Public Space Political: Political Communication in a Pluralistic Society
"All actions concerning the rights of others
which do not comply with kepublikan maksimnya is not fair. "
- Immanuel Kant
NATION we are entering a very important stage of history with hold direct presidential elections. However, this is just the beginning. It is claimed early success as a successful democratic election. The understanding of democracy in countries that are hold transition from authoritarianism to democracy as our country is minimal. Democracy is understood as fair elections take place. This minimalist democracy ignores the process of the elections and other elections. However, if the opposite of the concept of democracy itself, we can not stop on a minimalist attitude.
DEMOCRACY per definitionem, such as solid formulated in German, is Regierung der regierten (rule of the governed). If so, submit the confidence granted to the perpetrators of the political system, the results of the election-executive, legislative, and judicial-are not going to meet that definition. They are governed must have access to influence in the political system. If you want maximum democracy, the gap between the two elections should be filled with political participation of citizens in the broadest sense. In most democracies this is the concept of public space occupy a central place.
If democracy does not merely formalistic understood, he must give citizens the possibility to express their opinion publicly. Space or, say, a stage where citizens can express their opinions, interests, and needs discursively and free of pressure that is the core idea of political public space. The concept of space here is not metaphorical, but real, so far as we do not understand it as a geometric space measured and characterized by physical. Social space is formed through communication, that is, as Hannah Arendt said, a scope for an "I" to declare "kesiapaannya" in the presence of a "you" that an act together with a "we" becomes possible.
In the classical theories of democracy known concept volonte generale (general purpose), namely public decisions that reflect the interests of all the people. An ancient concept which comes from Jean-Jacques Rousseau is still adopted in modern parliamentarism practices though the concept was born out of a relatively small community homogeneous: public cantons of Switzerland. Hard to imagine the realization volonte generale in a plural society with a diversity of values and lifestyle orientation in the era of market globalization and information today. The idea of political public space could explain the relevance of the classical concept that in a complex society like the people of Indonesia.
What is the political public space?
In today's pluralistic society, an identification of "sovereignty of the people" with "representatives of the people" in the House of Representatives (DPR) / People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) is becoming increasingly difficult because of the political system "was" one subsystem among other subsystems in a complex society. Therefore, the concept of popular sovereignty should be interpreted in a new way. If the parliament is just one of the subsystems of complex society, people's sovereignty should conceivably surpassed the representative system, which is the intensity of the discursive interactions between various subsystems in a pluralistic society. In other words, sovereignty is "the totality of the form" and "content of communication" about public affairs which took place, both in the political system (executive, legislative, and judicial) as well as in the wider community.
If this interpretation is acceptable, political public space that functions well and the sovereignty of the people is one and the same. The concept of political public space is a new understanding of the concept of sovereignty that this concept can be applied in a complex society in a globalized world.
In his early work, Strukturwandel der Oeffentlichkeit (Structural Changes in Public Space), Juergen Habermas describes the political public space as the conditions of communication that allows citizens to form an opinion and common will discursively (1). The question now is, which of the conditions referred to by Habermas?
First, participation in political communication was only possible if we use the same language with consistent semantics and logic used. All citizens who are able to communicate to participate in the political public space.
Second, all participants in the political public space have equal opportunities to reach a consensus that is fair and treats its communication partner as a person capable of autonomous take responsibility and not as a tool used for purposes beyond themselves.
Third, there should be common rules that protect the communication process of repression and discrimination so that participants can ensure that the consensus achieved only through a better argument. In short, political public space must be "inclusive", "egalitarian", and "free of pressure" (2). We can add other traits: pluralism, multiculturalism, tolerance, and so on. These characteristics are in accordance with the contents kepublikan concept itself, which can be entered by anyone.
Where is the space locus inclusive, egalitarian, and free of pressure that in a pluralistic society? If we, as Habermas analyzes, imagine a complex society today as three major components, namely the market economy (capitalism), the bureaucratic system (state), and social solidarity (community), the locus of political public space lies in the components of social solidarity. He should be imagined as an autonomous space which distinguish themselves, either from the market or from the state.
