Modern Theory of the State by Prof Mr R Kranenburg and Logemann
Modern Theory
In his examination of the state and modern theory or school law, it is said that if we want to investigate or study the state, then it is good that the state is considered a fact or a fact, which is bound by circumstances, place and time.
And it must be realized first in what way the country is viewed.
Because depending on the perspective of the investigation, it will produce different conclusions about the definition, form and essence of the state.
Let us know all a little of the views of this modern school about the state. From this modern school, among others, we can get the teachings of :
Prof. Mr. R. Kranenburg
Regarding his opinion on the state, Kranenburg said that the country is essentially an organization of power created by a group of people called a nation.
So according to Kranenburg, there must first be a group of people who have the awareness to establish an organization, with the aim of maintaining the interests of that group.
So here the primary, meaning the most important and the first to be present, is the human group.
Meanwhile, the state is secondary, meaning that it will follow later. And that existence can only be based on a human group called a nation.
The Kranenburg opinion mentioned above may be based or strengthened on the grounds that in this modern era there are formations of international cooperation, or between nations.
For example the United Nations.
Here, the members are the countries. But why is it not called the United States.
United Nations
Why not United States, but United Nations. According to Kranenburg, this shows that according to the modern view, the nation is the basis of the state. So the nation is primary, which must exist first, only then will the state follow, so the state is secondary.
What is the actual situation, meaning how the Kranenburg reason is acceptable or not. Regarding this, it can be argued :
- The terms mentioned above, namely the United States of Nations and the United Nations already have definite meanings. Therefore, these terms may not be used to refer to new formations. Because if so, this will only create difficulties in terms and understanding.
- What Kranenburg stated above, namely that it is the nation who creates the state, is contrary to reality, because for example, after the first World War, several countries emerged on the European continent which did not only include one kind of nation, but also included several types of nations. As for the merging of several types of nations into one and then establishing a state, mainly based on the same interests, fate, history, culture and for their common safety.
This is for example the countries of Austria, Honggaria, and Poland. These are all made up of several nations that are placed under one organization called the state. The opposite is the case in Korea. Korea only consists of one nation, but founded two countries, namely South Korea and North Korea.
This all shows that the name does not show or describe the real situation, so we cannot assume that the state is based on the nation.
So actually it is not the nation that builds the state, but the state creates the understanding of the nation. This is in agreement with Logemann.
Logemann
In contrast to Kranenburg's opinion, Logemann said that the state is essentially an organization of power which includes or unites groups of people which are then called nations.
So first of all the state is an organization of power, then this organization has an authority, or gezag, in which there is a sense of being able to impose its will on all the people the organization covers.
Here we must remember that not every organization is a state, for example student organizations, labor organizations, political organizations, because these organizations do not have the same power as the state.
So Logemann argues that the primary one is the organization of power, namely the state. Meanwhile, the human group is secondary. So the difference with Kranenburg's opinion is: if according to the Kranenburg system a nation creates an organization, so the existence or formation of that organization depends on the nation; whereas according to the Logemann system the organization creates a nation, then this nation is dependent on the organization.
The difference of opinion between the two scholars is due to differences in understanding of what is meant by the term nation. So each scholar has a different opinion about the understanding of the nation.
The term nation used by Kranenburg is nation in an ethnological sense, for example the Batak, Javanese, Sundanese, Dayak, and so on.
Meanwhile, the definition of a nation which is used to describe the idea of Logemann is a nation in the sense of the people of a country.
What is the nation ?
In 1882 Ernest Renan opened his opinion about the understanding of the nation. According to him the nation is a life, a principle of reason, which occurs because of two things: first, the people used to have to be together in one history; second, the people must now have a will, a desire to live as one.
So thus what makes the country is not type or race, religion, equality of needs, or region.
Meanwhile, other scholars like Karl Radek, as well as Karl Kautshy, especially Otto Bauer, also studied the nation.
According to Otto Bauer, the nation is a unity of character that occurs from the unity of the things that have been lived by the people.
Now what is the difference between the nation and the people ? The nation is used to describe a meaning which is contrasted with other nations.
The term nation here has a meaning which is contradicted by other nations. So aimed at the outside world, to those who are not of your own nationality. Meanwhile, the term people describes a meaning which is contradicted by the meaning of government.
So in Logemann's opinion it was the organization that created and encompassed human groups, with the aim of organizing the group and carrying out the group's interests.
What is the nature of the public interest to be held, or what kind of society that organization intends to create is the goal of the organization.
And of course, the nature of the organization, its arrangement and arrangement is in accordance with the objectives to be achieved by the organization, so that these objectives affect the nature and structure and arrangement of organization.
Which groups of people will the organization cover ?
On this matter the organization itself will decide. This organization in determining who will be included in the group must remember the similarities that make it easier for them to be united.
For example, equations : culture, fate, history and so on, and besides that there must be an awareness of these similarities. So the equations are getting thicker over time, so that they become a consciousness, in the sense that they consciously want the group.
If a group is based solely on outward similarities, for example equations: culture, fate, history and so on, it is called an objective group, because the equations are objective, outward. But we must strive that the group must be a subjective group.
That is a group that is aware of these similarities, and is also aware of their grouping, this then creates an attitude, that they do not like it when they are united with another group.
Above it has been said that the organization is primarily to determine its group, and also determine what its goals are, and in what way it will achieve these goals. So the organization controls the group, therefore it is called a power organization.
Meanwhile, the group that becomes one whole, because of the determination of the organization, is then called the power group. So it is not groups that are voluntary in nature, such as student associations.
Meanwhile, what is the basis of power does not determine the existence of the organization.
So if the question of origin is accepted as a fact only, namely the state as an organization of power which includes human groups, then the question arises from which the organization has the power or authority to unite humans into a group, or what is its basis.
This issue is called the problem of the legitimacy of power, namely the question of whether or not power is legitimate.
But because, as was said earlier, that the organization has legal power, to unite and control the human group, as long as the organization carries out the interests of its group, it means that the organization carries out the objectives of the human group which have been determined by its organization, so also means that the organization serves the goals of the state.
So, before discussing the issue of legitimacy of power, we will first discuss the problem of state objectives.
But because the purpose of the country actually depends on the nature of the state, it is the essence of the state that we will discuss first.
