Name: Voting Right and Right to Life
Uploaded: 2020-10-01T04:38:45Z
Duration: 20 min 32 s
Description: The debate on whether to go ahead with or postpone the 2020 regional elections on 9 December is a debate about government policy in the midst of a national crisis, even a global crisis, due to the spread of the Covid-19

›

Voting Right and Right to Life

The debate on whether to go ahead with or postpone the 2020 regional elections on 9 December is a debate about government policy in the midst of a national crisis, even a global crisis, due to the spread of the Covid-19

IGNAS KLEDEN

· 14 minutes read

In the back-and-forth between the government and those proposing a postponement of the elections, the reasons put forward by each side are based on preference about what is considered important/urgent during the national crisis of the current pandemic, why it is important/urgent and for whom it is important/urgent.

These reasons specifically reflect tension between two ideologies in democracy, which have developed over the last 50 years or so, along with two other sets of ideology. The ideology that I mean is democracy of the elite vis-à-vis participatory democracy, in addition to two other sets of ideology, namely liberal democracy (based on rights) and communitarian democracy (based on obligations), and a third set, namely the ideology that defends the welfare state in democracy and the ideology of neoconservatives and neoliberals that defend free markets in democracy.

One defends an economy governed by state regulations, the other believes the economy is governed by market mechanisms. According to political scientists Jean L. Cohen of Columbia University and Andrew Arato of the New School for Social Research, these three sets of democracy have mostly dominated the dynamics of democratic politics in recent decades.

Also read: Regional Elections (Not) About Risking Lives

It is impossible to describe all three sets of thought here, but the principles of the first set of ideology, namely democracy of the elite and participatory democracy, by briefly discussing the arguments of the theories of liberalism and communitarianism, will clearly explain the pros and cons of the two parties in the debate on regional elections. One of the opinions on which the democracy of the elite is based is the theory of Joseph Schumpeter, an Austrian political economy expert who emigrated to the United States and became a professor at Harvard University in 1932.

Elitist democracy

According to Schumpeter, as laid out in his book “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” published in 1942, democracy is not defined as a certain type of society, or a set of moral goals and is not even based on the principle of legitimacy, but it is a method of choosing political leaders and organizing the government. This elitist democracy model is considered realistic, descriptive, operational, empirically correct and appropriate to the conditions of modern society.

The machine that drives the political system is power, just as the engine that drives the economy is profit. What distinguishes democracy from a nondemocratic system is only the way in which power is acquired. The main condition that guarantees the avoidance of violence in political competition and the avoidance of disruption of institutions in competing for power is a compromise among members of the elite regarding a political decision, and acceptance by the people of that political decision.

What is considered to be most important is the ability of a government to make political decisions and to make the public accept these decisions, while ensuring that the transfer of political power occurs regularly and in an orderly manner, so that political stability is guaranteed. To ensure political stability, efforts were made to limit people\'s political participation.

The criticism of the participatory democracy is that Schumpeter\'s model treats the political party elites as political producers or entrepreneurs, whereas the state citizens that elect them are only political consumers.

The political party elites always claimed that the people is the basis of their legitimacy, that what they propagate or fight for is the interest of the people. However, the people are not involved in the political experience due to limited political participation, and the limits (of their participation) are determined by the political elite. In fact, it is only through this participation that the people experience firsthand a democratic political culture.

In practice, citizens who have voted in elections have never participated in setting the political agenda, have no opportunity to raise relevant and important political issues or choose the policies to be fought for.

Also read: Option to Save People

On the other hand, the whole aggregation of political interests is carried out by party leaders, who also decide which interests have political relevance. They are the ones who choose political issues and build public opinion. The right of the voters is limited to accepting political leadership and accepting offers of power made by the political elites.

The participatory theory puts forward many normative criticisms of the democracy of the elite, by emphasizing the importance of citizens in democracy. However, it does not seem strong enough to be an alternative that can offer an institutional model to replace the form of representative government in an elite democracy that is in line with the conditions of modern society.

This democratic institutional model proposed by the participatory group is more difficult to apply in modern society. First, the polis is a model in Athens during the ancient Greece. Polis is part of politike koinonia, which Roman scholars translate as societas civilis, which is then translated again into modern language to become civil society.