In this era of market globalization and information today, it is hard to imagine the existence of a forum or a stage of political communication that is free from the influence of the state or the market. Most seminars, public discussions, demonstrations, and so funded, facilitated, and formatted by major financial power, whether the power of business, party, or international organizations and so on. Almost no longer a neutral locus of economic and political influence. If so, the political public sphere must be understood in "normative": space that is not only in the official forum, but everywhere the citizens to meet and get together to discuss themes that are relevant to the community free of intervention forces outside the meeting. We find a political public space, for example, in the protest movement, the advocacy action, the struggle forum of human rights, in an interactive political debate on television or radio, the conversation concerns in the stalls, and so on.
Different from democracy in societies that are relatively small and homogeneous, democracy in a complex society such as the gigantic size of our society can not function satisfactorily only by relying on the performance of the representatives in the DPR / MPR. Subject sovereignty of the people in a pluralistic society should not be limited to parliamentary actors. It should be the subject of the actors in the political public space, and they are what we call civil society. They are made up of associations, organizations, and movements that formed spontaneously for listening, compacting, and voiced loudly into the political public space social problems stemming from the private area (3).
Civil society is not only the perpetrators, but also a producer of political public space. As researched by J Cohen and A Arato, political public space generated civil society actors was characterized by a "plurality" (such as family, informal groups, and voluntary organizations), "publicity" (like the mass media and cultural institutions), "privacy "(such as moral and personal development), and the" legality "(the structure of law and basic rights) (4).
Function of political public space
In the Soeharto regime, the state intervened formation of public opinion by reason of maintaining national stability, overseeing the mass media are strictly for the sake of national security, stigmatize the opposition, and hinder the spontaneous formation of political groups. The current government justify its repressive policy on the grounds that the country already equipped with DPR / MPR for canalization public aspirations, while the representative institutions have been under the domination of the executive.
Still wet in our memory how the presidential elections occur every chorus agrees that a ritual for the re-election of Soeharto for the umpteenth time. There can be no difference of opinion. Acclamation prepared in advance. New Order state is an authoritarian administrative system which hinders the formation of political public space by creating a false public who act as though representing volonte generale.
New Order state not only do not have a connection to the source of loyalty and legitimitasnya, but also lacks sensibility to the real social problems faced. The lack of connection is what causes people withdraw legitimacy of the Suharto government through reform movement. Reform none other than building a network that connects to the source legitimitasnya political system: the people.
In a democratic constitutional state, political public space serves as an alarm system with a sensitive sensor that reaches the entire community. First, he accepted the situation and formulate a socio-political problem. Beyond that, the second, he also became a mediator between the diversity of lifestyles and value orientation in society on the one hand and the political system and economic system on the other. We can imagine the political public space as an intermediate structure between the community, the state, and the economy. Social organizations based on religion, non-governmental organizations, scholars associations, ethnic associations, solidarity groups, the movement of citizen initiatives, and many more in the public sphere signaled their problem to be managed by the state.
Public space serves both politically if it is "transparent" reflecting back problems faced by the affected immediately. Transparency was only possible if the public space in front autonomous bureaucratic power and business power. Normative demands is certainly difficult to reconcile with the fact that the electronic and print media in our communities often face the dilemma that is not easily solved in the face of political pressure nor the owners of capital. However, it does not mean that the perpetrators of the public space just give up on the market imperatives and bureaucratic. Without meeting the demands of normative, public space will only become "extensions" of the market and the state alone.
Certainly hard to imagine public space as free space power. Instead, political public space is precisely the power network is very complex because every form of association in our society to form its own public space that wants to impose its needs. We can use the results of the analysis of Habermas to distinguish the two types of political public space in our society (5).
The first type is said to be "authentic public space" -is a public space consisting of a communication process organized by the non-formal institutions that organize themselves. Communication here interwoven horizontally, inclusive, and discursive. The actors in this first type comes from the public itself, living on their own strength, and participate in the dissemination, multiplication, and protection of public spaces. The student movement that encourages reform is an example of this first type. In this movement we are witnessing the emergence of political public space in our country.
The actors have a sense of authentic public space on the dangers that threaten our communication rights as citizens and oppose any attempt to repress minorities and marginalized. This authentic space development will be largely determined by the civic courage and civic friendship that grows among citizens. It appears, for example, in the guts of a media broadcast, publish, or broadcast news into the public's right to know, but striking the interests of investors or the bureaucracy: the anti-corruption movement, for example. Multiplication actor or institution that has civic virtues such as this is a condition of the formation of an authentic public space.
