Indonesian Democracy

ABSTRAK

Abstrak Perubahan transformatif terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 telah membentuk suatu institusi pengadilan yang dikenal dengan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Lembaga ini dipercaya dalam menjalankan peran yang strategis dalam sistem pluralisme hukum Indonesia, khususnya di ranah pengujian konstitusionalitas undang-undang dan perlindungan hak konstitusional. Namun demikian, performa Mahkamah Konstitusi juga telah terlepas dari kontroversi. Hal tersebut muncul karena Mahkamah Konstitusi dinilai memberikan perhatian pada paradigma sosiologi hukum yang lebih mengedepankan keadilan substantif, namun sedikit memberikan pengakuan terhadap keadilan prosedural. Kritik utama terhadap Mahkamah Konsitusi ditujukan terhadap sifat dasar Mahkamah yang dianggap telah masuk ke dalam praktik judicial activism. Tulisan ini membahas mengenai dimensi judicial activism yang digunakan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai dasar untuk melindungi hak konstitusional warga negara melalui putusan-putusannya. Selain itu, tulisan ini juga menganalisa mengenai sejauh mana judicial activism dapat memperoleh justifikasi dalam proses pembuatan putusan di Mahkamah Konstitusi.

---

[ENGLISH]

"Dimensions of Judicial Activism in the Constitutional Court Decisions"

Abstract

A transformative amendment of the 1945 Constitution established a separate judicial institution called the Constitutional Court. This institution is believed to serve a strategic role within Indonesia’s plural legal system particularly in the area of constitutional review and constitutional rights protection. However, the performance of the Constitutional Court has attracted controversy. This controversy arises because the Court is concerned with introducing a sociological paradigm of law that embraces substantive justice with a fluid acknowledgment of procedural justice. A key criticism of the Constitutional Court is that the nature of Court decisions has developed into a practice of judicial activism. This article discusses the dimension of judicial activism used by the Constitutional Court on the grounds for protecting constitutional rights of the citizens through its decisions. It also analyses the extent of judicial activism that can be justified in the decision-making process in the Constitutonal Court.

Demokrasi merupakan sebuah jalan yang dipilih oleh bangsa Indonesia, karena demokrasi dianggap mempunyai prospek yang menjanjikan untuk menerapkan pancasila yang dijadikan tujuan utama mencapai kesejahteraan bangsa. Demokrasi bukanlah sistem yang serta-merta dapat diterapkan di Indonesia. Membutuhkan waktu dan proses yang sangat panjang bagi bangsa ini untuk menjadikan demokrasi sebagai sebuah wadah bersama untuk mencapai cita-cita yang diinginkan pancasila. Demokrasi menurut UUD 1945 adalah demokrasi yang berlandaskan pancasila. Tiap sila, termasuk sila pertama yang berbunyi Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa, menjadi dasar bagi demokrasi Indonesia. Dalam perwujudan demokrasi, rakyat dan penguasa terikat oleh nilai-nilai pancasila. Oleh karena negara tidak memisahkan urusan agama dari negara maka demokrasi pun tidak lepas dari nilai-nilai agama. Hal tersebut merupakan sebuah konsekuensi dimana Indonesia merupakan sebuah negara yang tidak bisa terlepas dari agama. Pancasila, demokrasi, HAM, dan masyarakat madani, adalah sebuah rangkaian pilar yang tanpanya tujuan bangsa ini tidak akan terwujud. Keempatnya merupakan sebuah satu kesatuan yang tidak dapat dipisahkan. Kita telah banyak mengalami masa pahit dimana salah satu dari empat pilar tersebut dihancurkan. Sebut saja demokrasi parlementer yang tidak sesuai dengan pancasila. Lalu diganti dengan demokrasi terpimpin yang mengabaikan nilai-nilai demokrasi itu sendiri. kemudian diganti dengan demokrasi pancasila yang dijadikan alat oleh penguasa orde baru untuk melanggengkan kekuasaannya. Sungguh cerminan yang patut dijadikan pelajaran bagi

