Institutional Design in New Democracy

Debates about constitutional design in democratic transition and consolidation are always contentious. Two fundamental queries faced by new democracies are about the governmental systems and electoral systems. Within the governmental systems, the debates are between presidentialism and parliamentarism, while in the electoral system, the contested ideas are plurality/majority systems and proportional system.

Some theorists argue that the governmental systems, be it presidentialism or parliamentarism, shapes and gives direction to the political arena (Linz, 1990; Linz & Valenzuela, 1994; Stephan & Skach, 1993; Mainwaring, 1993; Cheibub, 2007). Others argue that electoral and party systems matter most given their role as source and entry mechanism to the political arena (Duverger, 1964; Horowitz, 1990; Powel, 2000). How political posts are filled and how power is distributed, shape the construction of political arena as well as political relations. Other theorists argued combination or hybrid of the political institutions and economic development could lead to the more stable political conditions (Przeworski, et.all, 1996). However, when it comes to the role of political institutions in a democracy, no theorists seem to be totally firm with their stands.

Within those theoretical debates, this paper discusses the expected consequences of political institutional design toward democratic transition and consolidation. This paper also highlights some deviation of the design in practice to argue that these expected consequences are not always the case. Nonetheless, this paper argues that political institutions indeed matter in creating rules and set limits of possible behavior of political actors and make certain outcomes more likely.

Presidentialism or Parliamentarism?

One fundamental question in countries that are experiencing transition from an authoritarian regime is about its constitutional framework. By constitutional framework is meant sets of agreements concerning government formation, conditions for government to rule and conditions by which government can be terminated democratically (Stephan & Skach, 1993). To put it simply, the constitutional framework is the system of government. In line with neo-institutionalists’ premises, supporters of governmental reform in those countries agreed that democracy also depends on the governmental system. Thus, redesigning the governmental system is part of the initial process in creating a new democratic government.

Among democracies, presidentialism and parliamentarism are two types of governmental system that are widely implemented. Presidentialism, that are implemented in countries like the United States, the Philippines, South Korea, Indonesia, and most of most countries in South America, is characterized mainly by separation of power between the executive and the legislature. This system is mutually independent, in which each branch has a fixed electoral mandate and its own source of legitimacy (Stephan & Skach, 1993). The president is the chief executive who runs the government for a certain period of time while the legislature has the right to propose bills. Defenders of presidentialism generally claim that presidential systems create more stability by the virtue of a fixed system. It also gives strong power to the president since he/she is often elected directly by the people. The separation of power between executive and legislature is also expected to bring a more accountable use of power since it allows each structure to supervise the other.

Parliamentarism, on the other hand, is a mutually dependent system in which executive power must be supported by the majority in the legislature (Stephan & Skach, 1993). Consequently, there is no power division between executive and legislature. Chief executives, as well as ministers, are member of the parliament. Such power organization is expected to bring more efficient and effective policy making since conflict between executive and legislative is less likely to occur. Another expected outcome is a more dispersed power that could prevent authoritarianism. The premier seldom tends to have as high importance as a ruling president, and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political ideas than voting for an actual person (Stephan & Skach, 1993).

Among the theorists, Juan Linz, a professor of political science from Yale University, is one of the most prominent defenders of the parliamentarian system. In his influential essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”, Linz argued that parliamentarism is more conducive to stable democracy, especially in a nation with deep political cleavages with multiparty systems (1990). This argument is based on his extensive research in several countries, mainly in Latin America. According to Linz, parliamentarism is better because it provides a flexible and adaptable institutional ground which is conducive for democratic consolidation, for example through its consociational strategies and its dispute settlement instruments. On the other hand, presidentialism is seen to be less conducive for democracy, since it tends to concentrate power in the hand of president (Dahl, 1972; Linz, 1990; Lijphart, 1991). Thus, presidentialism is more inclined to authoritarianism. Further, Linz argued the presidential system tends to create a more rigid and formal system through a fixed presidential term and a zero sum electoral system. These rigidity and formal nature of the system, in some cases, have prevented the development of democracy (Linz, 1990).

The debates, however, continue to evolve. While at some points agreeing with Linz, Mainwaring & Shugart (1997) argue that presidentialism is not inherently flawed; rather it is subjected to institutional arrangements within the system. They claimed that presidentialism tends to function better where presidencies have weak legislative powers, parties are at least moderately disciplined, and party systems are not highly fragmented (Mainwaring & Shugart, 1997). Similarly, Donald Horowitz maintained that the problem is not about presidential or parliamentary system but stemmed from the electoral system. According to Horowitz, “democracy need electoral system that that foster conciliation and governmental systems that include rather than exclude, and “the winner takes all” system is definitely not the case” (Horowitz, 1990, 56). But why are winner-takes-all systems that are widely used in many democracies not conducive for democracy? Which electoral system is best for democracy? These questions will be discussed in the following section.

Plurality/Majority or Proportional Representative?

The second debate about constitutional design in new democracies is about electoral systems, particularly between plural/majority systems and proportional systems. This issue is fundamental since the electoral system is significantly related to the development of a country’s party system, its type of executive and the relationship between the executive and legislature (Lijphart, 1991). The party system is significant since the political party is the main and, to some extent, the only source for political elite recruitment. Further, the electoral system is also regarded as “the most specific manipulative instrument of politics” (Sartori 1968, 273).

The principle of plurality/majority systems is simple: candidates with the most votes are declared the winners. Yet, there is a difference between plurality and majority: while in the first system the winner simply the candidate with most votes, in the second system the winner is the candidate who won more than 50% from the total votes. As consequences, countries that are employing the plurality/majority system are likely to have two-party systems (the Duverger’s Law), one-party governments, and executive that are more powerful than the legislatures. To date, this cluster of electoral systems is found in the UK, Canada, India, the US, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and other former British colonies.

While the winner-takes-all characteristic of this system could result in strong single-party government and strong opposition in the legislature, it also tends to exclude smaller parties and minorities from fair representation. The system also allows close relations between representatives and constituents and encourages the emergence of ethnic-based parties which could exaggerate division among citizens. Nonetheless, the supporters of this system argue that since it tends to create two major parties, it also promotes integration between different societies. In Malaysia, for example, the Barisan Nasional government is made up of a broadly-based umbrella movement which fields Malay, Chinese and Indian candidates in areas of various ethnic complexions (IDEA Handbook 2005, 36).

The winner takes all system is frequently opposed with the Proportional Representation (PR) system, which has remain dominant system applied by 60% democracies in the world (Leduc, et.al, 2007). In contrast with the winner takes all system, in the PR system parties’ shares of the votes corresponds with their share of seats in the parliament. Consequently, PR requires the use of electoral districts with more than one member and the greater the number of representatives to be elected from a district (district magnitude), the more proportional the electoral system will be. In addition, PR systems tend to promote multiparty systems, coalition governments, and more equal executive-legislative power relations.