They both types of "public space is not authentic" - is the power of influence on the decision of the voters, consumers, and clients to mobilize loyalty, purchasing power, and their behavior through the mass media. Different from the first, the actors here just "wear" the existing public space with the help of external sources of them, namely money and power. Political parties and business associations in our society is included in this second type. This kind of public space that is dominant in society that run daily life.
After the student movement contributed to the delegitimation of the Suharto regime in 1998, open public space immediately occupied by market forces and the bureaucracy. Foster public space means not only the multiplication of authentic public space, but also continue to control gait perpetrators public space is not authentic. Society must liberate themselves from the culture of silence to critical culture, from indeferensi to political participation, of a mass character to the community.
In a democratic constitutional state, the mass media is the fourth power after the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The mass media can function properly in the political public space if autonomous not only from the state and the market, but also of the actors of the public sphere. He should be able to neutralize the influence of money and power to manipulate the political public space. He did not possibly be separated entirely from the actors of the second type, but it can and should capture and catapult the voices that reflect the widest kepublikan.
Communication between the public and the political system
It has been said above that the reform was none other than an attempt to open channels of political communication in a pluralistic society. While the revolution could have changed the state system, the state system reform existing laws diradikalkan communicatively. Reform is none other than to get rid of political communication barriers between the political system (executive, legislative, and judicial) and political public space.
According to Habermas, characterized by a modern democratic constitutional state in case of an intensive political communication between the public and the political system (6). Habermas, in my opinion, succeeded in explaining a large problem that sought social and political activists in our society, namely how to connect the aspirations of the public, victims, minorities, and so on are represented by non-formal organization with a political system. Diskursivitas models between the public and the political system can explain it.
In the political public space, civil society hold public discourse in many forms and contents. Pluralism beliefs and opinions are often berkontroversi one another, of which have niveau low to high. The voices in the political public sphere characterized by anarchic and unstructured. Political public space is a good locus for communication manipulative and unlimited communication. However, it does not mean that the voices that can be taken for granted as public opinion. Suppose all voices have access in the public decision making process without the filter, such a government would not only bad, but also can be considered nothing.
Here we can imagine that there are two kinds of filters in democratic procedures: the filter in the political public space itself and filter political system. An opinion has the quality as public opinion if it escapes from the filter of public space. Public readers and listeners could have been manipulated or intimidated to receive an opinion, but such opinion remains to be disputed authenticity for public still get access to test validity.
All that proved to be the result of manipulation and intimidation-if testing can not be publicly opened and counted as public opinion. Of course, manipulation and intimidation could very terancang be systemic, such as the Nazi regime or the regime. However, all "system lie" is uncovered and open to the public eye, all the belief that during the regime of terror was upheld in a democratic government will prove to be manipulation.
There is no denying that social power and political power often also come into play in determining the screening process opinion that political public space. Not only influential figures, but also institutions respected and has power. However, once again, for the role of this power can be checked by the public, which opinion was not affected by the power immune to public criticism.
We witnessed how corruption in our society can only be eradicated if the public had a role because of corruption-as well as lies and secrets to hide from the public spotlight. Meeting or looseness of the filter in the public space is determined by the public itself. The more critical and vital a society, the more detailed the public in the community to develop the filter. The newspapers are provocative indeed allowed, but if the political provocation recognizable as mere provocation, newspapers such will be abandoned and passion sensation seeking to immigrate to other fields, such as art, lifestyle, or eroticism.
If the public is intelligent, rational selection will occur between arguments to win a better argument, which is then received quality as public opinion. Because public communication following the norms better argument, the sound quality will be more decisive than the quantity. Is a better argument will get a majority or not, will be largely determined by the quality of the public itself.
Struggle received public recognition it will enter the political stage if a public opinion into the filter political system. In the political system there is also a public. The public here has a different quality than the public in the political public space. This is different from the last one, the public in the political system is strong because of the proximity of their access to public decision-making: representatives of the people, the president, cabinet, judiciary, and so on.
Filter political system consists of a system or procedure law: the constitution and laws product. This legal procedure can diasalkan from the previous political communication between the political public sphere and the political system. In other words, the political system filters should also not be kept out of the public discursive testing. Public opinion into the filter it and won a majority in the legislature will change its quality system into public decision: legal product. Everyday language used in political public space translated into legal language is official.
