Limitation Powers of the Rulers and Control Over the Rulers weaknesses
Power Restrictions
According to Maurice Duverger, the emergence and implementation of the limitation of the ruler's power is not due to the result of a thought, but because of difficulties and difficulties as well as material or material obstacles, which hinder the intention of the ruler to exercise his power.
Just remember, for example, the absolute nature of the power of the kings of Djenggis Khan and Tamarlan. No matter how absolute their power is, but within about 450 km from the place where they reign it will no longer be felt.
Even within their capital, if the nature of their oppression was more than the people could afford to endure, kings such as Djenggis Khan and Tamarlan would always be in danger of arising rebellions that were voluntary to resist and put down by the forces of the sword and spears of their armies.
However, the state is not static, but on the contrary, the situation is always changing and developing, especially the means of traffic, this is experiencing rapid development.
This development was of great advantage to the rulers because it provided the rulers with a means of illumination and control which was extraordinary and unmatched in past centuries.
People will find it easier to exercise power and supervise the exercise of that power in a large area with modern traffic means, rather than in a narrow area but in that area there are no modern means of traffic.
Likewise the state of the development of the means of weaponry, which is getting more and more complicated, in the sense that these weapons can only be served by certain people, namely experts.
So since then people have said: whoever can have the power of arms, of course, can save himself from all popular movements. And since then, people have stopped making revolutions against the people.
The more so with the government oversight of newspapers, radio, films, education, and so on. These actions are all powerful weapons for businessmen to freely carry out massive propaganda, which over time it is difficult for the people to resist.
All of this is actually a consequence of the development of modern science, at which time science gave the ruler a power that could overcome all material resistance.
Therefore, an attempt to find a means, and in that way the power of the ruler can be limited, is a huge problem, especially at that time the effort was very difficult to carry out.
According to Maurice Duverger, there are three kinds of efforts to enforce the limitation of the power of the ruler, each of which operates in a separate field. The three types of business are :
1. The first attempt is aimed at weakening or limiting the power of the ruler directly. In this business, there are three types of methods that are commonly used, namely :
- Election of rulers
When we study or discuss the system of democratic government, we already know that the election of the rulers by the people to be ruled, is one of the easiest and most practical ways to implement and achieve the aims of the principle of limiting the power of the ruler.
But this must be accompanied by conditions that the election must be truly free and correct.
If this is true this will force the rulers to give an account to the people. And that responsibility is not just liability without any sanctions, but the definition of responsibility here is political responsibility, with sanctions that are political as well, and this sanction is the heaviest: if the ruler's policy is unacceptable. by the people, the rulers will lose their power, and this means the fall of their power.
But if the rulers begin to realize that their power is actually obtained from the people, and from that moment on they also respect the people, then this is the starting point of the ruler's policy.
Although this election is actually inseparable from weaknesses, - it depends on the electoral system and the attitude of the people towards the rulers, - but elections are still the most appropriate and decisive way to limit the ruling power. - Power sharing
This was also suggested by Maurice Duverger as a good way to limit or weaken the power of the rulers, with the aim of preventing the rulers from abusing their power or acting arbitrarily by extending their totalitarian grip on the people.
In this case Maurice Duverger has also warned against the very famous teachings of Montesquieu, his fame is due to the firmness of these teachings, namely: power limits power.
He was also reminded that the distribution of power should be understood in a broad sense, meaning not only in terms of separation of powers according to the classical Trias politica, namely that state power is divided into or into powers: legislative, executive and judiciary, although of course the latter understanding has a merit, namely, and this is especially true of the freedom of the judicial power in relation to the other two powers, for example, and especially in the Anglosaxon countries, so that citizens are fully assured of the violations committed by the authorities. .
But we must remember that there are other types or types of distribution of power that are better than those mentioned above.
Thus, for example, and this is according to the adherents - a dwidewan system that can prevent the occurrence of violations that may arise or occur in the one council system. Likewise, for example the tripartism system.
This system was very well known in France in the years 1944 to 1947. This system basically means: the transfer of power to the three largest parties which participate in the division of sectors in the field of government business and each of which is under the leadership of a president of the council. ministers, but in truth it is only a symbol.
So this system essentially prevents the emergence of a one-party dictator. In addition, there is also an opinion that the federalism system and the decentralized system are considered ways of sharing power.
Because what is happening here is a vertical distribution of power, and does not lead to a horizontal division of power. But this, according to Maurice Duverger, the result will be completely different.
Therefore he emphasized that the notion of division of power should not be confused with the notion of separation of powers in the court, which he called jurisdictional control, and this is the third way in an effort to directly limit or weaken the power of the ruler. - Jurisdictional control
By this what is meant is the existence of legal regulations that determine the rights or powers, and all of which the implementation is supervised and protected by the judicial organs of other institutions with the aim of limiting the power of the ruler, but also the granting of power. to the judiciary to control, regulate and control political institutions and administrative institutions.