This system only regulates the Athenian society as a democratic society, which consists of two parts, namely oikos, a household that is not regulated by law and is only led by the head of the family or pater familias. The oikos members deal only with private matters and have no say in politics and public life.

Also read: The State of Pilkada 2020 Emergency

Only polis members have voting rights and are protected by law. The greatest difficulty of this system is that, apart from political discrimination between the two groups of the Athenians, there is no clear distinction between state and society, which only much later in the nineteenth century became the theme of political discussion and political philosophy in Europe. Moreover, democratic institutions in Athens in ancient Greece are too simplistic to implement in modern society.

The second model proposed is the city-state form of the Medieval Europe. This model, which originates in the republican tradition, is considered to be the closest to the polis model of the Athenian era, or to be similar to the forms of democracy that were born out of the workers\' movement.

These models recognize only one organizational principle for the whole society, without distinguishing society from the state and the economy. Therefore, if these models are proposed as a substitute for representative democracy in elite democracy, the followers of participatory democracy are considered to adhere to utopian and anti-modern ideas that can hardly be applied in today\'s society.

Not respecting the right to life

If we return to the debate about regional elections in the midst of a pandemic that has not yet subsided, we will see that the government\'s argument to maintain 9 December 2020 as the voting day for 9 provinces, 224 regencies and 37 municipalities throughout Indonesia is an empirical argument from the elite democracy and ignores normative arguments of participatory democracy.

President Jokowi stated that the simultaneous regional elections on 9 December 2020 were maintained to respect the people\'s constitutional right to vote and be elected. It may be necessary to remember that the right to vote and be elected as a constitutional right is a legal right, which is a positive law made by humans themselves. However, the objections raised by civil society, and by the two largest social organizations, namely Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah, do not refer to constitutional rights but to the right to life, which is a natural right derived from natural law.

The risk to human life in Indonesia is too great if the elections are held simultaneously in such a broad scope, even with health protocols being tightened several times. Moreover, there is no suggestion to cancel the simultaneous regional elections (so there will be no violation of the people\'s constitutional right to vote and be elected). The only proposal is to postpone the election to a later time when the risk of transmission and the spread of Covid-19 has decreased and can relatively be controlled in a more careful and effective manner.

Also read: Save People in Regional Elections

The argument that other countries are going ahead with elections in the midst of a pandemic (Singapore, France, Germany, South Korea) cannot be taken as an example that can simply be followed just like that in Indonesia, because the level of social discipline and the level of law enforcement in each country is different. In addition, as written by M Jusuf Kalla, a former two-term vice president under two presidents, there are 71 countries in the world that are postponing elections at this time.

In terms of absolute numbers, quite a number of countries around the world feel the great risk of organizing elections in the midst of a pandemic even if all of these countries can also implement health protocols. In fact, in France, which a spokesman for President Joko Widodo has mentioned as an example of a country that holding an election in March 2020, the participation in local elections fell to 44.7 percent from 63 percent previously.

The argument that postponing the elections would need an acting official to replace the duties of the governors, regents and mayors whose office terms will end and, thus, it means another job for the government to pick individuals to carry out the administration duties before the elections, is not strong, because we know that Covid-19 has added workloads to hospitals, doctors and nurses, and gravediggers.

Why did the government not pay attention to doctors risking their lives in saving Covid-19 patients yet feel reluctant about taking on the additional task of appointing acting governors, regents and mayors if the elections must be postponed?

In fact, we know that this additional job for the government does not make the government (officials) face a risk of death, as did 123 Indonesian doctors (65 general practitioners, 56 specialists and 2 resident doctors/prospective specialists), who died on duty helping Covid-19 patients. On average, four doctors die in a week. Those are the data and information provided by professor Zubairi Djoerban, chairman of the Indonesian Doctors Association (IDI) Covid-19 Preparedness Task Force.

This does not include the burden of depression and stress on doctors due to work fatigue, increased working hours and confusion over the increasing number of new patients, as well as the changing government policies in dealing with Covid-19, which resulted in a working system that an epidemiologist at the University of Indonesia referred to as a patchwork.

Why did the government not pay attention to doctors risking their lives in saving Covid-19 patients?