The strongest argument that favors the PR system is its ability to produce a more representative legislature. Its proportional character gives greater chance for minorities to be represented. For many new democracies, particularly those which face deep societal divisions, the inclusion of all significant groups in the legislature is the essential condition for democratic consolidation. Failing to ensure that both minorities and majorities have a stake in developing political systems can have catastrophic consequences. That is why some theorists encourage this system in a deeply divided society. To quote Lijphart: “PR was designed to provide minority representation and thereby to counteract potential threats to national unity and political stability” (Lijphart 1991, 75).

Critics to PR system generally are based on its tendency to create political fragmentation either in the party system, the parliament or in the grassroots driven by its multiparty character. Hence, instead of promoting integration, PR systems tend to exacerbate division within communities. Another weakness of PR that often mentioned is the effectiveness of the government, since PR systems tend to produce coalition government rather than a single party government. A coalition government is often viewed as prone to gridlock and less effective to carry out coherent policies (IDEA Handbook, 2005). Moreover, the nature of coalition government also gives less opportunity; for the voter to enforce accountability, for example to throwing party out of power.

Within the electoral system family, either plurality/majority or PR systems, it is clear that its efficacy depends strongly on the socio-cultural character in each country. In a new democracy where its society is highly divided along religious, ethnic, language, or other sociological lines, a system that could guarantee political representation and participation would be important. Participation should be emphasized because representation without ability to participate and to influence policy making would be meaningless. Another context that should be considered in crafting the electoral system is related its accessibility. By accessibility is meant that the voting process and technique are simple, so that voters from various education levels could access it correctly. In addition, the system should also guarantee that all citizen who have right to vote are technically able to access the ballot box. These seem to be technical matters, but could affect significant political issue such as voters’ turnout.

Conclusion: The Importance of Context

It is clear that the outcomes of a certain political institution cannot be taken for granted. It is likely impossible, for example, to determine which electoral system could produce more democratic and effective government. Moreover, some of theoretical consequences of a political institutions, be it governmental system or electoral systems, seems no longer relevant. The growing of Liberal-Democrat party in UK for example, envisaged that two party systems as the expected outcomes from the plurality/majority electoral system is become less relevant.

In practices those outcomes are strongly affected by context. Indeed, in many countries, presidential governments for example, are less successful in managing its democratic development, but in some countries presidential governments give more favorable condition for democracy. Further, it managed to reconcile rather than deteriorate ethnic conflict such as in Nigeria and Sri Lanka. Likewise, parliamentarism does not always lead to a stable democracy. Israel, Italy, French (1946-1958), Germany (1919-1933), and Indonesia (1948-1955), are such cases. These varieties clearly suggest that neither presidentialism nor parliamentarism are sufficient to bring a stable democracy, more over contexts in which those systems operate are essential. Contexts, in this regard, could be electoral system, party system, and political culture or degree of polarization. Nonetheless, institutional design indeed matter in establishing rules that would limits the range of possible behavior of political actors in order to make certain outcomes more likely.

References

Diamond, L. and Plattner, Marc F. The Global Resurgence of Democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

Horowitz, D., ‘Comparing Democratic Systems’ Journal of Democracy, 1 (Winter 1990), 73-9.

Horowitz, D., ‘Comparing Democratic Systems’, Journal of Democracy Vol.1, No.4 Fall 1990.

IDEA. 2005. Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook, International IDEA, Sweden.

Lijphart, A., ‘Constitutional Choices For New Democracies’, Journal of Democracv Vol.2, No.1 Winter 1991

Lijphart, A., Pattern of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. Yale University Press, USA, 1999.

Linz, J.J. and Valenzuela, A. The Failure of Presidential Democracy: Comparative Perspectives. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

Linz, J.J., ‘The Perils of Presidentialism’, Journal of Democracy 1 (Winter 1990): 51–69.

Mainwaring, S., ‘Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy: The Difficult Combination’, Comparative Political Studies (26)1993:198

Mainwaring, S., Shugart, M.S., ‘Juan Linz, Presidentialism, and Democracy: A Critical Appraisal’, Comparative Politics, Vol. 29, No. 4.1997: 449-471.

Przeworski, A., Alvarez M., Cheibub, J.A., and Limongi, F., ‘What Makes Democracies Endure?’, Journal of Democracy 7 (1) 1996: 39-55.

Przeworski, A., Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Stephan, A., Skach, C. ‘Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation: Parliamentarism versus Presidentialism’, World Politics 46 (October 1993), 1-22

Domination of the “Big Three” in CFSP and ESDP

Abstract

The institutionalization of foreign, security, and defense policy within the EU, while have been consolidating the EU presence in international politics, at some point also exacerbating division among the EU members. It is apparent that in CFSP and ESDP big members like France, UK, and Germany play more important role rather than other members. Further, it is clear that “the Big Three” represent the gist of CFSP and ESDP as the EU’s “face” in the international security in defense issues.

This essay attempts to give a closer look on how the “Big Three” dominate CFSP and ESDP. The first part deals with the capability issues. It argues that given its hard and soft power capabilities, allow the “Big Three” to dominate the CFSP and ESDP. The second and third part, argue that the dominations of the “Big Three” have been taking place in two main arenas of CFSP and ESDP, which are institution building and agenda setting1. The last part draw a conclusion that the competitive power capabilities of the “Big Three” has been enabling them to dominate the institution building and agenda setting of CFSP and ESDP. Their role in developing the EU’s actorness in international security domain would be more effective if they could band together beyond the division of old and new Europe.

How does the condition of anarchy shape international politics?

It is commonly understood that the nature of international politics is anarchy which simply mean that there is no hierarchical global authority which can establish and maintain regulation to create order in international affairs. The anarchical condition exist because sovereign states as the most important player in world politics are autonomous and independent. Thus, international politics, each state presumably will behave by their own interests. And states behaviour in pursuing their own interests and their relations to other states respectively shape international politics. To answer the above mentioned question, this paper will follows the logic that the condition of anarchy defines states’ behaviour, and states’ behaviour shape the international politics. Within that logic, this paper will examine the realism and liberalism tradition in respond to the anarchical nature of international politics.

Realism and Liberalism are agree that international system is the condition of anarchy. Realism theorists assert that the anarchical international system dictates states to put security as their main interest because other states tend to look opportunities to take advantage of each other by any means, including military force. This notion derived from the philosophy of necessity which view states behaviour as a result of inevitable condition. Further, realism view states ruthlessness as a consequence of the prevalent power struggle in international system. As Morgenthou said, “International politics is struggle for power” (1985;31). Within this conditions the daily life in international system is always characterize by competition among states with the possibility of war in the background. This pessimistic view according to Mearsheimer (1995:10) derived from the five realism’s assumption about the international system. First, that the international system is anarchic. Second, states inherently possess some offensive military capabilities. Third, states can never be certain about intention of other states. Forth, most basic motive driving states is survival. Five, states are rational actor which think strategically. These five assumptions dictate the behaviour of the state in following way: state fear each other; each state aims to guarantee its own survival; and states aim to maximize their power.

