Minggu, 01 Juni 2014

DILLEMA OF DEMOCRACRY LEGITIMACY TO ACHIEVE
EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT
By: Tahyantho Abdillah
IHS-ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT ROTTERDAM
Democracy
Democracy can be definite as a form government in which the power to govern is derived from its citizen, by consensus,  referendum (direct democracy), or by the method of representatives election (representative democracy). In simple way, democracy is a system that government are elected and in managing government is obey to the citizen choice/need.
Many people argue that democracy is the best way to achieve government or state goals  such as prosperity, safety, and liberty. Kaufman et al (1999) in Whitford and Lee argued that are existed strong relationships between good governance and development outcomes. To achieve those goals is needed effective government, but as Whitford and Lee stated, sometimes an authoritarian government can be more efficient in achieving its goals (if can reduce disorder).
The debate of democracy, decentralization, politics and their performances seem likely focused in two broad conceptual terms, which are developmental state/country and the democratic state/country. In the effective democratic governance, providing service delivery can be better, because the government really knows what the people want, but the requirement of infrastructure, capacity, managerial, ability, and process of democracy should not be left. The key question of democratic function is in its role to achieve ultimate goals of the state establishment, economic prosperity. Can democracy do it? In the last late of the twentieth century, democracy has great expansion in the world. If democracy is defined in (minimal mean) as a system of government in that are filled through regular, free, and fair elections, about 60%  states in the world are democracies and in 2001, Freedom House in Diamond (2002) stated that 121 democratic countries were established.  If democracy can achieve its goals, then states can be back to authoritarian again.

Democratic Legitimacy
Webber (1968, 212-6) stated that legitimacy facilitates a domination particular form of power and it has three ideal types: legal, traditional, and charismatic. He also explained that traditional and charismatic (even provide legitimacy) may be inconsistent with democracy, human rights, or other factors in promoting general economic well-being and (relative) equity.
To achieve legitimacy, government should able provide public service in adequate number and quality, but funds for its service only can get if people willing to pay tax/charge (government get its legitimation). Levi and Sacks (2005) proposed to involve local action and knowledge and international expertise agency facilitation for doing that. They also suggest (2005, 22-23) four main factors for thase, which are: “appropriate alignment of incentives to public servants, management capacity or good leadership, transparency and fairness in implementation, and learning processes that produce legitimating beliefs supportive of good government”.
Diamond (2002) stated three generic problems of governance in achieve legitimacy through democracy, which are:
1.      The weakness and frequently demolish of the rule of law.  Corruption, smuggling, drug trafficking, criminal violence, personalization of power, human rights abuses, and political scandals will make democracies establishment and legitimacy of government decrease.
2.      Economic reforms; If economic improvement cannot achieve suitable amount and distributed enough (most of Latin America, in some Africa countries and in some Asian countries (Pakistan, the Philippines), people (can) become distrust in democracy system.
3.      Inability to manage ethnic/regional, and religious differences in a peaceful and inclusive way.  Many countries solve this trouble by federal system such as India, Spain, USA, Canada and Australia. 
The failure of effective govern takes to the legitimacy and stability of democracy as shown by decline (60% to 48%) of support democracy in 2000-2001 as preferable kind of government  in the entire Latin American region (Diamond, 2002).
Five ways suggested by Diamond (2002) to achieve legitimate democracy are through by:
1.  Organizational development of the parties
2. Electoral mobilization through better candidate and campaign, participation of voters, and communication and mobilize the supporters.
3.  Governance:  By assistance parties in doing right and effective function
4. Internal democratization: help parties to choose their candidate/leaders/ make and formulate decision/policies and eliciting member participation.
5.  Reforming party and campaign finance

Many parties cannot improve their voter/supporter or members capacity because their vehicles are the party leader, as in Indonesia (PDIP, Democrat Party, PKB), India (Congress), Pakistan (PPP), Syria (ASBP), and Egypt (NDP). Parties that can improve/develop their capacity will be left by voters, and also will be burden in achieving effective government.  Unless they can transform to more broad-based and democratic, their institutional development is difficult to increase. Furthermore, governance as a yield of democracy steps, cannot produce what its goals. Democracy and governance cannot be improved without broad enhancement in institutional components of the rule of law such as legal codes, frameworks, judiciaries, authority prosecution, constabulary, and the entire legal profession (Diamond, 2002).
Political Instability Task Force and the World Bank in Goldstone (2005, 2) have indicated primary dimension in state capacity, which are “effectiveness or how well the government is able to translate resources into actions to achieve desired policy outcomes, and legitimacy or whether the outcomes achieved, and the methods used to achieve them, are considered fair and reasonable by local societal standards by the population”. They also grouped four basic functions to help analysts in determining the level of a government’s effectiveness and legitimacy, those are: security, politics and justice economy and social and cultural.
Political willingness of the nation and its rulers are among the most important in tackle the democracy legitimacy problem. Rulers who got and running power by illegal means, or monopolize economic opportunity for themselves/their society, probably have a lesser change to improve state capacity. Political systems that lack of legitimation are hard to mobilize resources and people to carry out desired policies, as well as countries with major security failures almost certainly suffer public services.
States that can recover or strengthen their capacity have ability to improve effectiveness or legitimacy on the governance functions, and use it as a foundation in improving the others.  The failure is caused if the institutional arrangements are inappropriate or inadequate in implementing security, economy, social dimensions, and politic. Providing basic employment (if such employment is lacking or interrupted) is high priority (Goldstone, 2005).

