaul that the structuring of political life that was designed in the beginning of the New Order was directed so that as soon as possible the stabilization of political life and the simplification of party structures could be achieved,

the introduction of appointments in the DPR and MPR members, and the format of the General Election along with 12 items of consensus on that reached between civil political forces from the party, ABRI (TNI-AD), and the government made in order to support the idea of ​​political and economic stabilization. The Indonesian Army is different from most of the army in general who have seized political power, because it had never before considered itself to be a non-political organization. From the beginning of its history in 1945 as a guerrilla army that fought the return of Dutch colonial rule to the consolidation of its political power under the New Order. With full participation in the national struggle against Dutch rule, most of these officers felt that their voices should be heard in political affairs in the post-independence period. After the 1957 state of the martial law, their participation rights were given official recognition through appointments in the cabinet, parliament and administration. During the period of Guided Democracy, the Army became one of two important organized political forces, and together with President Sukarno controlled politics at that time. Finally, the army cleansing of the PKI in 1965 and its success in removing President Soekarno from his position made the Army the only dominant force on the back of Indonesian politics. The dual function of the Armed Forces became the basis of legitimacy for the social and political role of the Armed Forces in which the origin of this thinking was Nasution’s conception of the Middle Road of the Armed Forces in 1985, which essentially provided opportunities for the Armed Forces, as one of the nation’s political strengths, to participate in government or the basis of the State Principle Kinship. On the basis of this conception ABRI’s dual function provides justification for ABRI not only to play a role in the defense and security sector but also in the socio-political field. The two roles of the Armed Forces namely roles in defense and social and political fields are also referred to as functions of the Armed Forces, therefore Armed Forces carry out both functions simultaneously so that the Armed Forces not only carry out defense and security functions but also socio-political which provides opportunities for ABRI members to assume civilian positions without leaving his status as a member of ABRI. And according to the definition of the New Order regarding ABRI’s dual function, ABRI’s participation in the politics of administering state power, which was born during the war of independence. From the historical point of view ABRI feels it has an obligation to defend and maintain Indonesia by participating in all aspects of life. Where is the non-defense function of the Armed Forces is better known as the social political role of the Armed Forces. During the New Order era, military involvement did not only dominate the social political role but also in the economic field. With the aim of being able to guarantee the flow of fixed funds to the Army treasury, so that many army officers were assigned to various economic sectors, such as the state oil company, Pertamina, which is one of the SOEs used by the army to replenish their cash and another company, namely the National Logistics Agency Logistics Affairs). So that military involvement in its function as a socio-political force in an effort to develop the nation is not to obtain positions outside their fields or civilian positions In the New Order, it was interpreted that political culture was spelled out in such a way that the state acted as a single and central actor. The logic of the placement of the state as a single actor is articulated through the explicit and absolute ratification of the centrality of the state with all its bureaucratic and military instruments in the interests of economic and political development. This is where the process of removing the egalitarian and democratic patterns of the culture of the Indonesian people then takes place and is replaced by the feudalistic style, which is possible for two main reasons. First, through the integration, cleansing and unification of the state and military bureaucracy under one command. This effort paves the way for the elaboration and delivery of new logic in the tangible and operational culture of Indonesian feudalism.

