Country classification according to Prof Mr R Kranenburg
Group Theory
Prof. Mr. R. Kranenburg with his famous book, namely "Algemeine Staatsleer", published in 1937, it can be said that Prof. Mr. R. Kranenburg adheres to a historical-sociologist, in the sense that he bases his theory on the basis of: how is the history of the growth of that society, that is, which originally lived freely, without being bound by any rules, became a country in which various legal regulations prevail. has a binding nature, and there are penalties if the legal regulations are not obeyed.
All of this has the effect of limiting the freedom of its citizens. Meanwhile, freedom is something that has a primary value in a country.
As we have said, according to Kranenburg, the state is essentially an organization of power created by a group of people called a nation, with the aim of carrying out their common interests. So here the primary is the human group, while the organization, namely the state, is secondary.
Thus Kranenburg rejected the hypothesis put forward by natural law theory. And with this opinion Kranenburg started his investigation of the facts that humans live in various types of groups, or groups, or collectibles.
In this case the question is how these groups or groups can be included in a system. Then comes the question, which group created the organization or country? So let this grouping theory be discussed first.
In discussing this human group, or strictly speaking in discussing the classification or classification of this human group Kranenburg uses two kinds of criteria.
- The nature of opportunity, means that the human group has local or non-local characteristics.
- The nature of order, meaning that the human group is regular or irregular.
By using the two types of criteria mentioned above, Kranenburg classified human groups into four types of groups, namely :
- Human groups that are local but irregular in nature. This group is for example a group of people who are gathered or gathered in a place to see or witness an incident, an accident for example, which happened suddenly.
The people gathered in a place did not have the same interests. Because some of these people just want to look around, but some will provide help. There are also those who come to that place with the aim of obtaining the necessary information, or there are people who come to that place who will use the opportunity for personal gain, and so on, basically the people who gather in that group do not have the same goal. Also, the nature of the group is incidental, and the people in the group do not know each other, in the sense that they are not connected, and are irregular in nature.
The special or special characteristics of this group are that they are very suggestive, easily influenced, and easily cause excesses or actions that have bad consequences, because their consciousness has become narrow, so that they change or change into an emotion as a result of the many impressions. their auditory and visual impression. An example for this by Kranenburg put forward the mass, Crowd, la foule. - Human groups that are local and regular in nature. This is a group of people who are gathered at a place, and who have the same goal, and this goal can only be achieved if they, the group, are in order. Examples of this group are for example students who are attending lectures, audience performances in a building, a meeting and so on.
So in this group there is a new element, namely an orderly state, which arises because of the same goal which they consciously accept, because without a local and regular nature their goal cannot be achieved. - Human groups that are not local and irregular in nature. The emergence of this group is due to the similarities that are objective in nature. Examples of this group are for example: students, farmers, traders, all of whom are otherwise bound by an association or organization.
They are a group because they have similarities that are objective or external. But regarding his realization or awareness of these similarities, for example, equality of interests, fate, goals and so on, all of which are objective or external, it is not necessarily the same. This group is also called the objective group.
This objective equation easily creates a class atmosphere, group cooperation, group interests, and so on, all of which are group in nature. And they have a very strong shared interest, for example, if they see a danger threatening one of their members, the more so that danger threatens them together or their group, they certainly immediately take collective action, for the safety of their group or group. they. - Human groups that are not local but regular in nature. This group is the highest group and is also called the subjective group, because they already have conviction and awareness of the group.
What is the main factor of this group is the group itself, which because of a common interest, arises a common desire to establish an order, which will regulate the group itself, to achieve and carry out the group's goals.
According to Kranenburg, this is evident, among others, from the names used in the designation of international organizations, for example, the United Nations. Also includes these groups for example: family or family, associations, organized political parties, states, union states, and union states.
The third group is closely related to the fourth group, in the sense that the objective group at one time can turn into a subjective group.
If the objective group is to change into a subjective group, besides the need for a new element, namely there must be an awareness of its grouping, its duties are :
First. First of all his job is to organize the group by making rules. This is because people want to be certain about their attitudes, behavior and actions that must be taken and done in their interactions with other people. For this purpose it is specified in the regulations that will and must be made.
So the first point, in the fourth group, there is a duty or function to make rules, and if there is a task or function, then there must also be an officer or functionary. So there must be an officer whose job it is to make rules to regulate life together in the group, so that the goals of the group can be achieved and accomplished.
Then who is the officer in charge of this task ? the task is assigned to officers known as the legislature, or legislature, or legislature.
What do general rules mean ? General regulations are regulations made by an authorized body or official, and the nature of the power is general, meaning that the power covers the entire territory of the state.
If there are regulations, of course there is an intention that these regulations are implemented, and for this there must be officers. So the second point, in this fourth group is the task of implementing regulations, and this task is assigned to a body called the government or the executive body.
Then even though everything in the group has been regulated, there may still be actions that deviate, or violate these rules, and this must be corrected. So there must be a supervisory nature of the implementation of these regulations. Thus the third point in the fourth group is the task of supervising the implementation of these regulations, this is the task of supervision, or court, or judiciary.