Governmental Effectiveness
Recently, in achieving good and effective government, the  term of governance became familiar. Governance  is “the manner in which public officials and institutions acquire and exercise the authority to shape public policy and provide public goods and services” (Kaufmann and Kraay, 2007 in Monica, 2008, 4) and  The World Bank explained that “Governance consists of the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised, includes the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced; the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies; and  the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them.
UNESCAP stated that eight major characteristics of Good governance are:  effective and efficient, accountable, transparent, participatory, consensus oriented, responsive, equitable and inclusive and tracks the rule of law. One of the most importance in good governance is corruption can be minimalize.
According to liberal theory, bureaucrat that running government policies based on people mandate, so the bureaucracy not only filled by bureaucrat (employee/professional) but also political representation (Carino, 1994). As results, it will emerge dominant groups of bureaucracy. Carino (1994) stated in this relationship, come up relation bureaucrat as subordinate from politic (bureaucratic ascendancy)  or bureaucracy equal to politic (bureaucratic subaltern or attempt at co-equality with the executive). Executive ascendancy is come up from suggestion that political power is based on people mandate (or God) that can be reached or legitimate through election, violence or de facto acceptance by the people.
GDRC Programe on Urban Governance (2011) explained solutions and challenges in urban governance, which are:
1.   Public Information and Access, including provide media (infrastructure, time for consultation and publish a proposed plan
2.   Public Engagement in Decision-Making with conduct systematic consultations before adopts plan and also adopt result of consultations, and engage residents (by open competition) to joint in government board
3.   Electoral Reform through establish and strengthen election system for mayor and municipality council and also their earnings system.  
Structure and administration reform are done by: establish or strengthen systems for paying municipal managers and employees, Decentralize national government powers and responsibilities, and reorganize smaller municipalities to consolidate services and provide them more efficiently.
What are expected from democracy is good governance that stable, efficient, and legitimate. Democracy is participation of citizens/public in governing their interest, so it takes a lot of time, energy and money. That is why democratic government has many critics, because its instability and inefficiency, even though it has strong position for facilitating consensus formation and providing equal opportunity possibility in promoting individual rights and public interest as long suitable with rule of law (Munshi, in Munshi, S.  and Abraham, P.B. 2004). The democratic government also expected can make consensus formation, providing equal opportunities and possibilities of negotiation between stakeholders. Truthful and respect of citizen to the chosen politicians and bureaucrats, should be paid them with honest, hard work, concern, professional, empathy to the public.
The dispute in make government effective is on designing institution which can solve the problem in controlling disorder and dictatorship (Djankov, et al. 2003 in Whitford and Lee). That is the reason why democracy system emerge and became popular. Parliamentary system using by democratic countries has proved can be workable although that is not perfect means, like as stated by Holbrooke (a US diplomat) in Robotka (2008), democracy is supposed are free and fair in through election system, but racists, fascists, and separatists can (in many places) emerge. That is the dilemma in democracy, like what is happen in India (Robotka in The SouthAsianIdea Weblog, 2008) or Indonesia, while religiosity in politic still sensitive and become one of the major choice of the voter to choose their representative.