Jabaran and this new logic increasingly find its momentum related to the reality in a society that is facing very severe economic difficulties on the one hand, and the country’s obsession to develop economic growth as a foundation for the eradication of poverty on the other. Secondly, the inauguration of the qua state state was also carried out through the removal of mass politics. Political participation that is too broad and uncontrolled, is considered to endanger political stability which is a conditio sine qua non for ongoing economic development. Therefore, the involvement of the state through the bureaucratic and military apparatus is validated to reach all aspects of people’s lives. The stability of economic development is then identified with national stability. Gradually the concept of national stability was expanded into an anti-criticism and anti-concept logic. As an anti-criticism logic, national stability is associated with security issues and many functions to assist the implementation of state power mechanisms. As an anti-concept logic, national stability is associated with the issue of legitimacy and many functions to support the art of managing the authority of state power. What followed was the centralization of the role of the state personified through Suharto, the People’s Consultative Assembly, the Parliament, the Press, Political Parties, Mass Organizations and almost all socio-political institutions that were “securely” systematically under Soeharto’s state control. What was born in such a situation is pseudo democracy, “instant democracy”. This democratic paradox finally collapsed on May 21, 1998. During the reform era, Indonesia was experiencing a democratic moment. Political initiatives initiated by Amien Rais encourage reform to continue. The tumultuous reforms provided a glimmer of hope for the emergence of a truly democratic life system, which was marked by a booming emergence of many new political parties, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and so on, which were the hallmarks of democracy. There are demands for political reform because of the optimism for improving the implementation of democracy. There are three reasons for the emergence of this kind of optimism, namely: (1) Widespread enthusiasm for reform; (2) The depth of the economic crisis which is believed to be rooted in corruption and lack of accountability that permeates the political system, so that democratic reform is believed to be the solution; (3) Divisions within the ruling political elite. However, behind the dynamics of reform that is full of high acceleration, it seems that there are still not many socio-political forces that really have the seriousness to roll out democracy. Even though various democratic building institutions have now been formed, here and there the paradoxes of democracy are still often found. Democracy that is built and understood refers more to democratic procedural nature rather than democracy which refers to the value system. The various paradoxes that are still developing in the reform era often make us to rethink and put forward a critical question: Will this transition period be able to pass well so that consolidated democracy is formed, or we fail through it so what emerges is a consolidated anarchy that can lead us back to the system authoritarian and militaristic? At least, it is noted that various democratic paradoxes are worth criticizing at this time. 1. The development of political violence, anarchy, radicalism, mass strife which is often followed by collective physical fighting, coercion of wills, and various other deviant behaviors that actually reflect anti-democratic behavior. Zero sum game politics (and not win-win) in order to sink political opponents into common practices that foster fear to be different. Growing political fear quietly in various circles of society, including those who are critical, only because they feel different from the existing political power. Democracy hardly becomes a realm of thought and wisdom to be tolerant of differences. The phenomenon of monopoly to win itself began to bloom, even to the physical form, by using symbols belonging to the party, despite having to use various public facilities

. 2. The development of a very pragmatic political conspiracy with those who used to be anti-democratic, colored with a strong spirit just to win the election without showing a serious commitment in the agenda of democracy. 3. Democracy began to be included merely as a political rhetoric rather than as a political agenda. When uniformity in the New Order was completely blasphemed, now some democratic forces argue that democracy does not always have to contain differences but also similarities. When a single choice ala the Old Order was sued, now also grows rhetoric that the single choice is also democratic. A growing impression is that democracy is no longer an idealism and an agenda that must be fought for to enlighten the life of the nation and state, but rather as a tool and issue to gain power 4. The cult of individuals exhibited by the Suharto regime with its various symbols was blasphemed hard to finish off, now some political society instead demonstrates the symbols of leadership figures that bring the colors of individual cults to other forms. The symbols of the political culture of the New Order even began to be resurrected, as if it were a portrait of true political life. Various efforts to build the centralization of authority by mobilizing political charismatic symbols began to be carried out, in order to give the impression that a new leadership potential was born which was very suitable to lead Indonesia forward. It does not matter whether political charisma is real or pseudo, as long as there is charm offered as a political commodity. A number of irony or paradoxes of democracy that emerge on the surface of this reform era shows how steep the path that must be taken by this nation towards true democracy. That, it turns out it is not easy to realize democracy honestly, clearly and responsibly, both at the level of the mind and even more so as a systematic politics. The struggle for democracy must finally be confronted with the temptations of power in the midst of a number of political snares that are actually anti-democratic.