A plural society that has a vital political public space that we can call as a strong community. Such strong community must be balanced with a strong government as well. A society that has a strong passion democratization, but the political system is weak, will not be able to filter incoming insistence mass power to impose his will. It happens in "anarchism". Instead, an autonomous political system of society and tend to walk according to the logic of power will destroy the political public space. It happens in totalitarianism.
A democratic constitutional state must have a strong community and strong leadership. The political system should not be independent of political public space. He should continue to get food and life of the public space precisely because of it he won the loyalty and legitimitasnya source. Strong government in this sense is a government that is able to facilitate political communication between the political system and civil society in the political public space.
The idea of political public space, as noted above, can reconstruct the classical concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty of the people is not a direct democracy in the sense of mass actions to impose the will of the political system. In the democratic constitutional state boundaries between state and society should be respected, but the limits should not be kept too rigid. Respect for the boundaries between society and the state must be accompanied by attempts to dilute the process of communication between the two.
An understanding of the political public space take distance against the idea of direct democracy. If we accept the idea of political public space, we have to accept a model of representative democracy, as is usually done in modern law countries. However, representative democracy was in control of the public with its networks. Public control and indirect, ie through dikursivitas. Diskursivitas between political public space and the political system that the realization of the idea of popular sovereignty in a pluralistic society.
F Budi Hardiman Lecturer STF Driyarkara Program Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Laws at the University of Pelita Harapan
Note:
1. See Habermas, J, Strukturwandel der Oeffenlichkeit, STW, Frankfurt aM, 1990, pp 38
2. Look Budi Hardiman, F, Demokratie als Diskurs, (unpublished thesis), Munich, 1996, p 15
3. See Habermas, J, Faktizitaet und Geltung, Shurkamp, Frankfurt aM, 1992, pp 443
4. Budi Hardiman, p 52
5. Cf. Habermas, J, Strukturwandel der Oeffentlichkeit, STW, Frankfurt aM, 1990, pp 28
6. See Budi Hardiman, p 57
Source: Kompas Cyber Media
"All actions concerning the rights of others
which do not comply with kepublikan maksimnya is not fair. "
- Immanuel Kant
NATION we are entering a very important stage of history with hold direct presidential elections. However, this is just the beginning. It is claimed early success as a successful democratic election. The understanding of democracy in countries that are hold transition from authoritarianism to democracy as our country is minimal. Democracy is understood as fair elections take place. This minimalist democracy ignores the process of the elections and other elections. However, if the opposite of the concept of democracy itself, we can not stop on a minimalist attitude.
DEMOCRACY per definitionem, such as solid formulated in German, is Regierung der regierten (rule of the governed). If so, submit the confidence granted to the perpetrators of the political system, the results of the election-executive, legislative, and judicial-are not going to meet that definition. They are governed must have access to influence in the political system. If you want maximum democracy, the gap between the two elections should be filled with political participation of citizens in the broadest sense. In most democracies this is the concept of public space occupy a central place.
If democracy does not merely formalistic understood, he must give citizens the possibility to express their opinion publicly. Space or, say, a stage where citizens can express their opinions, interests, and needs discursively and free of pressure that is the core idea of political public space. The concept of space here is not metaphorical, but real, so far as we do not understand it as a geometric space measured and characterized by physical. Social space is formed through communication, that is, as Hannah Arendt said, a scope for an "I" to declare "kesiapaannya" in the presence of a "you" that an act together with a "we" becomes possible.
In the classical theories of democracy known concept volonte generale (general purpose), namely public decisions that reflect the interests of all the people. An ancient concept which comes from Jean-Jacques Rousseau is still adopted in modern parliamentarism practices though the concept was born out of a relatively small community homogeneous: public cantons of Switzerland. Hard to imagine the realization volonte generale in a plural society with a diversity of values and lifestyle orientation in the era of market globalization and information today. The idea of political public space could explain the relevance of the classical concept that in a complex society like the people of Indonesia.
What is the political public space?