In the absence of global government, the notion of struggle for power could put any states on the brink of war with other states and each state is responsible for ensuring their own existence and survival (self help). Consequently, each state must continuously maximize their relative power capabilities. However, since security issue is inherently zero sum it create the so called security dilemma, in which the more power obtain by one state will make other state insecure and then seek to increase its power as well. In other word any attempt a state makes to increase its own security will actually decrease its security. One of the most obvious example of the security dilemma is the rivalry between US and Soviet Union during cold war manifested through nuclear contest. Both countries continue building up their nuclear arsenals after each had acquired a secure second strike capability (Mearsheimer, 2001:7).

In anarchical system, the basic motive of states behaviour is survival. In order to survive, states need to accumulate power in terms of actual power (military strength) or potential power (other aspects that support military strength such as economic and human power). However, states capabilities in pursuing power are vary greatly creating some state with gigantic military strength, some middle power states and weak states. The occupation of power also changing from time to time since states always pursue their power and compete each other. For example great powers formation in European continent has been shifted numerous times, since the era of In the late 18 century for example, French military power was the greatest in Europe and enabling her to dominate European continent for several decades. The Congress of Vienna in 1814 after the defeat of France, mark the shift from unipolar system (dominate by France) to a multi polar system, placing United Kingdom, Austria, Prussia, France and Rusia as the great powers. Major power shifts also occurred in the aftermath of the first and second world war. Austria-Hungaria collapsed after the first world war. At the end of World War II, the United States and Soviet Union emerge as the primary victors. In Asia, the fast growing economic of Japan, China and India in post war era, place the countries as the great powers.

Beside the Great Powers, other features in international politics that stem from the anarchical condition are Balance of Power, War, International Law and Diplomacy. According to Hedley Bull these features at the same time compose a kind of order amidst of anarchy (Bull, 1977). In other word, states respond to the anarchical condition of international system shape the international politics. And to certain extent states respond coincidently succeed to minimize the destructive nature of anarchy. The Balance of Power which refer to “a state of affairs such that no one power can lay down the law to others” (Vattel, in Bull, 1977:97), not only serve to prevent the existing system (preserving status quo) but also essential condition for the operation of international law. Tough, it also clear that the idea is paradox, while it is essential for the operation of international law, the step to maintain the balance often requires the breaking of these rule (Bull, 1977; 104).

War is another major element in world politics since in the anarchical system states competition among other always shadowed by the possibility of war. In Man, State and War, Kenneth Waltz defines anarchy as a conditions of possibility for or “permissive” cause of war, arguing that “wars occurs because there is nothing to prevent them” (Waltz:1959). Further, realism argue that war is necessary evil in the world politics and remain a basic determinant of the shape of the system. It is war and the threat of war that help to determine whether particular states survive or are eliminated. War also shifts the formation of great power, whether they rise or decline. As the Balance of Power, war also has paradox position in the world system. In the one hand war is manifestation of disorder while on the other hand war is a means of enforcing international law and preserving balance of power that sustain order.

While war has certainly been a recurrent feature in international system, because of this states attempt to liberate them shelve from the conditions of war. In this regard Bull points out three basic function of international law, which are; (1) To identify the idea of a society of sovereign states, (2) To state the basic rules of coexistence among states and other actor in international society, (3) To mobilise compliance with the rules of international society (Bulls, 1977:134-136). These three function are, indeed, essential to word order but international law not by itself sufficient to bring about international order. Using the economic term, the effectiveness of international law is ceteris paribus, it requires certain conditions and the fulfilment of these conditions are most of time beyond its control. While realists agree that the nature of international law is determined first and foremost by the self interested nature of state and the institutions such as international law are merely intervening variable because it only exist when they are created by the great powers.

The last feature stems from the anarchical international system is Diplomacy which Bull also recognized as pillar to create international order in the middle of anarchy. Though the world of diplomacy experiencing the downturn recently, it is largely the impact of wider decline in international order. Bull believe that along with other newly institutions in the world of diplomacy, professional diplomacy will continue to serve international order through its core functions; facilitates communication between the political leader of the state and other entities in world politics; negotiations of agreement; gathering information about foreign countries; minimisation of friction and act as symbolic function of the society of states (Bull, 1977: 163-166).

Liberalism tradition, especially the neo liberalism share some similar assumption with realism. Neo liberals also admit that international politics is anarchical conditions, states is the key actor (but not the only) in the international system, and states are rational actor. They also has similar question about how to respond the anarchical system. The difference between Neo liberal and Realism lies on the focus of study and the view of states behaviour. Liberalism focused on political economy, environmental issues and human right issues.

In the view of neo liberalists, the destructive nature of anarchical condition in international system can be minimize through cooperation among states. Thus, states should not only concern to the relative gain, but must be concerned with the absolute gain (Baylis & Smith, 2006:217). For example, war according to the liberalism, is not inevitable feature but can be prevent through cooperation. The formation of an international organization such as United of Nation, NATO, European Union, and other regional organization, according to Liberalism, are the example of such cooperation that could promote stability.

Further in their book of Power and Interdependence, Keohane & Nye highlights the current interdependence feature of world politics. Interdependence refers to situations where states or actors are determined by external events in a reciprocal relationship with other states or actors, jointly limiting their autonomy (Keohane & Nye, 1989: 7). It is created through the expansion of international transactions, insofar as the costs associated with them constrain political activity. While these relationships impose costs, the benefits may exceed them. Complex Interdependence characterized at least by three features (1) Multiple channels connect societies: informal ties among governing elites, transnational actors and organizations, and formal international channels; (2) The agenda of international politics consists of multiple issues which are not arranged in a clear hierarchy; (3) Military force is not used when complex interdependence prevails on a set of issues (Keohane & Nye, 1989: 21-29). To put it differently, neoliberal believe that as the international become more complex, the emergence of new actors and new way of conduct in international relations become inevitable. Though states are still the most important actor, they no longer dominate all aspects in the international relations.

To summarize, although realism and liberalism have different view in analyzing states respond to the anarchical nature of international politics, it can be conclude that the condition of anarchy shape the international politics by dictates states behaviour as the primary units in the system. In the realism view, states respond illustrates by the idea of balance of power, great power, war, diplomacy and international law. While in the liberalist’s view, states respond illustrated by the idea of international cooperation, collective security, interdependence, globalization, free trade, and new channel and actor in international relations. In short, states respond to anarchical conditions, whether in line with realism or liberalism traditions, depicts contemporary international politics. @

Picture taken from:

International Society: The English School

The English tradition of international theory evolved from series of group discussions started in 1958 as a result of an approach by the Rockefeller Foundation to Herbert Butterfield, then the Professor of Modern History at Cambridge. The Rockefeller gave the group the name of the “British Committee on Theory of International Politics”. The central purpose of the committee was suggested in a letter from Butterfield to Wight in 1958: “… not to study diplomatic history in the usual sense, nor to discuss current problems, but to identify the basic assumptions that lie behind diplomatic activity, the reasons why a country conducts a certain foreign policy, the ethical premises of international conflict, and the extent to which international studies could be conducted scientifically”. After rounds of discussions, it become clearer that the groups tend to be more concerned with the historical then contemporary, with the normative than the scientific, with the philosophical than the methodological, and with the principles than policy. Diplomacy, international society and the state system become the central themes of the discussions.

