Government and demonstrations
Bahtiar Effendy, The
dean of the School of Social and Political Sciences
at
the State Islamic University in Jakarta
SUMBER : JAKARTA POST, 28 Maret 2012
One key feature of democracy is the absence
of violence. Any social, economic, and political aspirations must be realized
by way peaceful means.
In the last several weeks or so, this has become a mantra in Indonesian politics. Employed primarily by the government in a bid to defend their unpopular policies, this important principle of democracy has been echoed by no less than President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono himself. Knowing that his decision to raise the price subsidized fuels would be opposed, he let the public hold demonstrations as long as they were held peacefully.
He is absolutely right. In a country where democracy is being upheld, the state must allow its citizens to express their views and aspirations. This is a principal right enshrined in the Constitution.
There is no doubt whatsoever that any form of opposition must not resort to violence. The puzzle, however, remains in the connection between the two. What is the correlation between peaceful demonstration and changes in government policies or decisions?
In a country where democracy works properly, the relationship between peaceful demonstration or opposition and policy changes is clear. Almost always, the former — especially if a large number of people are involved — will bring about revisions in the policy or other changes.
In such a country, demonstrations represent public apprehensions that office holders — both in the executive and legislative branches of power — need to take seriously. This is due to the fact that it is public support that has put politicians in the office. Disregarding public sentiments will only encourage voters to support someone else in the next election.
As such, democracy requires a system of checks and balances. In the legislative branch of government, the function of this system is undertaken by members of parliament, or the House of Representatives in the Indonesian context, to ensure that the executive branch does not only exceed the Constitution’s limits, and to ensure governmental policies serve the public interest.
Outside the legislature, the check-and-balance system enters the public domain. Any policies that are perceived as not being in the interest of the public will surely be opposed. Demonstration is one form of this opposition. Public pressure is intended to influence the administration and lawmakers to generate policy change.
Conversely, in a country where democracy is still in transition, where political anomalies still exist, there may be no correlation at all between peaceful demonstrations and policy changes.
Here, peaceful demonstrations have been allowed simply out of lip service to the articles and clauses of the Constitution. Public demands rarely are sufficient to compel the government reconsider and eventually change its policies or decisions. The government’s philosophy on allowing the public to stage peaceful demonstrations has always been to “let the dogs bark, and the caravan will continue to pass”.
This constitutional or democratic gimmick is well understood by the public. That is why they often fail to hold peaceful demonstrations — as they feel such efforts will be ineffective. To make their voices heard, to ensure that their demands are met, and make certain that the government and lawmakers genuinely represent the public’s interest, demonstrations inevitably involve some degree of violence.
Unless and until democracy is practiced properly, there is no value — no moral basis, in fact — in asking the public to carry out peaceful demonstrations. There is no point in only letting the dogs bark. In this unusual democratic state, often the dogs need to bite. ●
In the last several weeks or so, this has become a mantra in Indonesian politics. Employed primarily by the government in a bid to defend their unpopular policies, this important principle of democracy has been echoed by no less than President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono himself. Knowing that his decision to raise the price subsidized fuels would be opposed, he let the public hold demonstrations as long as they were held peacefully.
He is absolutely right. In a country where democracy is being upheld, the state must allow its citizens to express their views and aspirations. This is a principal right enshrined in the Constitution.
There is no doubt whatsoever that any form of opposition must not resort to violence. The puzzle, however, remains in the connection between the two. What is the correlation between peaceful demonstration and changes in government policies or decisions?
In a country where democracy works properly, the relationship between peaceful demonstration or opposition and policy changes is clear. Almost always, the former — especially if a large number of people are involved — will bring about revisions in the policy or other changes.
In such a country, demonstrations represent public apprehensions that office holders — both in the executive and legislative branches of power — need to take seriously. This is due to the fact that it is public support that has put politicians in the office. Disregarding public sentiments will only encourage voters to support someone else in the next election.
As such, democracy requires a system of checks and balances. In the legislative branch of government, the function of this system is undertaken by members of parliament, or the House of Representatives in the Indonesian context, to ensure that the executive branch does not only exceed the Constitution’s limits, and to ensure governmental policies serve the public interest.
Outside the legislature, the check-and-balance system enters the public domain. Any policies that are perceived as not being in the interest of the public will surely be opposed. Demonstration is one form of this opposition. Public pressure is intended to influence the administration and lawmakers to generate policy change.
Conversely, in a country where democracy is still in transition, where political anomalies still exist, there may be no correlation at all between peaceful demonstrations and policy changes.
Here, peaceful demonstrations have been allowed simply out of lip service to the articles and clauses of the Constitution. Public demands rarely are sufficient to compel the government reconsider and eventually change its policies or decisions. The government’s philosophy on allowing the public to stage peaceful demonstrations has always been to “let the dogs bark, and the caravan will continue to pass”.
This constitutional or democratic gimmick is well understood by the public. That is why they often fail to hold peaceful demonstrations — as they feel such efforts will be ineffective. To make their voices heard, to ensure that their demands are met, and make certain that the government and lawmakers genuinely represent the public’s interest, demonstrations inevitably involve some degree of violence.
Unless and until democracy is practiced properly, there is no value — no moral basis, in fact — in asking the public to carry out peaceful demonstrations. There is no point in only letting the dogs bark. In this unusual democratic state, often the dogs need to bite. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar