The difference between Modern Democracy and Modern Autocracy
Modern Democracy and Modern Autocracy
There is a difference between the representative body in a modern autocratic country and the representative body in a modern democratic country due to several things, which are directly related to those countries.
The reasons are, among others :
a. Views on the essence of the country
Those who approve or support a state that implements an autocratic system, expresses its views, or its teachings, or its doctrine, that the state is in essence an organism.
A country is considered to be a union that has the principles of life, as well as life, and has its own interests, as well as its own personality.
Things that are sometimes even contrary to the life, personality and interests of the people.
If that happens then the people are the ones who are defeated, because in a country that implements this system of autocracy the people or individuals do not have their own personalities and interests, especially in relation to the organization of state government.
Even in this autocratic state there is the assumption that the happiness of the individual depends on the happiness of the state.
Strictly speaking, the individual or citizen is strong and happy when the country itself is strong and happy. This should be the doctrine used to emphasize that national interests should take precedence.
Whereas a country that approves or supports a country that implements a democratic system, expresses its views, knows its teachings, or its doctrine, that the state is in fact a group or unit of individuals. So here the country is secondary, while the individual is primary.
In the sense that individuals have a key role to play in determining and working for the happiness and well-being of the State, depending on this effort they can be happy.
Happiness in the widest sense, because individuals in principle have the freedom and independence to determine the life of the country.
b. Views on national goals
In this case it is different. Because those who support the implementation of the autocratic system argue that the goal of the State is to gather as much power as possible in the state, c.q. head of state.
Meanwhile, those who support the implementation of the democratic system are of the opinion that the purpose of the state is if it can be formulated briefly to work and organize the happiness and well-being of its people.
Those are the things that cause the differences between the people's representative body in the modern autocratic country and the people's representative body in the modern democratic country, which at the same time shows the principled differences between the two countries.
The difference between the two people's representative bodies lies in :
- How to be appointed or elected from the members of the people's representative body. In modern autocracy, for example, in fascist countries, the election or appointment of members of the people's representative body begins with the submission of temporary candidates by existing social unions in the country, and which has been legally recognized by country.
These social unions, for example, trade unions, the military, the working class and so on. These temporary candidates should have been worked on in the past so that they are facististic. The names of these temporary candidates are included in a list of temporary candidates, then the list of temporary candidates is sent or submitted to the Fascist Party Council, which is the central organ of the party. The Party Council then selects the names of the candidates listed in the provisional candidate list, and which are then loaded or transferred in the permanent candidate list.
In the case of selecting these permanent candidates, the Party Council has the right to freedom, that is, if it is deemed necessary to list the candidates can be added to the names of leading newcomers from any group, and, whenever this is also considered necessary, delete the names in the list the temporary candidate, and replaced him with the names desired by the Party House.
Thus the list of permanent candidates is entirely in the hands of the Party Council, and is fully controlled by the Party Council. In this way it can be worked out so that the people listed in the list of permanent candidates are fully in the hands of the Party Council, and fully controlled by the Party Council.
In this way, it can be tried so that the people listed in the list of permanent candidates are only people from the fascist party, and this must be people who can be trusted and carry out the party's duties well.
What's next ? The next task is for the list of permanent candidates to be submitted or offered to the electorate. But in this case the electorate can only accept the whole or reject the whole of what it offers. So the electorate can not at all make any changes to the list of permanent candidates, which has been set by the Fascist Party council.
Such was the manner of the election or appointment of the members of the people's representative body from the modern autocratic state, which, among other things, had taken place in Italy during the fascist era. While in modern democratic countries, the election or appointment of members of the people's representative body, the people have an important role, because they participate directly in determining who will be elected to sit in the people's representative body, who will fight for the people's interests, for the sake of the welfare of the people, the country, the nation and the nation, and therefore they must be maintained in order to remain representative. - The nature of the arrangement of the people's representative body. The nature of the arrangement of the people's representative body in modern autocratic countries, in accordance with their opinion of the essence of the state, namely that the state is considered an organism, then the nature of the arrangement of the people's representative body is corporate, since the people's representative body is not individual representatives, unless it is a representative of the existing social unions and is recognized by the state in the society.
While the people's representative body in the modern democratic country is atomistic, because the people's representative body is the representatives of the electorate. - The nature of power from the people's representative body. In a modern autocratic country, the people's representative body does not actually have any power, because the people's representative body is only a supporter of the decisions that have been taken by the executive body. In fact, some say that the people's representative body in the modern autocratic State is only a funnel or echo of the voice or decisions of the executive body.
So the power in the modern autocratic country is actually in the executive body, and here in fact the one who holds power or who decides the decision is only one person, namely the leader of that executive body, which in Italy during the fascist rule called Capo del Governo, or Il Duce, which means: leader.