One of the most influential book that come up from the discussion is Hedley Bull’s work on “The Anarchical Society” which later became his classic. Essentially Bull argued that in looser systems the members (states, monarchs, etc.) acted according to what they conceived to be their interests; but when the members were as closely knit they could be considered a society. He called the former as the system of state (or international system), that is when two or more states have sufficient contact between them and have sufficient impact on one another’s decisions to cause them to behave -at least in some measure- as part of a whole (Bull 1977, p.9). While the other one, he regards as Society of states (international society) which exist when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, from a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common sets of rules in their relations with one another and share in the working of common institutions (p.13).

Central in the book, is Bull’s queries about order in world politics. Bull believed that order does exist in the world politics as reflected in the historical and present evidences. He draws historical evidence from various incarnations of modern state system (Christian, European, and World International Society) and showing that there has been a sense of common interests, common rules and common institutions that made up order within the systems. In the contemporary international system, Bull admitted that the existence of order is strongly influenced by six factors; Balance of Power, International law, Diplomacy, War, and The rule of Great Powers.

One of the interesting points in his query is when Bull try to reconcile the idea of world order and Justice. He infers that an international society based upon cosmopolitan justice may offer an alternative to the state-centred, power-based international politics of today. By cosmopolitan justice meant what is good for the world as a civitas maxima (cosmopolitan society) to which all individual belong and to which their interest should be subordinate (p.81). This idea is sounds to be so liberal in essence. However, when it comes to the question of priority between justice and order, Bull leaves the question unanswered. More recent work in the tradition of English School is Robert Jackson Book on “The Global Covenant”. Through his well developed imaginary conversation between a journalist and a diplomat on a particular event in world politics, he wanted to bring into account the discussion about ethics in world politics. His approach can be summarized as follows: On the one hand international ethics consists in the obligation of every state-leader to obey international law. On the other hand the practical ethics of world politics cannot ignore the fact that states differ enormously. To reconcile the seemingly contradictory situation, Jackson propose a procedural and prudential norms of the global covenant which represent the quest for unity in diversity (Jackson, 2000:22). Jackson arguments on global covenant were developed based on Hedley Bulls notion on society of the state, where as common procedures and norms are exist and bound intra states relations. @

Sources:

1. Butterfield, Herbert & Martin Wight. Preface. Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics. Cambridge Press, 1968.

2. Bull, Hedley. The anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977.

3. Jackson, Robert. The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. Oxford University Press, 2000.

The Marxist Tradition in International Theory

Along with Realism and Liberalism traditions, Marxism also evolved as one of school of thought in international theory. Whilst realism is all about the power and the big guns and Liberalism is all about creating order through institutions, Marxism focuses on the emancipation of the working class and the world equality. The Marxism were also relevant to analyse the dynamic of change in societies, in particular it gave very convincing explanation about social revolution. Yet, the Marxian tradition seems to have little impact on the field of international relations.

According to Holsti, the minor contribution of Marxian way of thinking to the international theory is perhaps because Marx and particularly Engels give more emphasis on outlining ways to transform domestic societies than with developing a systematic theory of international politics. For example they view war as a social problem, a manifestation of capitalist system rather than a way of states survival or power accumulation. The other possible reason is because the theory emerged while Europe was experiencing a relative peace (during the era of Concert of Europe), so the problem of war and security is not a compelling issue. Finally, and perhaps the most important factor is because Marxian tradition in whatever variant give more concern about the problem of modernization, exploitation and inequality instead of war, security, peace and order which are the main concern of Liberal and Realism . However, as well as other schools, Marxism also had been evolved through the centuries. Challenges that drive the evolution of Marxian tradition had been arise since the Lenin’s era until more recent thinkers such as Immanuel Wallerstain and Andrew Linklater.

In 1916, Lenin through his pamphlet called Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, challenged Marx Ideas on the character of Capitalism. He argued that the character of capitalism had change since Marx published the first volume of Capital in 1867. Capitalism had entered a new stage -it highest and final stage- with the development of monopoly capitalism. Under monopoly capitalism, a two tiers structure had developed within the world economy with a dominant core exploiting a less developed periphery. Such structures dramatically complicate Marx’s view of simple divergence of interest between proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

Lenin’s work had been the pillars of Wallerstein’s “World System” theory. According to Wallerstein history has witnessed two types of world systems, world-empires and world-economies. The main distinction between the two relates to how decision about resource distribution -who gets what- is made. In a world empire a centralized political system uses its power to redistribute resources from peripheral areas to its core area. In the Roman Empire this took the form of tributes by outlying province back to Roman heartland. By contrast, in a world economy there is no single authority but rather we find multiple competing centres of power. Resources are not distributed by central decree but rather through the medium of a market. However, although the mechanism different, the effect of both type of system is the same, that is the transfer of resources from the periphery to the core.

Other development in Marxian tradition has been done by Andrew Linklater, from the Critical Theory’s camp. As other critical theorists’ thinkers, Linklater had been deeply influenced by Frankfurt school tradition, particularly Juergen Habermas. He used some of the key principles and precepts developed in Habermas’s work in order to argue that emancipation in the realm of international relations should be understood in terms of the expansion of moral boundaries of a political community. In other words, he equates emancipation with process in which the borders of the sovereign state lose their ethical and moral significance. He suggests that an important part of the international system is entering a post-Westphalia era in which the sovereign state is beginning to lose some of its pre-eminence.

In sum, although it seems that Marxian tradition had little influence to the International Relations Theory, the Marxian tradition had unique contribution to the field which could be summarized as follow; Firstly, Marxism is the only mainstream theory that put emphasis on the equality and emancipation. Emancipation may be a goal of Liberalism, but it doesn’t have the same prominence as in the Marxist framework. Secondly, Marxism gave basic and systematic foundation to understand the unfairness of world, while other theories didn’t. Thirdly, Marxism, and apparently neo-Marxism, approaches to international relations focus on the problem of development, the issue of inequality, economic dependency, exploitation and unfairness, while these issues relatively neglected by other tradition, notoriously by Realist. @

References:

1. K.J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1985. Ch.4
2. Lenin, V.I. “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism”. Lenin on Politics and Revolution. Ed. James E. Connor. Indianapolis: Pegasus, 1968.
3. Linklater, Andrew. “Marxism”. Theories of International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 1996.
4. Wallerstain, I. “The Interstate Structure of the Modern World System”, in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski (eds). International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996: 85-107.
5. Photo: http://www.freewebs.com/socialistcommonwealth/bralds_marx-s%20(2).jpg
   

International Politics as Social Science: Neorealism and Neoliberalism

In the early 1980s the world of international relation studies entering new debates on world politics. It is the work of Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (1979) ,which aims to develop a scientific international theory, that provoke the debates and breeds the so called Neo-realism and Neo-liberalism school of thought. Neo-realist dominates the world of security studies and Neo-liberals focus on political economy and more recently on issues like human rights and environment.