Conclusion
Democracy system that give wide opportunities to people for expressing their feel, thinking, willing, and also opportunities to involve in state management/exercise through direct participation or representative.  Many people, to express/implement their willing/need/faith then form/build political parties. As like in Indonesia, during the change of governmental system, Indonesian politic has transform to a democratic country in very significant, both in system and in people action. Unfortunately, many people in Indonesia especially politician has not already yet to adopt culture, system, and ethic of democracy. There are a huge euphoria in democracy. As a result, a number of political parties are very fantastic. In 2004, 182 political parties has listed to compete, and just 24 allowed to participated in general election (KPU, 2004). Those massive parties, of course influenced government (in this case is a government agencies as bureaucrat) works. The huge number of political parties also happen in other countries, such as in India (dozens national parties and hundreds local parties) and Philipines (dozens of national and local parties).
The euphoria on democracy, reflecting by the formation of political parties make very difficult for government to decide the policy or action that should be done immediately and has impact in people. Many of politicians that have spent a lot of money for their campaign will try to make policies that can give them benefit either legal or illegal. So even the policy or activity that will be implemented by government is good and feasible, they will try to cancelled or make it slow. Indonesia election system that use proportional system, make every politician that want to joint in parliament or executive should joint to political parties (or can be independently, just for executive only, but with difficult requirement). Furthermore, it would be more opportunities for the emergence of various interests /opinions if more parties exist.
  As in developing and under developing countries, economy is the most important that people need. So people will accept democracy, authoritarian or others as long can provide good economy condition. Chile under Pinochet, Korea and Taiwan (until 1980’s), China and Singapore are not democratic countries but their economies are good. Meanwhile, India, Jamaica, Argentina as democratic countries cannot achieve economic growth in proper amount. Even though still exist some countries like Togo, Zaire, or Cuba are examples of countries that not democratic and do not feel good economies.
 To cut a long way of decision making and make more efficient governmental implementation, some countries use electoral threshold system in limited a number of political parties both in representative election and presidential (executive) election. Like in the USA, the system of the winner take all, make just only two parties in congress. Meanwhile, Indonesia that many political parties involved in election adjusted only parties which get more than 2.5% popular votes or chairs can joint to the parliament. However, using threshold system has implication that some people have no representative in parliament or government, so the government may do not have legitimation from them.




REFERENCE
Anonim. 2008. http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/#Democracy
Anonim. 2010. What is Good Governance? UN-ESCAP. http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/ governance.pdf. Accessed on 10-1-2011; 12:15
Anonim. 2010. Understanding Urban Governance. http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/ugov-define.html. Accessed on 17-1-2011; 21.20
Anonim. Governance in Transition: Public Management Reforms in OECD Countries, Paris, 1995.
Anonim. 2010. Forum-Politisi.org. http://www.forum-politisi.org/arsip/article.php?id=143. Accessed on 28 December 2010; 16.25
Carino, L.V. 1994. Bureaucracy for Democracy: The Dynamics of Executive-Legislative Interaction During Governmental Transitions. Universiy of the Philiphines--National College of Public Administration and Governance. Manila
Diamond, A. 2002. Advancing Democratic Governance:  A Global Perspective on the Status of Democracy and  Directions for International Assistance
Fakir, E. The democratic state versus the developmental state:  A false dichotomy. Islanda Development communiqué. Volume 2 No 6. 2005
Goldstone, J. 2005. State Capacity: The Dynamics of Effectiveness and Legitimacy in Government Action. http://www.irisprojects.umd.edu/ppc_ideas/FS_Assessment/ hSecure/
progress_pdf/state_capacity.pdf
Hood, Christopher, “A Public Management for All Seasons?” Public Administration, Vol. 69, pp. 3-19, Spring 1991.
KPU. 2010. Pemilu 2009 dalam Angka. KPU. Jakarta
KPU. 2010. Pemilu 2009 dalam Angka. KPU. Jakarta
Monica, I. 2008. Strengths and Weaknesses of the New Public Management (NPM)-Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Analysis, - Part I of a Wider Analysis of the NPM. Paper for the Conference organized by the SOG and the QoG Institute, University of Gothenburg. New Public Management and the Quality of Government, November 13-15, 2008.
Levi, M, and Sacks, A Arusha Conference, “New Frontiers of Social Policy” – December 12-15, 2005 M. Levi, conference paper
Munshi, S. 2004. “Concern in Good Governance in Comparative Perspective”. in Munshi, S.  and Abraham, P.B. 2004. Good Governance, Democratic Societies and Globalization. Sage Publications India Pvt Limited. New Delhi. India
Robotka, B. 2008. The Dilemma of Democracy in Pakistan. Berlin. http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/the-dilemma-of-democracy-in-pakistan/ Accessed on 15-1-2011; 20.10

UN-ESCAP. 2000. Issue Paper On: Urban Governance: Global Vision and Local Needs Assessement, Analysis and Action by City Governments. Regional High-Level Meeting In Preparation for Istanbul 5. 19 to 23 October 2000. Hangzhou, Peoples Republic of China.

Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Whitford, A.B., and Lee, S.Y. The Efficiency and Inefficiency of Democracy in Making Governments Effective: Cross-National Evidence
Yamamoto, H. 2003. New Public Management -Japan’s Practice. Institute for International Policy Studies, Tokyo 105-0001







Diposting oleh di Tidak ada komentar:
Langganan: Postingan (Atom)