In today's pluralistic society, an identification of "sovereignty of the people" with "representatives of the people" in the House of Representatives (DPR) / People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) is becoming increasingly difficult because of the political system "was" one subsystem among other subsystems in a complex society. Therefore, the concept of popular sovereignty should be interpreted in a new way. If the parliament is just one of the subsystems of complex society, people's sovereignty should conceivably surpassed the representative system, which is the intensity of the discursive interactions between various subsystems in a pluralistic society. In other words, sovereignty is "the totality of the form" and "content of communication" about public affairs which took place, both in the political system (executive, legislative, and judicial) as well as in the wider community.
If this interpretation is acceptable, political public space that functions well and the sovereignty of the people is one and the same. The concept of political public space is a new understanding of the concept of sovereignty that this concept can be applied in a complex society in a globalized world.
In his early work, Strukturwandel der Oeffentlichkeit (Structural Changes in Public Space), Juergen Habermas describes the political public space as the conditions of communication that allows citizens to form an opinion and common will discursively (1). The question now is, which of the conditions referred to by Habermas?
First, participation in political communication was only possible if we use the same language with consistent semantics and logic used. All citizens who are able to communicate to participate in the political public space.
Second, all participants in the political public space have equal opportunities to reach a consensus that is fair and treats its communication partner as a person capable of autonomous take responsibility and not as a tool used for purposes beyond themselves.
Third, there should be common rules that protect the communication process of repression and discrimination so that participants can ensure that the consensus achieved only through a better argument. In short, political public space must be "inclusive", "egalitarian", and "free of pressure" (2). We can add other traits: pluralism, multiculturalism, tolerance, and so on. These characteristics are in accordance with the contents kepublikan concept itself, which can be entered by anyone.
Where is the space locus inclusive, egalitarian, and free of pressure that in a pluralistic society? If we, as Habermas analyzes, imagine a complex society today as three major components, namely the market economy (capitalism), the bureaucratic system (state), and social solidarity (community), the locus of political public space lies in the components of social solidarity. He should be imagined as an autonomous space which distinguish themselves, either from the market or from the state.
In this era of market globalization and information today, it is hard to imagine the existence of a forum or a stage of political communication that is free from the influence of the state or the market. Most seminars, public discussions, demonstrations, and so funded, facilitated, and formatted by major financial power, whether the power of business, party, or international organizations and so on. Almost no longer a neutral locus of economic and political influence. If so, the political public sphere must be understood in "normative": space that is not only in the official forum, but everywhere the citizens to meet and get together to discuss themes that are relevant to the community free of intervention forces outside the meeting. We find a political public space, for example, in the protest movement, the advocacy action, the struggle forum of human rights, in an interactive political debate on television or radio, the conversation concerns in the stalls, and so on.
Different from democracy in societies that are relatively small and homogeneous, democracy in a complex society such as the gigantic size of our society can not function satisfactorily only by relying on the performance of the representatives in the DPR / MPR. Subject sovereignty of the people in a pluralistic society should not be limited to parliamentary actors. It should be the subject of the actors in the political public space, and they are what we call civil society. They are made up of associations, organizations, and movements that formed spontaneously for listening, compacting, and voiced loudly into the political public space social problems stemming from the private area (3).
Civil society is not only the perpetrators, but also a producer of political public space. As researched by J Cohen and A Arato, political public space generated civil society actors was characterized by a "plurality" (such as family, informal groups, and voluntary organizations), "publicity" (like the mass media and cultural institutions), "privacy "(such as moral and personal development), and the" legality "(the structure of law and basic rights) (4).
Function of political public space
In the Soeharto regime, the state intervened formation of public opinion by reason of maintaining national stability, overseeing the mass media are strictly for the sake of national security, stigmatize the opposition, and hinder the spontaneous formation of political groups. The current government justify its repressive policy on the grounds that the country already equipped with DPR / MPR for canalization public aspirations, while the representative institutions have been under the domination of the executive.
Still wet in our memory how the presidential elections occur every chorus agrees that a ritual for the re-election of Soeharto for the umpteenth time. There can be no difference of opinion. Acclamation prepared in advance. New Order state is an authoritarian administrative system which hinders the formation of political public space by creating a false public who act as though representing volonte generale.
New Order state not only do not have a connection to the source of loyalty and legitimitasnya, but also lacks sensibility to the real social problems faced. The lack of connection is what causes people withdraw legitimacy of the Suharto government through reform movement. Reform none other than building a network that connects to the source legitimitasnya political system: the people.