Also read: Risk of Pilkada 2020

Doctors also face the fact that the addition of new cases is on average 4,000 people per day, with an estimate that next month, if things don\'t get better, there will be no more beds for patients in the hospital. As a result, we face a depletion of medical personnel and a lack of facilities to treat a growing number of patients, with subsequent consequences for general health conditions in our society. All this makes it even clearer that what we are facing is not the risk of violating the constitutional right to vote and be elected, but the real risk of disrespecting the right to life and the pursuit of happiness, which is not a legal right, but a natural right of everyone in every country that recognizes the importance of human life.

It seems noteworthy that objections to the organization of the 9 December 2020 regional elections did not come from any political circles. The House of Representatives (DPR) clearly approved and supported the 9 December regional elections because the ruling coalition dominates seats at the House, while opposition parties failed to express their views on the pros and cons of the 9 December 2020 elections. Beside, the political parties at the House expected that with the 9 December elections, they will find out more quickly the results of the candidates they have nominated for the posts of governors, regents and mayors.

On the other hand, almost all of the voices rejecting or questioning the organization of the regional elections in December come from civil society groups, such as the NU and Muhammadiyah, as the two largest social organizations in Indonesia, which may have received support from smaller mass organizations.

Why should soccer matches and orchestras be postponed but the regional elections still go on?

The stance of civil society can be seen not only from anyone who rejects or questions it, but also from their arguments, which are far from practical political interests. Questions and statements raised through social media or through other occasions should receive the attention of the government and the whole community.

Why can houses of worship be closed temporarily because of Covid-19 but the regional elections cannot be postponed? Why can schools be closed temporarily but the local elections not to be postponed? Why should soccer matches and orchestras be postponed but the regional elections still go on? Why can corporate offices be closed and the regional elections continue?

All of these questions do not have any political interests, but are the voices of the citizens and civil society groups that raise concerns about the risks to human life and public safety should be the main concern of the state and government.

Put people\'s safety first

The decision remains in the hands of the head of government and the head of state. However, people who will face the risk of a Covid-19 pandemic should have the right to know why the elections in December have to take place, despite everything, and whether there are really objective reasons to endure the implementation of the elections as well. How is it planned, which at the moment seems to be the permanent establishment of the government? Differences in views are commonplace in democracy, and they are precisely what makes democracy a productive, creative and progressive political system.

Also read: Regional Elections, Pandemic and Threats of Recession

https://cdn-assetd.kompas.id/2UGYqwCXZsbTV3U3qBktE-h_pEo=/1024x768/https%3A%2F%2Fkompas.id%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F09%2FIMG-20200920-WA0013_1600600409.jpg — DOKUMENTASI DINAS KESEHATAN KOTA JAYAPURA
Health workers and military personnel pray on 19 Sept. 2020 over the grave of a health worker who died of suspected Covid-19 at a cemetery in Jayapura, Papua (19/9/2020).

The potential for democracy as a productive and progressive system will develop if there is dialogue between the proponents of these different views, in order to obtain a consensus that can be accepted by both parties because there is a compromise of interests that is fairly negotiated.

Now, there are differences between the government, which insists on holding the regional elections, and civil society, which wants to postpone the elections. The situation becomes unproductive if the ruling party ignores other opinions that are put forward with reasonable and open reasons, and the government then unilaterally applies what it views as the correct way.

Also read: Calls to Postpone Regional Elections Grow

In accordance with the principles of democracy, we hope that the government has the heart to open a dialogue and to at least hear firsthand why the civil society groups are putting forward a different opinion and proposing a postponement of the elections. Of course, this procedure is more troublesome. But democracy is a hassle that is required to create a sense of justice for differences in opinion, especially opinions regarding the right to life of humans.

It does not need to be explained that the dialogue also adheres to the applicable law. However, it may be helpful to recall what a statesman from the Roman republic said in the first century AD, whose words are remembered today in the study of the relationship between law and human beings. Cicero, or Marcus Tullius Cicero by his full name, the Roman statesman, philosopher, rhetorician and poet who had a long-lasting influence on the philosophy of law, stated in his book, “De Legibus” (Concerning Law), that law must always be put as a reference and salus populi suprema lex esto, people\'s safety should be the highest law.

Ignas Kleden, Sociologist.

Editor:

Syahnan Rangkuti

IGNAS KLEDEN Political Interests civil society 2020 simultaneous regional elections 2020 regional elections right to life human beings. practical political