In Germany under Nazi rule the executive was called the Führer, for example during Hitler's reign. At that time the form of the German state was national-socialist, in which the authoritarian leadership came into existence from the national-socialist state. The House of Representatives, here referred to as Rijksdag, is nothing more than a second voice merely repeating the statements of the Führer, the Rijksdag only convenes or convenes when the Führer deems it necessary to state in more detail the matters of state policy to be carried out or to be carried out . Thus the power of the legislature was seized and taken over by the executive body, by the state government, the Führer, which incarnated in a man named Adolph Hitler.
However, the power of such people, because they do not pay attention to the interests of the people, except only pay attention to the interests of their group, namely the Arians, while other groups are cruelly oppressed, will eventually fall apart in a short life.
According to Alfredo Rocco, he served as Italian minister of justice during the fascist era, that executive power has a leading position, the government is representative of the power of the State as a whole, and thus the executive body must fulfill its general duties. While the other two powers, namely the legislative power and the judiciary are only special powers, so the position is secondary. So it is clear that the legislature and the judiciary only have certain duties or powers and are specific, while the executive body, c.q. Führer, has unlimited duties and powers and is general in nature.
It is further stated that the duties or powers of the legislature, or the people's representative body, are merely a recorder rather than the decrees of the leaders of the executive body, namely the Führer. Thus the executive power includes other powers, and also that power is considered to represent the whole people.
In Germany, in Nazi times, his power was no different. At that time, the Rijksdag, the German parliament, was just a funnel to echo the voice of the Führer. After all, the parliament only convenes, or convenes, when deemed necessary by the Führer, and its duty in the session is only to hear reports of actions that have been, or will be taken by the Führer.
Almost the same situation in the two countries above is the situation in the Soviet Republic. The country also has rules for the selection of the people's representative body which is corporate in nature. The country is also only one party, the existence of other parties as opposition parties is not allowed. In practice, the system in the Soviet Republic ran as an orderly dictator, with a strong central government.
The order was in such a way, that there could be adjacent to the republican form.
Meanwhile, in a democratic country, the People's Representative Body has real power, which is to hold the power of law.
As is well known, in those modern autocratic countries there is only one party.
Indeed, such a situation is a contradictio in adjecto. Because the term party means the actual part, or party, or group within the country, which fights for the goals of a particular state.
If in the country there is only one party, because all of them have been equalized, then there is no party at all, or it is difficult for that party, or that part we call the party.
It is true that in those modern autocratic countries, the so-called party is nothing but a tool of power that has been carefully regulated, to destroy the possibility of a revolt against the Führer.
So in fact the existence of the party in the modern autocratic countries will only be a tool of power from the state, and that is used to suppress the movements that oppose the state.
This is, in fact, among other things, a weakness of an autocratic system, because thus the state through its head of state, will not hesitate to commit any atrocities, if any citizen or group has a different position from the party's stand, or stand government. So here the interests of the individual receive less attention from the government, or may not even get attention at all, because what is concerned is only the interests of the state.
According to Kranenburg, there is a corporate representative body in a country that adopts a one-party system, or a modern autocratic system, that is merely camouflage, an impersonation of a dictatorial and absolutist state, or in the classical term tyrannical.
But in addition to the above weaknesses, the autoritaire government also has the advantages, namely the possibility to make decisions quickly, as well as take firm action as necessary, especially in critical situations that require changes. radically in the fields of government, constitution, economy, politics and social. Which changes do sometimes need to be made radically.
For example, the Romans in the past, under normal circumstances, or in a state of peace, their government used a democratic system. But when the country is in a state of danger, they change its system of government into a dictatorial government, so that there is a strong unity of government leadership, all decisions and actions can be taken accurately and decisively.
But such a change is only for, or is only temporary. Because later when the danger that threatens the country is gone, they return its rule to a democratic system.
It is true that such a situation from a system, sometimes good, but sometimes bad, and these traits always depend on the circumstances and how it is implemented, also depends on the point of view of the stakeholder.
So it is clear that there is no system that is perfect in nature, because a system must contain its advantages and disadvantages.
The only difference is that one system may contain more benefits than another system.
Which advantage the situation determines. Similarly, for example the dictatorial system mentioned above. The dictator is that the power of government in that country is only held, exercised and led by a single person, who is called a dictator.
So in fact the term proletarian dictator is inaccurate, and violates the theory of statehood.
It is not possible for a dictatorial government to be run by a large group, so if it is said that a proletarian dictator, it is not the dictator who runs it, but the one who runs it is the leader, so in fact he is the dictator, he dictates, that is, dictates his will to be carried out. and this implementation is accompanied by violence and atrocities.
For the good of the country that governs the autoritaire or dictatorial, some do not agree with it, the scholars who do not agree with it are among others Bryce because according to him, decisions or actions taken quickly, moreover only one person can endanger the balance the state, especially when he is acting as a dictator, who feels he has absolute power, this often gives rise to decisions and, or arbitrary actions.
Then to such a thing or situation then arises a problem, or a problem that is very important, and that can be ensured that there really is no problem, or a political problem that is the most important of these problems.