This article presents a qualitative content analysis of the instruction material used by the State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta for its mandatory civic education course, which was introduced in the year 2000/2001 in collaboration with US-based The Asia Foundation. Kicked off during the Indonesian democratisation process, the so-called Reformasi (1998-2004), the course aimed at socialising Muslim students into the values and norms of democracy, human and civil rights, and critical thinking. By focusing on the content of the chapter on "Democracy" in the course's original and revised textbook, it is shown that the Islamic academics involved in the creation of the course acted as cosmopolitan brokers between Islamic, Indonesian and Western culture, but in the course of time shifted to promote democracy from an increasingly Islamic and Indonesian perspective, thereby engaging in a practice of localisation. However, the textbooks also featured several biases, inconsistencies and contradictions that mitigated their pedagogic quality and that are critically assessed in this article. Despite these shortcomings, it is argued that due to the course's overall strong pro-democratic commitment and its strategic institutionalisation on campus, the State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, with its academic milieu, must be understood as a pro-democratic actor whose political agency during as well as after Reformasi deserves more scholarly attention.

In the study of contemporary political science, a topic which is related to the caliphate and democracy has been attracting the attention of many political observers. In Indonesia, it's very common that both topic democracy and caliphate system have been discussing in all over parts of Indonesia. Not only in the certain parts of Indonesia but in all walks of life. In addition , it is not rare be found that some of those people who are very fanatic to one of the system make the both topic democracy and caliphate as the topic that is very sensitive to talk about . It is so because, there are some of them that support the democracy system assume that caliphate system is an Utopian system. They still maintain the thinking that democracy is the most relevant system with the current situation compared to other system ,especially caliphate system . On the other hands, there are some of the people that are still maintain the thinking that caliphate is the best Islamic system and democracy is the worst system today. Not only that, it is also assumed as the "Kufur" system which had adopted from the Greek time and it was a secular system which is believed as the system that is not relevant to the Islamic teaching . In addition , some of the people who do not accept the democracy system within the country are also still keep the thinking that the democracy is the worst system because from democracy , the people who are sitting in the parliament have their more intensity to do corruption which is greater compared to others . Thus , for them , the poor will always be poor and the rich people will be richer than before .

Contribution of media in creating public sphere in democratic society has been widely known. The features of media allow citizen to share and contest their opinion and thought. Furthermore, academics agree that good quality information of political issue and public interests would provide a basis for citizen to make better decisions making related to their own interests and public concern. However, in many countries media are no longer serve the public interest, they tend to serve interest of the elite. Thus the elite overpowered the public sphere. This also happen in Indonesia, previously media were controlled by the government for long time in an authoritarian system, after the growing numbers of private owned media, there is a tendency that public sphere in media are could only be accessed by the elite. Meanwhile the some of the prerequisite for democracy and good governance is the right to information and equality for people to express their opinion. This condition could only be fulfilled by independent and free of interest's media. Citizen journalism as a new form of media is believed to bring hope in creating ideal public sphere according to model of deliberative online public sphere by Dahlberg.

Indonesia used to have indirect elections where governors, mayors and regents were chosen by members of local legislative councils. A year after the enactment of the 2004 Law on Regional Administration, regional leaders were elected directly through a “one man, one vote” mechanism. However, the government recently proposed a bill on local elections, which intends to reinstate the old indirect election system. This article discusses the pro and cons against the proposal.

Six years after the implementation of direct elections, many Indonesians are questioning whether the mechanism of direct election is still appropriate with the aims of democracy itself since it creates economic, social and political burdens. Responding to this condition, the Government has proposed a bill of local elections which one of its provisions intends to change back the present gubernatorial election into indirect election through local parliament. As a result, this issue has attracted a lot of debate not only among politicians but also between government officers and academicians. This essay will consider some objections to the Government planning to change the gubernatorial election system. Finally, it will put forward a number of reasons why the direct gubernatorial election in Indonesia should not be changed.