A perfect or complete jurisdictional control according to Maurice Duverger must include two things, namely :
First, control over the legitimacy of the actions of the executive body, in order to prevent violations of the law. An example is the opportunity to complain to the Supreme Justice council if there is negligence in the power of the authorities or the government. This has happened in France.
Second, control so that laws and other legal regulations do not deviate from the constitution or constitution. This is one way of keeping parliaments, intended by legislative bodies, from violating constitutional or constitutional provisions, and the declaration of the human rights of citizens.
For this the American system is an example. Also, the latter controls are no less important than the controls previously mentioned.
Moreover, in the absence of this second control, the meaning of the constitution will completely lose its principles, and which will become a series of words which have no meaning at all if there are no institutions that defend and maintain the honor of the law.
Indeed, indeed, regulations which aim to limit the powers of the rulers will be useless, if apart from these regulations there are no procedures or ways to punish violations of these regulations.
2. The second attempt to limit the power of the ruler is to increase or strengthen the power of the party being governed. So the ability of the people to resist the influences of the ruler is increased or strengthened.
Of course the influences of the rulers are here in the sense of the influences which are able to weaken the people.
In fact, all efforts to limit the power of the ruler are only carried out as long as there is still a conflict between the ruler and the people he governs, and this conflict always reflects the essence of the nature of social dynamics.
In order to prevent oppression from the first party against the second party, one can weaken the first party or increase the power or strength of the second party.
But actually the two efforts the difference is not always clear. Election, for example, is one way of limiting the power of the ruler by weakening the power of the ruler directly.
But on the contrary, this is also one way of limiting the power of the ruler by increasing or strengthening the power of the people being ruled.
One of the methods mentioned by Maurice Duverger which by its nature should be included in the second category of business is what is called personal power.
By personal power, he meant all institutions which were self-organized and led by the citizens, that is to say by the people, or strictly speaking by those who were ruled themselves, and which gave them the opportunity to oppose the will of the state which was detrimental to the people.
For example, for the modern age individual property rights, associations and the press, and so on, all of these constitute great obstacles to the exercise of the absolute power of the rulers, because with them the power of the people being ruled becomes stronger.
But it is a shame that this method, together with the development of production techniques, tends towards a gradual reduction of personal power, instead of abolishing it altogether, and which in turn results in a direct reduction of the independence and autonomy of the citizens, and - and this is the most dangerous. The threat arises from indirect restrictions on the power of the rulers, which negates the strongest means or means that can prevent the expansion of the power of the rulers.
For this Maurice Duverger presents a classic example, namely the state of the Liliput State with the giant Gulliver as its king.
Meanwhile, citizens or people who are governed are not completely deprived of their power, because there is a semi-direct democratic procedure that provides the people with a means to take a strong action against the ruler.
In general, the definition of semi-direct democracy must be studied in relation to the electoral system of the rulers, because this system lies between the direct democracy system and representative democracy or modern democracy.
In a direct democracy system, the people themselves directly exercise power; in a democracy, people's representatives surrender their power to their representatives to be implemented, whereas in a semi-direct democratic system the people share their power with their representatives, in the sense that the people can force the rulers with a voice of initiative to take care of things or that the people with referendum rights or veto power can demand to retrace decisions of the authorities before they are implemented.
Thus it is clear that the semi-direct democracy system referred to by Maurice Duverger has nothing to do with the election of the rulers, and that the similarities between direct democracy, semi-direct democracy and representative democracy are not basic.
Moreover, these systems: the right of initiative, referendum right and veto right have no obstacle, so they can be used or implemented in an autocratic system of government, where the rulers are guaranteed power, for example by the rules of descent.
So that in the most precise sense of the word semi-direct democracy loses its democratic character.
In my opinion, it is precisely what Maurice Duverger said, that the main objective of the aforementioned procedure is to provide citizens with tools to ensure the implementation of restrictions on the power of the ruler.
Because indeed the procedure or method above can directly withhold the decisions of the authorities.
The country that first obtains and then develops the procedure, we can study its implementation in Swiss constitutional practice.
However, a system or method cannot be separated from certain objections. The objections to the Swiss system, namely the referendum system, are :
- The system is slow to run.
- The system in it contains a tendency to create a conservative spirit, meaning that people are always suspicious of new things.
- The most serious weakness is the risk of indifference among the voters if there are too frequent voting, whether voting for the obligatory referendum, or for the facultative referendum.
Maurice Duverger goes on to say that one must admit these real shortcomings, or weaknesses.
But besides that one must also admit that in the test balance, that is, after a comparison of the pros and cons of the system is made, it turns out that the good elements are stronger than the bad elements. - The third effort in implementing restrictions on the power of the ruler can also be considered an attempt to control, the tyranny of the ruling party from one society or country, against another society or state, by seeking some kind of intervention by the rulers of the community or state. otherwise, these interventions must be implemented reciprocally. So strictly speaking, there is mutual supervision.
This effort is called: controlling or restricting federalism. In principle, it occurs in the limitation of the ruler, by the ruler, by other rulers, in exercising power over the nation they control.
This business can be distinguished in two ways, namely :
- An internal or domestic limitation of the powers of the authorities in federalism.
