Types of Modern Democracy in the World
Types of Modern Democracy
a. Democracy, or a representative government of the people, with a system of strict separation of powers, or a presidential system. An example of this system is the United States.
As stated earlier that what characterizes, or the criterion of the classification or classification of these modern types of democracy is the nature of the relationship between the bodies, or organs that hold power over the state, especially what is the nature of the relationship between the legislative bodies, namely the body that holds statutory power, this is usually the representative body of the people, remember the trias political system, with the executive body, that is, the body that holds the power of government, or the body that implements state regulations, also known as the government.
In this system the nature of the relationship between the two bodies can be said to be non-existent, so in principle it is independent. Here one suspects that this system or system was what Montesquieu wanted.
The separation between executive power and legislative power here means that executive power is held by a body or organ which in carrying out its executive duties is not responsible to the people's representative body.
This people's representative body according to the idea of Trias Politika Montesquieu holds legislative power, so it is tasked with making and determining legal regulations.
Thus, as is the case with Members of the people's representative body, the leadership of this executive body is delegated to someone who in terms of responsibility is the same as the people's representative body, namely directly responsible to the people, so there is no need to go through the people's representative body.
Thus, the position of the executive body is independent from the people's representative body.
The composition of the executive body consists of a president, as head of government, and is accompanied or assisted by a vice president. The President in carrying out his duties is assisted by ministers.
So the ministers have their position as assistant to the president, then the ministers in carrying out their duties must be accountable to the president. The ministers are appointed and dismissed by the President.
The ministers as assistant to the president are in charge of leading government departments, and are responsible to the president.
The people's representative body cannot dismiss a person or several ministers who also work in the executive body, even though the people's representative body cannot approve the policies of the ministers.
So these ministers do not have external relations, which is meant to have a responsible relationship with the people's representative bodies. The head of state is responsible for carrying out the tasks assigned to them by the head of state himself.
Meanwhile, the head of state is not responsible to the people's representative body for the policy of completing his duties. So considering the position of these ministers, who are only assistants rather than the president, and where the president is clearly the leader of the executive body, such a system is called a system or presidential system.
b. Democracy, or representative government of the people, with a system of separation of powers, but among the bodies entrusted with power, especially between the legislative body and the executive body, there is a reciprocal relationship, can influence each other, or a parliamentary system.
Within this system there is a close relationship between the executive body and the legislature, or parliament, or the people's representative body.
The duties or executive power here are delegated to a body called the cabinet or council of ministers.
This cabinet is responsible for its policies, especially in the field of government to the representative bodies of the people, which according to Montesquieu trias political teachings are in charge of holding legislative power, or legislative power.
This accountability does not mean that the executive branch should follow everything that the representative bodies of the people want only, and carry out what the people's representative bodies want them to do; however, the cabinet still has the freedom to determine its policies, especially regarding the steps of its government.
So basically the cabinet still has freedom in initiative. It's just that in their actions they are accountable to the people's representative body or parliament, which means that they can at any time or every time be held accountable for their discretion by the people's representative body.
If this happens, it means that the people's representative body asks the cabinet to be accountable for its policies, then the cabinet must defend and explain its policy to the people's representative body.
This explanation may only be made by one of the ministers concerned, or perhaps by the cabinet itself, so all the ministers are responsible. If this is the case then usually the explanation is given by the prime minister.
After that, it depends on the judgment of the people's representative body, to be able to accept whether the responsibility is given by the cabinet or not.
If the people's representative body can accept the responsibility given by the cabinet, then in this case nothing will happen, but if the representative body cannot accept it, there is a possibility that the people's representative body with a decision declares that it does not believe in government policy. or the cabinet.
If this happens then the minister, or the ministers concerned, or sometimes even all ministers or all members of the cabinet must resign. This is what is known as a cabinet crisis.
Since the cabinet is accountable to the people's representative body, of course this responsibility will mostly be accepted by the people's representative body, if the general policies of the cabinet are in accordance with what the majority in the people's representative body wants.
And such a policy in general can be expected to get good acceptance by the majority in the people's representative body, if in the formation of the cabinet, the seats of the people who together constitute the majority in the parliament have made an effort.
So if in the people's representative body who are the majority of people: A, B, C, then of course a cabinet must be formed whose people are elected from: A, B, C, so that the policy of that cabinet is accounted for in advance. people's representative bodies will be well received.
In my opinion, this is indeed a good thing, because it is easy to get stability. But on the other hand, there is an objection to this, namely the other groups always do not get attention.
This can create strong opposition, and can be extreme.
If at any time the cabinet adopts a policy that is not approved by the people's representative body, it is not certain that the people's representative body reflects the will or safety of the people who elect it.
So it might happen that the people's representative body cannot approve the policies that have been taken by the cabinet, but the voters can agree with them. So here it means that there is a deviation between the understanding of the people's representative body and the understanding of the voters.