Waltz theory emphasis the importance of the structure of international system and its role as the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike traditional Realism who views states behavior directed by its self-interested nature, Waltz argues that structure directs states conduct. The structure of the international political system is defined first by its organizing principle, which is anarchy. Where every state (as units in the system) have similar ultimate interest for survival. However, the second defining principle, units’ capabilities to pursue their interest is not equally distributed. It varies, with the more capable ones, of course, shaping the realm, posing the problems that the others have to deal with. The unequal distribution of states capabilities create states’ balance of power behavior either multipolarity or bipolarity.

The second difference between traditional realist and neo-realist is related with their view of power. For the classical Realists power was both a means and an end, and rational state behavior was simply accumulating the most power. For neo-realists power is more than the accumulation of military resources and the ability to use it to coerce and control other states in the system. The third difference is each one’s view on how states react to the condition of anarchy. To Realist, anarchy is given condition of the system and states react to it according to their size, location domestic politics and leadership quality. Whilst neo-realist suggest the anarchy defines the system and the states react to it in line with their power capabilities.

Kenneth Waltz structural realism or neorealism has had widely criticized by other scholars. Robert Cox claim that Waltz’s has sacrificed the interpretive richness of classical realism as a critical theory in order to transform it into a positivistic problem-solving theory. Cox argues that the inability of this particular approach in differentiating between times and places are the cause of major flaw in Waltz’s theory of neo-realism. Neo-realism is unable to explain structural transformation, since the positivist approach cannot account for variations whether in the basic nature of the actors (power seeking) or in their mode of interaction (power balancing).

Richard Ashley points out several weaknesses of neo-realist.

1. Statism. Neo-realist denies the recognition to global collectivist concepts on transnational class relations or the interest of human kind.

2. Utilitarianism. Utilitarian perspective of neorealism has undermined the notion of state as actor whose interest and interactions shape the structure of international system.

3. Positivism. By embracing positivist approach neo-realism disregards the value laden social action such as social consensus that may perhaps coordinate practices as well as distribution of resources.

4. Atomist conception. Neo-realist defines international structure not as an independent internal relation prior to and constitutive of social actors, but as a joining of states. Therefore the international structure is not established independent of the parts taken together, since it is emerged as a result of joining the parts together.

Furher, John G. Ruggie criticizes that Waltz has not only ignored changes in the density of interactions in systems, but has been too quick in assuming that the differentiation in units can be dropped as a characteristic of the structure of the international system. In the short term, states may be the dominant units and play a similar functional role, but over long periods other units may grow in importance, and roles may alter. Ruggie points to the evolution of the concept of territoriality at the end of the feudal era to illustrate such generative changes, and argues that Waltz’s theory is too static to explain such changes.

Another critics comes from Robert Keohane, a liberal institutionalism theorist. Keohane accepts basic tenets of the neo-realist argument such as, the assumption that states act rationally, and the assumption that states seek power to affect other states. However, Keohane argues that the concepts of states “maximizing power” and states creating a “balance of power” are in fact contradictory. He points out that “states concerned with self preservation do not seek to maximize their power when they are not in danger”. Keohane argues that “realism is particularly weak in accounting for change, especially where the sources of that change lie in the world political economy or in the domestic structure of states”.

Further in their book of Power and Interdependence, Keohane & Nye highlights the current interdependence feature of world politics. Interdependence refers to situations where states or actors are determined by external events in a reciprocal relationship with other states or actors, jointly limiting their autonomy. It is created through the expansion of international transactions, insofar as the costs associated with them constrain political activity. While these relationships impose costs, the benefits may exceed them. Complex Interdependence characterized at least by three features:

1. Multiple channels connect societies: informal ties among governing elites, transnational actors and organizations, and formal international channels.

2. The agenda of international politics consists of multiple issues which are not arranged in a clear hierarchy

3. Military force is not used when complex interdependence prevails on a set of issues.

This Liberal institutionalism approach, however, is rejected by Mearsheimer who argues that the approach largely ignoring security issues and focusing solely on economic issues. He also points out that the approach neglecting the major obstacle in cooperation, which is the concern on relative gain. to be continued@

Reading Bull’s

Anarchical Society Part 1 & 2

The emergence of English School of thought (also known as Liberal Realism) in international relations can be seen as a result of intellectual discourses with Traditional & Neo Realist school. The English School offered a conception that somewhat different from the later. According to English School states system is not the only system operates in world politics, they propose the concept of international society as another “operating system”, where the relations among its members are not only define by each capabilities but also govern by certain rules and institution. In this regard one of the most influential work that also contributes to the creation of English School is that Hedley Bull’s book “The Anarchical Society, A Story of World Order in World Politics”.

Bull began his book by drawing three fundamental questions: What is Order in world politics? How is order maintained within the present system of sovereign states? and Does the system of sovereign states still provide a viable path to world order? The three parts of the book then sought to answer the questions accordingly.

In part one, Bull’s presentation is dominated by stating definitions and classifications and provide historical evidences to explain the concepts he is working with. Those concepts are: Order (which he classified into order in social life, international order and world order), International System (system of states), and International Society (society of states).

Order

Bull defines Order in Social Life as a pattern of human activity that sustain basic goals of society, namely protection against violence, keeping agreement, and protecting property (p.4-5). By International Order, Bull refers to a pattern of activity between and among states that sustains the basic goals of the society of states, which include: (1) preservation of the system and society of states it self, (2) maintaining the independence or external sovereignty of individual states, (3) Preserving Peace, in terms of the absence of war, (4) General goals of social life (limitation of violence, keeping promise, stability of possession) (p.16-18). Apart from international order, Bull also introduced the concept of World Order, which means pattern of human activity that sustain the goals of social life among mankind as a whole (p.19). In this concept, the subject is men not states as in the concept of international order. With this idea, it seems that Bull wanted to give space for morality and the role of non states actors in world politics.

System of States and Society of States

The other concepts which centred in Bull’s work are system of states and society of states. A system of states (or international system), according to Bull, is formed when two or more states have sufficient contact between them and have sufficient impact on one another’s decisions to cause them to behave -at least in some measure- as part of a whole (p.9). In other words it simply means that there are states which have contacts and dealings with each other. Society of states (international society), on the other hand, exist when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, from a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common sets of rules in their relations with one another and share in the working of common institutions (p.13). To put it more simply, an international society presupposes an international system, but an international system is not necessarily international society. The theoretical difference within the two concept is clear, the presence international society is involving shared values and interests among its actors, whilst the international system is, according to the Traditional Realists, state of nature. However, Bull also realized that whether or not these distinguishing features of an international society are present in an international system, it is not always easy to determine. Bull then explained the two concepts by drawing several historical examples from sixteenth to twentieth century.