In a democratic constitutional state, political public space serves as an alarm system with a sensitive sensor that reaches the entire community. First, he accepted the situation and formulate a socio-political problem. Beyond that, the second, he also became a mediator between the diversity of lifestyles and value orientation in society on the one hand and the political system and economic system on the other. We can imagine the political public space as an intermediate structure between the community, the state, and the economy. Social organizations based on religion, non-governmental organizations, scholars associations, ethnic associations, solidarity groups, the movement of citizen initiatives, and many more in the public sphere signaled their problem to be managed by the state.
Public space serves both politically if it is "transparent" reflecting back problems faced by the affected immediately. Transparency was only possible if the public space in front autonomous bureaucratic power and business power. Normative demands is certainly difficult to reconcile with the fact that the electronic and print media in our communities often face the dilemma that is not easily solved in the face of political pressure nor the owners of capital. However, it does not mean that the perpetrators of the public space just give up on the market imperatives and bureaucratic. Without meeting the demands of normative, public space will only become "extensions" of the market and the state alone.
Certainly hard to imagine public space as free space power. Instead, political public space is precisely the power network is very complex because every form of association in our society to form its own public space that wants to impose its needs. We can use the results of the analysis of Habermas to distinguish the two types of political public space in our society (5).
The first type is said to be "authentic public space" -is a public space consisting of a communication process organized by the non-formal institutions that organize themselves. Communication here interwoven horizontally, inclusive, and discursive. The actors in this first type comes from the public itself, living on their own strength, and participate in the dissemination, multiplication, and protection of public spaces. The student movement that encourages reform is an example of this first type. In this movement we are witnessing the emergence of political public space in our country.
The actors have a sense of authentic public space on the dangers that threaten our communication rights as citizens and oppose any attempt to repress minorities and marginalized. This authentic space development will be largely determined by the civic courage and civic friendship that grows among citizens. It appears, for example, in the guts of a media broadcast, publish, or broadcast news into the public's right to know, but striking the interests of investors or the bureaucracy: the anti-corruption movement, for example. Multiplication actor or institution that has civic virtues such as this is a condition of the formation of an authentic public space.
They both types of "public space is not authentic" - is the power of influence on the decision of the voters, consumers, and clients to mobilize loyalty, purchasing power, and their behavior through the mass media. Different from the first, the actors here just "wear" the existing public space with the help of external sources of them, namely money and power. Political parties and business associations in our society is included in this second type. This kind of public space that is dominant in society that run daily life.
After the student movement contributed to the delegitimation of the Suharto regime in 1998, open public space immediately occupied by market forces and the bureaucracy. Foster public space means not only the multiplication of authentic public space, but also continue to control gait perpetrators public space is not authentic. Society must liberate themselves from the culture of silence to critical culture, from indeferensi to political participation, of a mass character to the community.
In a democratic constitutional state, the mass media is the fourth power after the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The mass media can function properly in the political public space if autonomous not only from the state and the market, but also of the actors of the public sphere. He should be able to neutralize the influence of money and power to manipulate the political public space. He did not possibly be separated entirely from the actors of the second type, but it can and should capture and catapult the voices that reflect the widest kepublikan.
Communication between the public and the political system
It has been said above that the reform was none other than an attempt to open channels of political communication in a pluralistic society. While the revolution could have changed the state system, the state system reform existing laws diradikalkan communicatively. Reform is none other than to get rid of political communication barriers between the political system (executive, legislative, and judicial) and political public space.
According to Habermas, characterized by a modern democratic constitutional state in case of an intensive political communication between the public and the political system (6). Habermas, in my opinion, succeeded in explaining a large problem that sought social and political activists in our society, namely how to connect the aspirations of the public, victims, minorities, and so on are represented by non-formal organization with a political system. Diskursivitas models between the public and the political system can explain it.
In the political public space, civil society hold public discourse in many forms and contents. Pluralism beliefs and opinions are often berkontroversi one another, of which have niveau low to high. The voices in the political public sphere characterized by anarchic and unstructured. Political public space is a good locus for communication manipulative and unlimited communication. However, it does not mean that the voices that can be taken for granted as public opinion. Suppose all voices have access in the public decision making process without the filter, such a government would not only bad, but also can be considered nothing.