According to the terminology in constitutional law, a people's representative body that no longer reflects the will or will of the voters, it is said that the people's representative body is no longer representative.
In order to prevent it from happening that the cabinet makes a decision (policy and then cannot be accepted by an unrepresentative body of representatives of the people, then it is a balance of the responsibility of the cabinet, which means that if the cabinet policy is not acceptable to the people's representative body) , the cabinet, or the minister concerned must resign, the cabinet, through the head of state, has the power to dissolve the people's representative body which it considers no longer representative in nature.
Herein lies the essence of the meaning of the parliamentary system, namely the cabinet is accountable to the parliament or the people's representative body, meaning that, if the cabinet's responsibility cannot be accepted by the people's representative body, the said responsibility is political responsibility, then the representatives of the people can express no confidence (motion of no confidence) in the cabinet policy, and as a result of the political accountability, the cabinet must resign.
But if there is any doubt on the part of the cabinet, and they think that the people's representative body is no longer representative, then as a counterweight to the power of the people's representative body to dissolve the cabinet, the cabinet has the power to dissolve the people's representative body (which is not representative).
The dissolution of this people's representative body is then followed by the election or the formation of a new people's representative body, and this new people's representative body will later determine whether the cabinet's actions are correct or not.
This means that if the new people's representative body also cannot accept the cabinet policy, then this means that the cabinet's action in the form of dismissing the people's representative body which it considers to be unrepresentative is incorrect, and it is the cabinet that must dissolve itself, and then a new cabinet is drawn up.
But if the new people's representative body can accept the accountability of cabinet policies, this means that the cabinet's action in the form of dissolving the people's representative body which it considers to be unrepresentative is correct.
If we pay attention to this parliamentary system, we will further root it. There are two aspects in the core of this parliamentary system, namely :
- The positive aspect, which means that the ministers must be appointed by, or in accordance with the majorities in the people's representative body.
- Negative aspect, which means that the ministers must resign if their policies cannot be approved or supported by the majority of the people's representative bodies.
In this parliamentary system, the head of state is not a real leader rather than a government, or a cabinet. So the cabinet is responsible for all responsibility, including here also the responsibility for policies or actions of the head of state, meaning that all consequences of his or her actions are borne by the cabinet. Therefore, what determines the nature of government policy is the cabinet itself.
However, since it is not possible that in matters concerning government matters, a decision or regulation is issued as a decision or regulation of the Minister or Cabinet, the decision or regulation issued, which concerns matters of state in general, must be a decision or regulation of the state. .
So in this case the decision or regulation must be issued by the top leadership of the state, namely the head of state, and constitutes a state decision or regulation. This is meant to bring about the unity of the whole country.
However, because in reality it is the cabinet who is responsible for decisions or regulations, c.q. the minister concerned, then it must be proven that in said decrees or regulations there is an approval from the cabinet, or one of the ministers concerned, to declare this agreement, the member of the cabinet concerned, or the minister concerned, or the prime minister. the minister, on behalf of all Cabinet Members, participates in signing the decision or regulation.
Participating in such signatories is called a contrasign. Therefore, the minister who is responsible for these decrees or regulations is the minister who participates in signing the decision or regulation.
So in this parliamentary system or system the head of state is given an inviolable position.
This is a brief description of the so-called parliamentary system, which was also implemented in the Indonesian state, namely when the Indonesian state was under the rule of the United States of Indonesia Constitution in 1949, and also when it was under the 1950 Constitution.
Also in Western European countries. Meanwhile, according to history, the origin of this parliamentary system was from England, and which was the culmination of the historical development of the British constitution. Meanwhile, in Indonesia the parliamentary system is the starting point of the historical development of the state administration.
The history of the development of the parliamentary system in England can be briefly stated as follows :
Its growth in the British Empire began with an adage or principle summed up in the words: The King can do no wrong. What his words meant was: The king cannot do wrong. The important meaning of this adage is not that the king cannot do anything wrong then all his actions are right, no, it is not so, but, the meaning or the meaning is: If there is an act that is not right it is not the king's act, because the king cannot do wrong.So if there is a wrong action even though the act is an act of the king himself, it is not the king who must be responsible, but the one who must be responsible is the cabinet, or one of the ministers concerned.
In this way, a government system can be achieved in which the ministers are responsible. Which means that it is no longer the king who has the right to determine government policy, but his ministers or the cabinet.
Between the parliamentary system that originated in England and which was later followed by other countries in Western Europe, and which later also followed by the Indonesian state, there is a huge difference.
A difference that actually lies not in its principle, but a difference that arises due to circumstances, namely that the parliamentary system in England is not an improvisation, is not a deliberate creation, which is determined dogmatically, namely by determining the rules in advance, only then the implementation of these regulations, but the parliamentary system in England is a result of the historical development of the state administration.