Order in International Society

Bull believed that order does exist in the world politics as reflected in the historical and present evidences. To established the proposition, Bull examine the idea of international society. He rejected the Hobbesian idea which views international politics as a state of war but he also refused the Kantian tradition that sees international politics as a potential community of mankind. He seems to agree with Grotian perspective which views International politics as taking place within international society (p.21). Moreover the Grotian contends that states are not engaged in simple struggle like gladiator but are limited in their conflict with one another by common rules and institutions. Again, Bull draws historical evidence from various incarnations of modern state system (Christian, European, and World International Society) and showing that there has been a sense of common interests, common rules and common institutions within the systems. However, Bull suggests that order provided within modern international society is precarious and imperfect. It is “anarchical” since there are no hierarchical level of sovereignty exists above each state, no government over governments. The Order provide by international society is always in competition with the elements of a state of war and of transnational solidarity of conflict. But Bull quiet optimistic that other different structure could provide better order in world politics (p.49-50). The preservation of order in world politics, according to Bull, is not only influenced by contingent facts such as balance of power, moreover it depends on the existence of a sense of common interests in the elementary goal of social life, rules prescribing behaviour and institutions that help to make these rules effective.

Justice

Bull sought to relate the idea of order with the concept of justice in world politics. He infers that an international society based upon cosmopolitan justice may offer an alternative to the state-centred, power-based international politics of today. By cosmopolitan justice meant what is good for the world as a civitas maxima (cosmopolitan society) to which all individual belong and to which their interest should be subordinate (p.81). This idea which put individuals in the form of society is another point that distinct Bull from the traditional realists that strict to the role of state as the sole actor in world politics. However, when it comes to the question of priority between justice and order, Bull leaves the question unanswered. Instead of asserting a firm account, Bull proposes a somewhat vague statement by saying that “order in world politics is valuable and also prior to other goals but it does not mean order is to be preferred to justice in any given chance” (p.93).

After some conceptual explanation further discussion on the nature of order in the world politics, in part two Bull sought to examine the operation of order in contemporary international system by relating to its six major features, namely: Balance of Power, International Law, Diplomacy, War and The Great Powers.

Balance of Power (BoP)

Bull distinguish the concept of BoP into four different ways; (1) Simple balance -made up of two powers- and Complex balance -more than three powers- (2) General balance -no preponderant power in international system- and Local balance -no preponderant power in local/regional system- (3) Subjective balance -balance that generally believed- and Objective balance -in fact no one is preponderant- (4) Fortuitous balance -arise without any conscious effort- and Contrived balance –by conscious policies-. As those traditional realists, Bull agree that the ultimate function of BoP in the modern states system is to preserve the system of states (p.102). However, he rejects the assumption that balance of power is an enduring feature in international politics considering that in many ways current balance of power are different with those European balance of power in nineteenth century. To put it simply, the concept of balance of power could be irrelevant in the future. For example since 1950s World had witness the existence of mutual nuclear deterrence which is to some extent different from BoP. Furthermore, Bull argued, mutual nuclear deterrence could not preserve the international order (p.121). Cynically He named this nuclear contest between US and USSR as “The Balance of Terror” (p.119).

International Law

Another institution that contributes to international order is International Law. In this regard Bull points out three basic function of international law, which are; (1) To identify the idea of a society of sovereign states, (2) To state the basic rules of coexistence among states and other actor in international society, (3) To mobilise compliance with the rules of international society (p.134-136). These three function are, indeed, essential to word order but international law not by itself sufficient to bring about international order. Using the economic term, the effectiveness of international law is ceteris paribus, it requires certain conditions and the fulfilment of these conditions are most of time beyond its control. In assessing contemporary international law, Bull agreed that some major change has been made including the subject, scope and the role of international lawyer. But he doubted whether these changes have brought any increase in the role played by international law in relation to international order. Further, Bull said that “Law is an instrument of political purposes of all kind, and the promotion of order is only one of them” (p.139).

Diplomacy

Compare to his account on International law, Bull seems more optimistic in viewing diplomacy as another pillar of international order. Though the world of diplomacy experiencing the downturn recently, it is largely the impact of wider decline in international order. Bull believe that along with other newly institutions in the world of diplomacy, professional diplomacy will continue to serve international order through its core functions; communication, negotiations, information, minimisation of friction and act as symbolic function of the society of states.

War

Bull distinguished War from the point of view of the international system and international society. According to the former, war remains a basic determinant of the shape of the systems (p.190). While the later views war in its dual aspects; on the one hand, a threat to be limited and contained; on the other hand, an instrumentality to be harnessed to international society purposes such as enforcement of international law, preserving the balance of power and bring about just change (p.181-183). At this point Bull’s account on War seems to be so similar with traditional realists, this is somewhat contradictory with his argument on balance of power .

The Great Power

Bull pointed out that the great powers contribute to international order at least in six ways; (1) preservation of the general balance, (2) Avoidance and control of crises, (3) Limitation of war, (4) The unilateral exercise of local preponderance, (5) Sphere of Influence, interest or responsibelity, (6) A great power concert or condominium. Nevertheless, Bull clarified that “this is not necessarily what great powers actually do, or even what they should do – it is rather what they could do” (p.200). Bull examined that during the Cold War US and Soviet Union to some extent carry out the six roles, and there by help to sustain a sort of order, though the rest of the world view this as unjust order.

Bull’s “Anarchical Society” definitely stand as one of the most important work in contemporary IR studies. Beside providing clear definition and classification of some fundamental concepts, he also introduce the idea international community which is the centrepiece of his contribution to international theory. The way he presents his ideas is very systematic and when he claims he always marshals an impressive array of evidence to back up his argument. However, to some extent Bull’s arguments seems vague. It seems initially, that Bull wanted to put a distance from the traditional or neo realist thought, but still he did not really depart. Much of his assumptions at the end are very similar with both traditional and neo realist. He even did not give a very plausible explanation on why international society is so important. And sometimes he leaves his question unanswered. @

“Waktu, Di Negeri Bermusim Empat”

Penduduk di negeri bermusim empat, utamanya Eropa, memiliki sensitivitas yang luar biasa terhadap urusan waktu. Bukan sekedar dalam konotasi waktu adalah uang, tetapi penghargaan terhadap waktu juga amat sangat tercermin dalam berbagai ekspresi, baik fisik, budaya maupun spirit. Secara fisik misalnya di jalan-jalan utama di Inggris, amat mudah kita jumpai tower-tower menjulang dengan jam dinding raksasa dipuncaknya. Jika di Sumatera Barat hanya ada satu jam Gadang, maka di Inggris terdapat puluhan bahkan mungkin ratusan jam gadang di sudut-sudut kota. Salah satu yang paling terkenal adalah Big Ben di Kota London. Tower-tower berarsitektur Gothic yang populer di Eropa jaman pertengahan itu hingga kini masih berdiri tegak menjadi penanda kota sekaligus penanda waktu bagi penduduk Inggris.

Apresiasi terhadap waktu juga amat kental diekspresikan oleh masyarakat Inggris khususnya dalam hal budaya antri. Setiap kali berurusan dengan pintu-pintu fasilitas publik, bisa dipastikan masyarakat Inggris akan senantiasa menghormati kesepatakan bersama, first come first serve. Tentu dalam praktiknya ada berbagai keluwesan, misalnya mendahulukan orang tua, atau para difable. Tapi pada umumnya semua orang, dari seluruh strata sosial, bersedia ikut antri untuk memperoleh layanan yang mereka inginkan. Bukan hal yang aneh jika di pusat-pusat kota kita jumpai segerombolan anak muda bertampang urakan ikut berbaris tertib untuk antri masuk ke nightclub, bar, atau sekedar membeli makanan cepat saji di kios-kios pinggir jalan.

