Demokrasi Menundukkan Anarki

Andi Ali Said Akbar

Abstract

Freedom and political competition in the Indonesian democracy are vulnerable to the practices of antagonistic politics. It can be seen from the growing of violence acts as the struggle method of some mass organizations, whether those with the religious identity or those with the political identity. The triggering point can be from the reactionary response on the incapability of accepting the consequence of living for democracy prior to the context of implementing the tolerant and pluralist ethics.The rise of minority group reputation in the political arena, the policies that are not in favor of the majorityand the tolerance towards the other religious/belief groups are included in the list of issues which are vulnerable to the violence acts. In addition, the problem can also come from the ineffectiveness of the state in establishing the law and tranquility. In this case, the people use their own logic of power to substitute the failure of the state. Unfortunately, the state seems to ignore various diseases of social demoralization. The efficacious cure to organize social organizations is that the government shall release the mass organization law. However, the state undergoes the uneasy dilemma. The activists of civil society keep on guard against the state in order not to deeply intervene the civil public space. Therefore, the state and the society have to respect the constitution and make the democratic value as a tradition in the intern of mass organization. Then, the ethics is made as the basic for anticipating various social problems. Besides, the state has to be effective in establishing the law and tranquility in the living of democracy. So, the existence of the mass organization law can be understood together as long as the instrumental effectivity creates peace in the state.

Keywords

Democracy; Anarkhi; Government Effectivity

Full Text:

PDF

References

Camara, D. H., & Trijono, L. (2000). Spiral Kekerasan. Pustaka Pelajar: Insist Press.

Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. JHU Press.

Effendy, B. (1998). Islam dan Demokrasi: Mencari Sebuah Sintesa yang Memungkinkan. dalam M. Nasir Tamara dan Elza Peldi Taher (ed.), Agama dan Dialog antar Peradaban, Jakarta: Paramadina.

Fukuyama, F. (2005). Memperkuat Negara: Tata pemerintahan dan tata dunia abad 21. Jakarta, Gramedia, Pustaka Utama.

Galtung, J. (2003). Studi Perdamaian: Perdamaian dan Konflik Pembangunan dan Peradaban. Eureka: Surabaya.

Haynes, J., & Soemitro, P. (2000). Demokrasi dan masyarakat sipil di Dunia Ketiga: gerakan politik baru kaum terpinggir. Yayasan Obor Indonesia (YOI).

Huntington, S. P. (1991). Gelombang demokratisasi ketiga. Grafiti.

Karim, R. M. (1998). Peluang dan Hambatan Demokratisasi.

Moleong, L. J. 2007. Metodologi penelitian kualitatif, 4-10.

Montik, A. D. (2014). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Organisasi Masyarakat (Ormas) Yang Melakukan Tindakan Kekerasan. Jurnal Mahasiswa Fakultas Hukum, 1 (1).

Pramodhawardani, J., & Widjajanto, A. (2007). Bisnis Serdadu: Ekonomi Bayangan. Jakarta: The Indonesian Institute.

Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (2004). Teori Konflik Sosial. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Riswandha Imawan, I Ketut Putra Erawan Dkk”Parpol, Pemilu dan Parlemen” PLOD UGM dan JIP Fisipol UGM 2006.

Santoso, T. (2002). Teori-teori kekerasan. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.

Wawancara khusus Menteri Dalam Negeri Gamawan Fauzi:"Banyak yang Belum Paham UU Ormas" Senin, 8 Juli 2013, 00:09 Suryanta Bakti Susila, Nila Chrisna Yulika VIVAnews.com diakses Senin, 14 Oktober 2013 | 18:21 WIB

Yamani, Fisafat Politik Islam Antara Al Farabi dan Khomeini, Mizan: Bandung, 2002.

Lima Pemicu Kontroversi RUU Ormas. Tempo.co, Jakarta - Rabu, 03 Juli 2013 | 03:32 WIB diakses Senin,14 Oktober 2013 | 18:21 WIB.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.