Tulisan yang dimuat di dalam majalah Esquire Indonesia (Desember, 2010) ini membahas mengenai realita Pemilihan Umum yang kerap dinodai oleh praktik politik uang. Akibatnya, konsep dan paradigma demokrasi mulai berubah menjadi 'monetocracy'. Tatkala praktik-praktik kotor tersebut semakin menggurita maka tidak menutup kemungkinan akan tercipta 'plutocracy', yakni pemerintahan yang dikuasai atau dikontrol oleh orang-orang yang memiliki uang atau kekayaan. Pemerintah berkuasa selalu dibayang-bayangi dan dikontrol oleh para pemilik kapital. Singkatnya, money politics dan shadow state menjadi dua elemen yang membajak makna dan proses demokrasi atas nama uang.

The rule of law has been widely perceived as an important prerequisite for economic development. However, many cases in postcolonial countries have shown that the two may not always be strongly related. Drawing from the case of Indonesia, we found that economic development can also be accompanied by a distinctly illiberal legal framework. Instead of being obstacles, legal uncertainty and lawlessness are in some ways instrumental in facilitating particular experiences of economic development, constituting the failure of legal reform. This means that illiberal legalism is not an exclusive characteristic of transitional states nor necessarily the result of a cultural feature of developing societies where multiple legal systems coexist. Rather, illiberal legalism is an outcome of a particular development of capitalism in some countries in the Global South where legal institutions work as an instrument of rule. While there is no single model of illiberal legalism, the Indonesian case represents an example where an illiberal politico-legal system coexists with a predominantly rent-seeking economy. The Indonesian case was analysed based on fieldwork conducted in Jakarta from December 2019 to January 2020 and secondary data collected until the time of writing.

There is a new phenomenon organized by people in Yogyakarta city-affiliated with a volunteerism movement called Jogja Independent (JOINT). It endeavored to nominate and demonstrate how independent candidates battled in Yogyakarta city's election in 2017. It was conducted by electing several candidates in public. This research was conducted to apprehend the process of independent candidate's election conducted by JOINT. By doing observation, interview and theory analysis, this paper determined some conclusions that the process of independent candidate's election conducted by JOINT had been a bandwagon and democratic. The election processes were divided into four steps: candidate nomination, appointing selectors, public fit, and proper test, and deciding the final candidate. It resulted in a couple of candidates elected democratically.

The rule of law has been widely perceived as an important prerequisite for economic development. However, many cases in postcolonial countries have shown that the two may not always be strongly related. Drawing from the case of Indonesia, we found that economic development can also be accompanied by a distinctly illiberal legal framework. Instead of being obstacles, legal uncertainty and lawlessness are in some ways instrumental in facilitating particular experiences of economic development, constituting the failure of legal reform. This means that illiberal legalism is not an exclusive characteristic of transitional states nor necessarily the result of a cultural feature of developing societies where multiple legal systems coexist. Rather, illiberal legalism is an outcome of a particular development of capitalism in some countries in the Global South where legal institutions work as an instrument of rule. While there is no single model of illiberal legalism, the Indonesian case represents an example where an illiberal politico-legal system coexists with a predominantly rent-seeking economy. The Indonesian case was analysed based on fieldwork conducted in Jakarta from December 2019 to January 2020 and secondary data collected until the time of writing.

"A democracy in Indonesia is in very dangerous situation! The pro-democratic groups are being aside, while the elite group keep positioning themselves as oligarch’s power. This condition is recognized by many people. How to make the democracy, in this third biggest country in the world, can be significant? Is it means many people can have better life and transform the violence conflict into politic in peace?

What are the serious problems that have to be concern in that situation? What is the fundamental of elite domination, and how to overcome? How the pro-democratic actor can carry off the initiative to revitalize themselves?

Through the long term research project to find the root of democracy impasse in Indonesia, Demos try to get empiric knowledge to yield new democratization agenda, and based on that conduct cooperation with many groups. The basic research standard did not sufficient to lead this task. Neither did the written sources. So to make a valuation for democracy audit had to be done from the base.

And, there it is! This book is containing opinions, experiences and reflections from about 800 people which work in fourteen various democratization regions. They came from 32 provinces all around Indonesia. They spent 1 or 2 full days to answer 333 questions about democracy problems and choices.

This is the first book which contains comprehensive information about democracy in Indonesia today, and a challenge to make it meaningful!"