- The limitation of the powers of the ruler which is administered by international supervision.
Examples that enforce internal restrictions of power are Switzerland and the United States.
These two countries occur or are composed of (small) states, each of which still has freedoms, these countries are meant as states, this is in the United States, while in Switzerland the name is cantons.
The government or rulers of the states or cantons have enormous powers or rights to limit the powers and actions of the federal or central government.
Strictly speaking what is meant above is that each of the states or cantons still has the authority to administer certain matters and this is a very big guarantee against violations committed by the federal or central government. .
So this can be considered as a variation of the distribution of power vertically, as opposed to a horizontal division of power, because in effect the aforementioned system, in the United States and in Switzerland, results in a division of power between the central government, namely the federal government, and the government. states or cantons.
But in the meantime it needs to be understood that the federalist system is far beyond the notion of a power-sharing system.
But by returning the federalism system to a technical level rather than a division of power, people actually have made a mistake, because the principles are very different between the two systems.
As above we have seen that federalism is an attempt to limit the power of the ruler, so an attempt to prevent the people under control from being drowned by the influences of the central power, what is meant is that the central government does not have absolute power and act arbitrarily.
And if there is a division of power here, it means that each state or canton government maintains its privileges and autonomy in order to balance and limit the powers of the central government, or the federal government, which actually consists of them. itself.
Meanwhile, in the power-sharing system, it is true that the distribution of power is carried out from the central government to various organs. So the state in question has a single constitutional nature, which means that state power here is not only held by one organ, but is divided into several parts.
According to Maurice Duverger, cultivating federalism is a surefire way to maintain democracy and freedom, and at the same time open the greatest opportunity for the development of both.
In fact there are some people who argue that federalism based on territorial, can be accompanied and saved by technical federalism, and this will later manifest in the country: companies, universities, and so on.
Furthermore he said that this thought was correct and therefore needed to be encouraged.
It just needs to be warned that federalism must not be artificial, and that only social entities can enjoy true autonomy, which conform to living realities.
Regarding the aforementioned opinion, it is not acceptable because :
- Federalism is not the best way to maintain democracy and freedom. If that's true, then what is meant by democracy and freedom is democracy and liberal freedom, which are no longer compatible with the modern world, especially with the realm of democracy that we are implementing in our country today, namely Pancasila democracy, which is the the point is deliberation and consensus.
- Against the opinion that the only ones who can enjoy true autonomy are social harmony, or social units, or more importantly, states or cantons, which are in accordance with living realities. We hope that this opinion can be accompanied, but we need to state that it is not territorial federalism or territorial federalism that is accompanied by technical federalism that can guarantee the implementation, which according to Maurice Duverger is the right way, but also the decentralization system.
Furthermore, a federalism is not only limited to a single state, but the state itself is a member and must be monitored. So this is an international surveillance or control.
But this kind of control, according to Maurice Duverger, does not yet exist, and this shortage is truly felt by the people of the whole world, and in fact its formation is one of the most pressing jobs that the United Nations has to think about.
So if international supervision has been carried out, it is true what Maurice Duverger said that the old principle of non-investment in the internal affairs of a country must be abolished, because intervention is a condition for the implementation of an international organization.
But here it should be remembered and emphasized that those that can be intervened are only matters or matters that do not hinder the way of the people or the nation towards independence, so he emphasizes that with this intervention, it should not even interfere with the nation's efforts towards independence, because on the contrary, the United Nations must seek, guarantee and expand this path.
So, first of all, it must be determined that the minimum limit of the basic rights that must be guaranteed, for everyone by the constitution and other legal regulations of the countries concerned.
It seems that freedom of thought, freedom of movement, and so on. After that the United Nations must have a good and complete supervisory organization, and which must be protected by special diplomatic immunities, so that it has the freedom to visit all member countries, to carry out surveillance, investigations while receiving reports from the countries concerned. , that is, the member states, and they should then be able to invite an international tribunal to convene and decide solemnly all the offenses committed by the Member State.
The decisions of the council of State courts are passed on to the security council to be properly implemented. And in order for everything to be carried out properly, the so-called veto power and any means that can hinder its implementation must be eliminated.
If this regulation can be implemented, it will soon end the history of the United Nations which is only a group of diplomats who are academic and ignored by the people of the world, becoming a spirited international institution, which is supported with enthusiasm by millions. million people of the world.
With regard to what has been described above, Maurice Duverger states that his picture is somewhat utopian, and admits also that in carrying out the above principles, there will be great obstacles.
But such a thing is already a consequence which every new thing has to experience, of all progress which, even if it only slightly changes rooted habits.
And it can also be ensured that one has to put in long and heavy efforts, in progressive stages and which must be regulated one by one, before reaching the intended system.
But if we are sincere and have faith in the achievement of our goals, it seems that in the not too distant future the efforts will be obtained soon, at least part of the target.
For this, there must first be a will and a strong belief and trust.
That is the case, in our opinion, if there is still an international institution that can monitor and limit the violations committed by a country, in order to lead to world peace.