Karena kepekaan dan penghargaan terhadap waktu yang dimiliki oleh masyarakat Inggris, rasanya masuk akal jika pembagian waktu universal mengacu ke Greenwich, salah satu daerah di sudut kota London yang konon tepat berada di bujur nol derajat. Meskipun alasan utama penentuan titik nol waktu itu boleh jadi adalah untuk kepentingan navigasi armada kolonial. Dengan bujur nol derajat sebagai patokan mereka bisa dengan lebih cermat memperkirakan arah dan waktu tempuh bagi ekspedisi armada perang mereka ke Afrika dan Timur Jauh.

Masih dalam hal pembagian waktu, warga jazirah empat musim seperti Eropa mengenal pembagian waktu musim panas dan musim dingin. Di Inggris, dikenal istilah British Summer Time atau Day Light Saving Time untuk membedakan alokasi waktu di musim panas dan di musim dingin. Sepanjang bulan Oktober-Maret, ketika memasuki musim dingin jam akan dimundurkan 1 langkah. Tujuannya adalah memulai aktivitas satu jam lebih siang, karena pada bulan-bulan ini bisa dipastikan matahari akan jarang kelihatan. Di Glasgow misalnya, mendung dan hujan bisa terjadi sepanjang hari dan malam terasa lebih lama. Bagi sebagian orang kondisi semacam ini depresif, karena aktivitas luar rumah menjadi sangat berkurang karena cuaca yang cenderung tidak bersahabat. Statistik juga menunjukkan tingkat kematian tertinggi warga Inggris akibat bunuh diri terjadi pada bulan-bulan ini. Memasuki akhir bulan Maret, waktu kembali berjalan normal dan jam dimajukan kembali 1 angka, karena antara bulan Maret-Oktober, matahari kembali bersinar di daratan Eropa. Bahkan siang hari akan terasa lebih lama.

Ide memaju-mundurkan jam ini digagas pertama kali oleh William Willlett, seorang kontraktor berkebangsaan Inggris, di tahun 1907. Pada waktu itu Willet menyarankan agar selama musim panas jam dimajukan sebanyak 80

menit sehingga siang akan terasa lebih lama, waktu untuk rekreasi dan beraktivitas di siang hari jadi lebih banyak, sekaligus menghemat bahan bakar karena durasi lampu di malam hari bisa lebih singkat. Gagasan Willet ini menjadi amat populer ketika meletus Perang Dunia I karena masing-masing pihak berusaha keras menghemat persediaan bahan bakarnya. Pada tahun 1916 Pemerintah Inggris memasukan ketentuan Day Light Saving ke dalam undang-undang dan terus berlaku hingga sekarang.

Hari ini 28 Oktober 2007, tradisi yang telah tepat berumur satu abad kembali dilakukan, lebih dari 60 juta warga Inggris akan memundurkan jamnya satu langkah. @

Keterangan Gambar:

Gambar 1: BigBen, http://www.britanica.com
Gambar 2: ABG Glasgow Antri Masuk Club, koleksi pribadi Mas Arie

Gambar 3: Greenwich Clok, http://www.scagozo.com
Gambar 4: Daylight Saving, http://www.gpsmagazine.com

“Walk The Line”

Walk the Line mengisahkan perjalanan hidup sang maestro musik Country, Johnny R. Cash yang diperankan dengan brilian oleh Joaquin Phoenix.

Dalam banyak hal kisah Johnny Cash amat mirip dengan kisah Ray Charles Robinson, penyanyi Soul legendaris itu. Kisah tentang Ray juga telah diangkat ke layar lebar dengan judul sama dengan namanya, yang diperankan dengan sangat impresif oleh Jamie Fox. Akting Fox pula yang mengantarkan “Ray” menyabet 2 Academy Award tahun 2005 lalu. Dalam Walk The Line, kisah Johnny Cash pun berhasil memboyong 1 academy award dan 3 golden globe award.

Film ini diawali dengan setting tembok penjara Folsom, California di tahun 1968. John yang ketika itu tengah menjadi “American Idol” menggelar konser di antara para narapidana. Kelak konser ini tercatat sebagai konser paling sukses yang pernah dilakukan olehnya. Popularitas album “at Folsom Prison” bahkan melampaui penjualan album the Beatles ketika itu. Berbeda dengan Ray yang berasal dari keluarga buruh migran kulit hitam yang papa, John berasal dari keluarga kulit putih yang cukup mapan meskipun tidak bisa dikatakan kaya. Orang tuanya memiliki lahan pertanian cukup luas di wilayah Dyess, Arkansas. Di tanah itu pulalah John menjalani masa kanak-kanak yang penuh tekanan batin semenjak kakaknya, Jack, meninggal akibat kecelakaan. Jack merupakan anak lelaki tertua dari keluarga Cash yang amat disayangi oleh ayahnya. Jack memang lebih cerdas dan lebih rajin dari pada adik-adiknya. Dalam sebuah dialog menjelang tidur, John sempat mengungkapkan rasa irinya pada Jack yang dianggapnya selalu lebih hebat, termasuk kemampuannya dalam menghafalkan kisah-kisah dalam alkitab. Jack kecil memang bercita-cita menjadi pendeta, sementara John lebih tertarik pada musik.

Semenjak kematian Jack, tekanan yang dialami John semakin berat terutama karena Ayahnya cenderung menyalahkan John atas kecelakaan yang membuat Jack meninggal. Hingga pada suatu saat John yang sudah beranjak dewasa harus menjalani wajib militer ke Jerman. Keberangkatan John ke Jerman merupakan salah satu fase kreatif yang sangat penting bagi kehidupannya kelak. Di sela tugas kemiliteran yang dijalani dengan setengah hati John selalu menyempatkan diri melakukan kegemarannya akan musik. Kerinduannya pada Vivian, gadis yang dicintainya, diekspresikan dalam beberapa lagu yang diciptakannya. Lagu ini pulalah yang mengantarkan John ke dapur rekaman sekaligus menyelamatkan pernikahannya dengan Vivian yang sudah diujung tanduk akibat kondisi ekonomi.

Lirik-lirik lagu John yang lugas dan berenergi dengan cepat merebut perhatian dunia musik Amerika yang tengah mengalami revolusi. Lirik-lirik berirama gospel yang sebelumnya mendominasi belantika musik Amerika dipandang terlalu utopis dan absurd oleh sebagian generasi muda. Pada titik ini Cash dan Ray sepertinya memiliki kesamaan, keduanya berusaha menyajikan warna lain dalam dunia musik di Amerika pada saat itu. Di awal perjalan karirnya John bertemu dengan June Carter (diperankan dengan gemilang oleh Reese Witherspoon). June merupakan seorang artis top yang sudah bernyanyi sejak balita. Semenjak pertemuan itu June dan John sering menggelar konser musik bersama. John yang sejak kecil sudah kagum terhadap June seolah menemukan putri impian masa kecilnya. Dengan cepat kekaguman John terhadap June berubah menjadi rasa cinta dan keinginan untuk memiliki. Namun June yang pada saat itu tengah mengalami konflik keluarga pada awalnya tidak menanggapi. June bahkan berkali-kali mengingatkan komitmen dan tanggung jawab John pada istri dan anak-anaknya.