And for this task there must be an officer, the officer is a court body or a judiciary body. The aforementioned officers are state equipment, or state organs, while those tasks are called state functions or state power. And then according to Kranenburg, that according to history, whether or not a state actually depends on the relationship between the function or power of that state and its organs, and the relationship between these organs to one another.
In this connection, it turns out that the opinion of some scholars can be justified stating that if the three functions of the state are focused on one hand or one organ, it will cause this organ to become omnipotent, and can abuse its power.
Therefore, the organ makes its own regulations, and carries out said regulations according to its own interpretation, and it is the organ itself which supervises its implementation, or judges. Therefore the state functions must be distributed.
So according to Kranenburg the conclusion is that the nature of the nature of the state depends on the problem or problem, what is the nature of the relationship between the state's functions and its organs, and the nature of the relationship between each of these organs to one another.
Thus Kranenburg held a country classification based on the following criteria :
- The nature of the relationship between the functions and the organs present in the state. What this means is whether the functions of the state are only focused on one organ, or are they separated and then distributed to several organs.
- The nature of the state organ itself, this means that the functions of the state are centered on one organization; and what is the nature of the relationship between these organs to one another, this is when the functions of the state are separated and each is submitted to one organ.
Using these criteria, countries can be classified as follows :
1. A state in which all the functions or powers of the state are concentrated in one organ. Such a country is a country that implements an absolute system. Then what is the nature of the organ itself, that is, the state organ, the highest state organ, is held or implemented by how many people.
There are three possibilities, namely :
- The organ can be single, meaning that the highest organ, as well as the highest state power in the country, is only held or exercised by a single person. This country is called a monarchy.
- The organ can have the character of several people, meaning that the highest organ, as well as the highest state power in the country, is held and or exercised by several people. The country is called an aristocracy or oligarchy.
- The organ can be plural, meaning that the organ is in principle held or carried out by all the people. This country is called democracy.
Thus, if the system, namely the system of absolutism, is combined or combined with the characteristics of its organs, we will get :
- Absolute monarchy. Namely a state in which the functions or power of the state are concentrated in one organ, while the organ itself is held by only one single person.
- Aristocracy or absolute oligarchy. That is a state in which the functions or power of the state are concentrated in one organ, while the organ itself is held by several people.
- Absolute democracy. Namely a state in which the functions or powers of the state are concentrated in one organ, while the organ itself is principally held by the whole people. This country is also called pure democracy.
2. A state in which the functions or powers of the state are divided, this separation of powers is usually adopted as a teaching rather than Montesquieu, then each power is transferred or distributed to several organs.
Whereas in this case what is important or what determines is how the nature of the relationship of the organs to one another. In particular, the nature of the relationship between the statutory organ and the implementing organ, namely the government. (nature of the relationship between the legislature and the executive branch);
Because it depends on the nature or system of government, while the system of government is what will then determine the shape of the country. What is meant by the nature of the relationship between these organs is whether these organs can influence each other or not.
Based on the foregoing, countries implementing this system of separation of powers can be classified into :
- A state that implements a system of separation of powers in a strict, or perfect manner. This means that each of these organs cannot influence each other, especially between the legislative body and the executive body. For example, for example the United States, here the statutory power rests with the congress, while the executive or governmental power rests with the President, and in its constitution it is explicitly stated that the separation between the two powers, which cannot influence each other. This country is called a country with a presidential system of government.
- The state that implements a system of separation of powers, and each organization that holds these powers, especially between the legislative body and the executive body, can influence each other, or be related to each other. The nature of the relationship between these two bodies or organs is political, that is, if the policy of one body does not get the approval of the other body, that body can be dissolved. This country is called a country with a Parliamentary system.
- A state that implements a system of separation of powers, but in principle the executive body is only an implementing body or a working body rather than what has been decided by the legislative body. And accompanied by direct supervision or control of the people, namely the referendum system. This country is called a country with a referendum system.
The second criterion used or put forward by Kranenburg in classifying the forms of state is, based on historical developments, and the types of modern states that arise as a result or as a result of the development of modern politics.
Based on this countries can be classified into :
a. State in historical forms. This is for example :
- Federation of countries from ancient times.
- Roman provincia system.
- Countries with feudal systems.
b Countries in modern form, or from modern times :
- The Union of States or Staatenbund.
- States or Bundesstaat.
- Unitary State or Unitarist State.
- British Common Wealth of Nations.
Regarding the state classification of Kranenburg, it can be said that Aristotle's teachings about the forms of the State had a great influence. Likewise the teaching about the separation of powers from Montesquieu. As for the definition of a state based on historical development, it can be said that it is not based on science, nor is it systematic.
For this reason, Kranenburg is less clear about the form of modern states, and which are the results of historical and political developments in this modern era.
In the above description, the teaching about the separation of powers from Montesquieu has also been offended. This teaching was influenced in many ways by John Locke's power-sharing teachings.
It is only because the circumstances and structure of the state at the time of John Locke's life were very different from those of Montesquieu's day that his teachings were slightly different, but nevertheless it can be said that Montesquieu's teachings were in many ways perfecting John Locke's teachings.
Even John Locke was not the scholar who first put forward the doctrine of separation of powers, because the matter of separation of powers had long been put forward by a Greek scholar, namely Aristotle. Which later this teaching got the name Trias Politica from Immanuel Kant.