The problem is the problem of limiting the power of the ruler. Regarding this issue, Maurice Duverger said that the issue is very important, because it is precisely the problem that arose at the time of science, and the practice of constitutionalism put in the hands of the rulers an omnipotent unknown to the oppressor, as well as in the history of the constitution.
This problem not only needs to be investigated, that is, the way in which people can control power, but also needs to be asked whether or not to hold control or restriction of power.
Because some people think that the power of government is good, it means that the government has great power, vast, it is clear that the power of the ruler is absolute, but there are also people who think that the power of such a ruler is one of the greatest dangers that threaten civilization. these days.
So let's just follow Maurice Duverger description of this issue for a moment. Among other things, he stated that there are indeed two kinds of principles of power restriction.
The one with the other is a firm resistance, and it is a resistance that as we see is present in all the elements that embody the constitution, namely the liberal system, and the authoritarian system.
And for this let us see the contradiction from the very beginning, or the very beginning, that there is a general term: two Weltanschaung, whose principles are face-to-face, and those who are as opposed to each other, in their consequences.
Against the existence of these two kinds of Weltanschaung there are many names that describe both streams, because almost every era, and almost every author gives his own name.
In fact, sometimes, this is confusing and confusing, giving meaning or maybe just as a different interpretation, either intentionally, or maybe it does not yet or does not understand its true meaning.
Maurice Duverger named the two Weltanschaung, one individualism, the other collectivism.
According to him, these names have been well thought out, and this is exactly why they were chosen, that is why they presented each of the joints from each of the doctrines or Weltanschaung.
He further states that the doctrine of collectivism as part of a basic parable or postulate that is often uncertain in formulation and sometimes unambiguous, states that individuals are only elements that together constitute social units, and that unity really exists, which can really be seen as a unity.
According to this doctrine, a group or social unit as well as social life can be equated with the human body, and human life.The human body is made up of a group of cells, the cells that make up the human body are a living thing as well, if necessary in a way that is separate from the human body is still alive as well, as this has been proven by laboratory experiences.But the life of such cells is imperfect or abnormal; because according to nature the cells must be a unit and arranged in such a way that it is the human body, which is so that the cells can live perfectly.
Such is the case with human beings, human beings must live in a unity or society so that their lives can be perfect. Because human beings who live apart from their unity, that is, outside of society, will certainly experience imperfections in their lives.
So he stressed, there is no individual, there are only members of the union, which is solely obligated to guarantee social functions.
He goes on to say that it is quite clear that the doctrine of collectivism is completely contrary to any intention to limit the power of the rulers. Because the rulers, in this doctrine, are the embodiment of the consciousness and will of their unity.
And the power of the rulers merely aims to break all individual resistance to the collective interests. Rather it is the doctrine of individualism.
This doctrine leads to the correct conclusions that are the opposite of the conclusions of the doctrine of collectivism. This is not surprising, because both are starting from the exact opposite base as well.
According to the doctrine of individualism, society is a secondary reality, while every human or individual is a primary reality, or a first level reality, so the individual is a unit that is fundamental.
Indeed, there is no doubt that man is a creature who, if separated from his unity alone, will not be able to meet all his needs, so that the life of the community is a must.
This is often a profitable necessity, because the society always maintains the values of civilization by spreading its virtues to its members, namely the individuals.
But nevertheless the individual remains the highest purpose that underlies something. Here social unity, or society then becomes limited in its role, which is to guarantee the opportunity of life to every human being and pave the way for development in line with the actual characters or traits.
So if the doctrine of collectivism states the life and life of man in the society is not the same as the life and life of the cells in the human body, as a balance of this postulate the doctrine of individualism states that human life in the society is equated with the collection of paintings in an art exhibition, in which each painting is the subject of price or value, and not the symmetry of the whole group.
With this understanding, the doctrine of individualism assumes that the rulers are solely obliged to maintain the social rules necessary for the development of each individual, thus consequently the needs of individual development determine the limits of power of the ruler or government.
So each individual has an environment of his own, an environment of personality that can not be disturbed, or violated by anyone, especially by the authorities, with the provision that in the event of a dispute between an individual and his union or society there is a possibility that the individual must give in.
Now what is the opinion of the proponents of this doctrine of individualism. They do not in the least think of the will of either the ruler or the government, nor do they expect the possibility that the ruler will spontaneously respect the limits of his power.
In fact, on the other hand, the proponents of this doctrine, especially its swordsmen, are pessimistic, that is, that every human being who is given power over his fellow man, of course tends to rape or expand his position, this is indeed nature-nature; as a result, every ruler he suspects, will abuse his power is not limited as taught by the doctrine of collectivism.
Thus the proponents of the doctrine of individualism then strive as hard as they can to think and then find precise ways (good and successful) to be able to limit the power of the rulers.
And it is true that in the theory of statehood the problem of how to limit the power of the ruler is one of the most important problems.