Here we can imagine that there are two kinds of filters in democratic procedures: the filter in the political public space itself and filter political system. An opinion has the quality as public opinion if it escapes from the filter of public space. Public readers and listeners could have been manipulated or intimidated to receive an opinion, but such opinion remains to be disputed authenticity for public still get access to test validity.
All that proved to be the result of manipulation and intimidation-if testing can not be publicly opened and counted as public opinion. Of course, manipulation and intimidation could very terancang be systemic, such as the Nazi regime or the regime. However, all "system lie" is uncovered and open to the public eye, all the belief that during the regime of terror was upheld in a democratic government will prove to be manipulation.
There is no denying that social power and political power often also come into play in determining the screening process opinion that political public space. Not only influential figures, but also institutions respected and has power. However, once again, for the role of this power can be checked by the public, which opinion was not affected by the power immune to public criticism.
We witnessed how corruption in our society can only be eradicated if the public had a role because of corruption-as well as lies and secrets to hide from the public spotlight. Meeting or looseness of the filter in the public space is determined by the public itself. The more critical and vital a society, the more detailed the public in the community to develop the filter. The newspapers are provocative indeed allowed, but if the political provocation recognizable as mere provocation, newspapers such will be abandoned and passion sensation seeking to immigrate to other fields, such as art, lifestyle, or eroticism.
If the public is intelligent, rational selection will occur between arguments to win a better argument, which is then received quality as public opinion. Because public communication following the norms better argument, the sound quality will be more decisive than the quantity. Is a better argument will get a majority or not, will be largely determined by the quality of the public itself.
Struggle received public recognition it will enter the political stage if a public opinion into the filter political system. In the political system there is also a public. The public here has a different quality than the public in the political public space. This is different from the last one, the public in the political system is strong because of the proximity of their access to public decision-making: representatives of the people, the president, cabinet, judiciary, and so on.
Filter political system consists of a system or procedure law: the constitution and laws product. This legal procedure can diasalkan from the previous political communication between the political public sphere and the political system. In other words, the political system filters should also not be kept out of the public discursive testing. Public opinion into the filter it and won a majority in the legislature will change its quality system into public decision: legal product. Everyday language used in political public space translated into legal language is official.
A plural society that has a vital political public space that we can call as a strong community. Such strong community must be balanced with a strong government as well. A society that has a strong passion democratization, but the political system is weak, will not be able to filter incoming insistence mass power to impose his will. It happens in "anarchism". Instead, an autonomous political system of society and tend to walk according to the logic of power will destroy the political public space. It happens in totalitarianism.
A democratic constitutional state must have a strong community and strong leadership. The political system should not be independent of political public space. He should continue to get food and life of the public space precisely because of it he won the loyalty and legitimitasnya source. Strong government in this sense is a government that is able to facilitate political communication between the political system and civil society in the political public space.
The idea of political public space, as noted above, can reconstruct the classical concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty of the people is not a direct democracy in the sense of mass actions to impose the will of the political system. In the democratic constitutional state boundaries between state and society should be respected, but the limits should not be kept too rigid. Respect for the boundaries between society and the state must be accompanied by attempts to dilute the process of communication between the two.
An understanding of the political public space take distance against the idea of direct democracy. If we accept the idea of political public space, we have to accept a model of representative democracy, as is usually done in modern law countries. However, representative democracy was in control of the public with its networks. Public control and indirect, ie through dikursivitas. Diskursivitas between political public space and the political system that the realization of the idea of popular sovereignty in a pluralistic society.
F Budi Hardiman Lecturer STF Driyarkara Program Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Laws at the University of Pelita Harapan
Note:
1. See Habermas, J, Strukturwandel der Oeffenlichkeit, STW, Frankfurt aM, 1990, pp 38
2. Look Budi Hardiman, F, Demokratie als Diskurs, (unpublished thesis), Munich, 1996, p 15
3. See Habermas, J, Faktizitaet und Geltung, Shurkamp, Frankfurt aM, 1992, pp 443
4. Budi Hardiman, p 52
5. Cf. Habermas, J, Strukturwandel der Oeffentlichkeit, STW, Frankfurt aM, 1990, pp 28
6. See Budi Hardiman, p 57
Source: Kompas Cyber Media
0 comments:
Post a Comment