John yang semakin disibukkan oleh tur-tur musik ke luar kota kian jauh dari kehangatan keluarga. Kepulangannya ke rumah beberapa kali justru memicu ketegangan dengan Vivian istrinya. Sementara perang dingin John dengan ayahnya tak kunjung berakhir. Di tengah popularitas dan limpahan materi, John justru seolah kehilangan segalanya. Keakrabannya dengan alkohol dan amphetamin dengan cepat mengantarkan John ke ambang kehancuran. Pada titik ini sekali lagi John Cash berada pada lintasan yang sama persis dengan yang dilalui oleh Ray Charles. Keduanya mabuk oleh harta, popularitas, wanita, alkohol dan psikotropika, meskipun dalam kasus John dua hal terakhir yang lebih dominan.

Adalah June, sang Putri Impian yang mengulurkan tangan membantu John untuk kembali tegak. Berkat dukungan June dan ayah ibunya, John akhirnya dapat membebaskan diri dari obat dan alkohol. Perlahan John kembali menapaki jalan hidupnya sebagai seorang musisi. Berkolaborasi dengan June, idola masa kanak-kanaknya yang sekaligus peri penolong baginya, dia kembali menggelar konser di berbagai kota. Akhirnya pada bulan February 1968 di Ontrario, Kanada, John tak mampu lagi menemukan kata yang tepat selain meminta June untuk menikah dengannya. Ya..tepat di atas panggung di depan tatapan ratusan pasang mata penggemarnya, John Cash melamar June Carter, wanita yang dikaguminya sejak lama.

Selama 35 tahun berikutnya John dan June bersama-sama membesarkan anak mereka, merilis album dan melakukan tour musik ke seluruh dunia. Tak kurang dari 50 juta album terjual sepanjang karir musiknya. Johnny R. Cash meninggal pada 12 September 2003, persis 4 bulan setelah kematian June, istri dan inspirasinya.@yik

Lembata

Penelusuran maya kali ini mengantarkan saya ke Lembata, sebuah pulau yang juga sebuah kabupaten di Nusa Tenggara Timur. Kabupaten Lembata merupakan salah satu kabupaten baru di NTT, usianya belum genap 2 tahun (resmi berdiri pada 25 Okt 2005). Sebagaimana umumnya daerah-daerah di luar Jawa, kabupaten Lembata memiliki wilayah luas dengan penduduk sedikit. Tengok saja, dengan wilayah 2 kali lebih luas dari Kabupaten Sleman, penduduknya hanya kurang dari jumlah penduduk Kecamatan Depok di Sleman.

Sebagian besar penduduk Lembata hidup dibawah garis kemiskinan. Kondisi alam yang kering dan gersang tidak dapat diharapkan menghasilkan SDA yang memadai. Di tambah lagi Lembata merupakan daerah rawan bencana karena letaknya yang berada di atas lempeng bumi yang senantiasa bergerak. Posisi ini menyebabkan Lembata berada dalam lingkaran sabuk api (ring of fire) dengan gunung-gunung api aktif baik di daerah maupun di laut.

Meskipun demikian Pulau Lembata menyimpan sejuta kekhasan budaya dan obyek wisata bahari yang mengagumkan. Salah satu yang paling terkenal adalah budaya menangkap Ikan Paus dengan menggunakan alat dan metode yang sangat tradisional. Tak heran sering kita dengar ada nelayan Lembata yang terdampar hingga ke perairan Australia karena perahunya terseret paus.

Hal lain yang juga menarik adalah sistem perekonomian masyarakat Lembata yang masih menggunakan sistem pertukaran (barter) atau yang dalam bahasa lokalnya disebut Gelu Gore atau Kelung Lodong. Tradisi barter ini masih terus diterapkan ditengah kuatnya intervensi uang sebagai alat tukar modern. Masyarakat Lembata hanya menggunakan uang sebagai alat tukar untuk barang-barang industri seperti pakaian, minyak, sabun, dan gula pasir. Penggunaan uang juga hanya terbatas untuk pembayaran fasilitas umum seperti pendidikan, kesehatan dan transportasi. Selebihnya seluruh kebutuhan hidup sehari-hari masyarakat Lembata diperoleh melalui proses transaksi barter. Jenis komoditi yang dipertukarkan tergantung pada kebutuhan masing-masing pihak, misalnya hasil kebun ditukar dengan hasil laut.

Selain daya tarik kehidupan sosial budaya masyarakat Lembata, ada hal lain yang juga menarik terkait dengan pelaksanaan Pilkada di Lembata pada 1 Juni 2006 lalu. Alasan ini pulalah yang membawa perjalanan maya saya saat ini singgah di Lembata. Pilkada di Lembata nyaris batal karena adanya persaingan antara KPUD dengan pihak Pemda. Kasus ini merupakan kasus yang pertama kali dalam penyelenggaraan Pilkada langsung di Indonesia. Biasanya di daerah lain konflik terjadi di antara kelompok pendukung pasangan calon atau antara pasangan calon dengan KPUD. Dalam kasus Lembata konflik justru antara KPUD dengan pemerintah, sementara diantara para pasangan calon nyaris tidak ada gesekan berarti.

Pangkal persoalannya terletak pada interpretasi terhadap regulasi yang mengatur masalah pendanaan Pilkada. Pihak KPUD berpandangan bahwa pengelolaan dana pilkada merupakan otoritas KPUD dan dipertanggungjawabkan oleh KPUD kepada DPRD (seperti diatur dalam Kepmendagri No. 12 dan 21 Tahun 2005 tentang Pedoman Pengelolaan dan Pertanggungjawaban Belanja Pilkada). Sementara pihak Pemda juga bersikukuh bahwa seluruh penggunaan dana yang berasal dari APBD harus berada dalam kendali Satuan Kerja Pemda (sebagaimana diatur dalam PP. No 58/2005 tentang Pengelolaan Keuangan Daerah). Artinya otoritas pengelolaan dana Pilkada di Lembata (yang sumber dana sepenuhnya adalah APBD) berada di bawah Satker Pemda.

Kasus Lembata ini menjadi menarik untuk ditelaah lebih dalam karena sangat mungkin kebingungan serupa juga dialami oleh daerah-daerah lain. Lebih lanjut kasus ini juga menyumbangkan satu hal lagi dari daftar panjang lubang-lubang regulasi dalam penyelenggaraan Pilkada. Identifikasi dan telaah yang lebih mendalam dari daftar kasus tersebut diharapkan menjadi kontribusi bagi upaya perbaikan aturan penyelenggaraan Pilkada ke depan. Dengan rambu-rambu aturan main yang jelas diharapkan proses Pilkada sebagai sebuah arena pembelajaran politik, pendewasaan demokrasi dan instrumen pembentukan pemerintahan yang efektif dapat berlangsung dengan baik. @yik

#Gambar diambil dari sini