Which development finally reached a breaking point where there was such a system of government. Whereas the parliamentary system in other countries, including Indonesia, is not the case, but the result of the historical development of state administration that has been achieved in England, as the culmination of the history of the development of the constitutional system, is used by other countries as a starting point rather than the history of development. the constitutional system.
So he stressed that the parliamentary system in England is the culmination point of the history of the development of the state administration, whereas in other countries including Indonesia, it is the starting point of the history of the development of the state administration.
c. Democracy, or a representative government of the people, with a system of separation of powers, with a referendum system, or direct control by the people.
One more way to avoid an absolute government is the system used or implemented in Switzerland, which is called the referendum system.
If in the presidential system the position of the executive body is free from the legislative body, there is no connection, and if in the parliamentary system there is a reciprocal relationship between the executive body and the legislative body, then the situation is very different from the government that uses the system. this referendum.
In this referendum system, in Switzerland, the executive body is called the Bundesrat which is a council, which is part of the legislative body, which is called the Bundesversammlung. This Bundesversammlung consists of Nationalrat and Standard. The Nationalrat is a national representative body, while the Standard is a representative of the states called cantons. Therefore, the Bundesrat cannot be dissolved by the Bundesversammlung.
Moreover, what is meant in this system is that, the Bundesrat is merely the implementing body of all the wishes or decisions of the Bundesversammlung, and for this seven members of the Bundesversammlung are appointed, which then these seven persons constitute a body which tasked with administering the decisions of the Bundesversammlung.
So the members of the Bundesrat are taken from some of the members of the Bundesversammlung. There may also be members of the Bundesrat who are appointed from outside the Bundesversammlung, but after he becomes a member of the Bundesrat, he automatically becomes a Member of the Bundesversammlung.
So thus the Bundesrat remains a part of the Bundesversammlung. Because of that then there was absolutely no question about whether or not an agreement between Bunderat and the Bundesversammlung existed, or an agreement between the executive body and the legislative body.
Also, there is no provision here regarding the distribution of work, because what is meant in this system is that the Bundesversammlung decides everything, and then its implementation is left to the Bundesrat.
So seeing the position of the Bundesrat which is only an implementing body rather than all that has been decided by the Bundesversammlung, we are more inclined to call the system implemented in Switzerland by the term: the system of workers' bodies.
If for example in this system the Bundesrat carries out a policy which according to the Bundesversammlung is not in accordance with what the Bundesversammlung wants, then the Bundesrat will no longer have the freedom to continue what it wants, or then completely refuse to work, but the
Bundesrat must change its attitude and must carry out what Bundesversammlung wants.
So they must then cancel their original intentions and adjust their actions to the will of the Bundesversammlung.
None of the Members of the Bundesrat is appointed as leader of the Bundesrat. Thus there is no one who, as in the presidential system, has the position of president, presiding over the executive body.
It is true that among the members of the Bundesrat there are those appointed for a period of one year to carry out tasks or jobs which in other countries are usually carried out by the head of state or the president. But this does not mean that the appointment carries him any position or privileges which are different from other members of the Bundesrat.
Because his position is nothing more than head, in the sense of coordinating the members of the Bundesrat.
So it is not a special position. Appointments to become Members of the Bundesrat for a period of three years, during which they cannot be terminated, and after that term they can be re-elected, and for this, in order to be re-appointed to be Members of the Bundesrat, they must have expertise, either expertise. politics and expertise in carrying out their job duties.
Earlier it was said that the Bundesrat only implemented what had been decided by the Bundesversammlung.
Does this mean that the position of the Bundesversammlung is completely free ?
Presumably that is not the case. Because in Switzerland there is a state institution called a referendum, which is a direct voting of the people who have the right to cast a vote.
So in Switzerland there is direct control of the people, who controls the actions or decisions of the Bundesversammlung. There are two kinds of referendums, namely :
- Obligatory referendum, or mandatory referendum. This is a referendum that determines the enactment of a law or regulation.
- Facultative referendum, or referendum that is not mandatory. This is for example a referendum which is held to determine whether the current law is valid or not, or whether changes need to be made or not.
Maurice Duverger calls this system in Switzerland with the term semi-direct democracy.
According to Kranenburg, the reasons for the different types of modern democracy lie in the political history of the countries concerned. This parliamentary system is a great change for a monarchical state under the influence of the principle of ministerial responsibility.
Thus the task of the monarch or king has been changed in character with no external change, namely to become the task of guaranteeing and guiding the orderly operation of the system, because it is primarily a means of standing over the parties and after the election guarantees government to the parties. a party or to a combination of parties that has received the most votes.
This task is very important; the uninterrupted life of the constitutional system ultimately depends upon the proper functioning of this task.
This task requires unanimous knowledge of the relationship between political relations and political currents in the population, the ability to make decisions, know people well and do not forget about generosity, because proper justice is needed in observing the rights of the various groups.
Furthermore, the task of the tool is also stabilizing, because ministers can always be forced to defend their actions against organs that stand above the party because of their position, education, customs and usually a high official.
