Kasus penganiayaan terhadap TKI semakin merajalela. Akhir-akhir ini tentu kita sering mendengar tentang kasus penganiayaan terhadap TKW asal Indonesia di Arab Saudi, Sumiati. Banyak pihak yang mempertanyakan tanggapan dan sikap yang harus di ambil pemerintah saat ini, tetapi nihil. Meski sudah di desak oleh banyak kalangan, tetap saja belum ada tindakan yang berarti. Kita ini seperti negara tanpa pemimpin, ada pemerintah tetapi tidak punya pemimpin.
Pengamalan HAM dan tingkat kepedulian Presiden terhadap kasus ini memang sangat minim. Padahal entah sudah berapa triliun devisa yang di hasilkan oleh para TKI. Mereka bukanlah mesin ATM. Mereka bukan properti, melainkan manusia yang tidak seharusnya diperlakukan seperti benda mati.
Kini SBY didesak untuk segera menjadwalkan kunjungan ke Arab Saudi untuk bertemu dengan Raja Arab Saudi. Beliau diminta langsung menagih komitmen kerajaan Arab Saudi dalam hubungan kerjasama di bidang ketenagakerjaan dengan Indonesia. Dan apabila kerajaan Arab Saudi tidak melakukan tindakan dalam menetralisir kasus ini, maka Indonesia berhak membawa permaalahn ini ke Mahkamah Internasional.Sayang pemerintah kita terkesan lamban seakan tak perduli dengan hak dan martabat para TKI.
Tahun ini ada 3 TKI yang akan dihukum mati di Malaysia dan kalau tidak salah setelah Idul Adha ini juga akan ada yang dieksekusi di Arab Saudi. Saya tidak melihat Presiden SBY melakukan diplomasi tingkat tinggi. Meski sudah tersedia UU No 39/2004 yang merupakan pedoman atas semua mekanisme penempatan TKI. Untuk membenahinya perlu meratifikan Konvesi PBB tahun 1990 tentang perlindungan buruh migran dan anggota keluarganya. Indonesia baru menandatangani pada 2004, dan hingga kini belum juga meratifikasinya.
Hal yang berlainan terlihat pada masa kepemimpinan Presiden Gus Dur. Setelah reformasi ada beberapa kasus ekstrem bagi buruh migran, dan hanya pada pemerintahan Presiden Gus Dur bersikap tegas dan berani. Dulu ada 2 TKI yakni di Arab dan Mesir akan dieksekusi mati, saat akan dieksekusi, Presiden Gus Dur langsung menelpon Pemerintah Arab.
Banyak pihak yang sangat menyayangkan sikap plin-plan dari presiden kita kini. Meski sudah sering menerima berbagai desakan bahkan kecaman selalu ada beribu alasan yang terlontar dari orang nomor satu di Indonesia ini.
INFO : detik.com
Kamis, 18 November 2010
Senin, 15 November 2010
Negara Berduka, Pejabat Hura-Hura, Presiden Sambut Tamu Negara, Rakyat Merana
Tentu kita semua tau berbagai bencana yang menimpa Indonesia, mulai dari banjir bandang di wasior, tsunami, dan yang masih terjadi hingga kini yaitu gunung meletus. Di saat-saat genting seperti ini tentu para korban sangat memerlukan perhatian dari pemimpinnya. Tetapi kenyataan justru berkata lain. Bisa-bisanya Presiden kita malah sibuk melayani tamu negara lain, Barrack Obama. Semua akses jalan yang akan dilalui Presiden AS ini ditutup. Jakarta lumpuh total, hingga bagian jalan lain juga kena jatah macet. Hal ini sangat mengegerkan rakyat dan sontak membuat kita geleng-geleng kepala. Kok bisa ya? yaa..begitulahh Indonesia. Sungguh tak ada nurani dan cukup memalukan menurut saya. Beberapa keluhan lain turut dilontarkan rakyat. Tetapi apakah memperoleh tanggapan?? tentu tidak!
Memang SBY sudah beberapa kali melakukan kunjungan ke Yogyakarta untuk memantau para korban. Tetapi nyatanya pendistribusian bantuan pun belum terjadi merata. Bahkan beberapa korban mengaku menerima perkataan kasar dari beberapa anggota TNI, hingga akhirnya mereka nekat kembali ke rumah masing-masing dan meninggalkan posko pengungsian. Mana tanggung jawab presiden?? Bukankah kita merupakan negara HAM yang memiliki asas Bhinneka Tunggal Ika?? Memang secara teoritis segala hal yang telah ditetapkan di Indonesia sudahlah baik. Mulai dari Pancasila hingga berbagai UU. Tapi mana penerapannya?? Percuma berteriak-teriak merdeka apabila itu hanya dijadikan simbol kedaulatan para penguasa. Seluruh rakyat membutuhkan kemerdekaan yang sesungguhnya, dimana hal-hal yang menyangkut kesejahteraan rakyat dapat dijamin oleh negara. Tetapi yang tercermin malah kesibukan masing-masing orang demi kepentingan pribadi. Penerapan integrasi di Indonesia benar-benar 0 besar.
Hal lain datang dari studi banding yang dilakukan oleh para anggota DPR. Bisa-bisanya mereka menghabiskan ratusan juta rupiah hanya untuk hal yang dapat dilakukan di dalam negara. Ditengah rintihan korban bencana, masih sempat-sempatnya mereka berhura-hura. Tak sadarkah mereka, uang siapa yang mereka pakai untuk berfoya-foya?? sungguh tak habis pikir, bisa-bisanya mereka haha hihi di negara orang sedangkan rakyat disini berteriak-teriak minta tolong. Apakah anda-anda sekalian tidak malu dengan negara lain yang memberikan sumbangan kepada negara ini? Cukup mengherankan memang. Entah urat malunya sudah putus atau apa saya tidak tau.
Apabila dilihat dari berbagai kasus yang menimpa Indonesia sejak dulu, sungguh terlihat birokrasi yang anjlok. Semuanya hanya didasarkan pada harta dan status sosial.
BY : NERISSA
Memang SBY sudah beberapa kali melakukan kunjungan ke Yogyakarta untuk memantau para korban. Tetapi nyatanya pendistribusian bantuan pun belum terjadi merata. Bahkan beberapa korban mengaku menerima perkataan kasar dari beberapa anggota TNI, hingga akhirnya mereka nekat kembali ke rumah masing-masing dan meninggalkan posko pengungsian. Mana tanggung jawab presiden?? Bukankah kita merupakan negara HAM yang memiliki asas Bhinneka Tunggal Ika?? Memang secara teoritis segala hal yang telah ditetapkan di Indonesia sudahlah baik. Mulai dari Pancasila hingga berbagai UU. Tapi mana penerapannya?? Percuma berteriak-teriak merdeka apabila itu hanya dijadikan simbol kedaulatan para penguasa. Seluruh rakyat membutuhkan kemerdekaan yang sesungguhnya, dimana hal-hal yang menyangkut kesejahteraan rakyat dapat dijamin oleh negara. Tetapi yang tercermin malah kesibukan masing-masing orang demi kepentingan pribadi. Penerapan integrasi di Indonesia benar-benar 0 besar.
Hal lain datang dari studi banding yang dilakukan oleh para anggota DPR. Bisa-bisanya mereka menghabiskan ratusan juta rupiah hanya untuk hal yang dapat dilakukan di dalam negara. Ditengah rintihan korban bencana, masih sempat-sempatnya mereka berhura-hura. Tak sadarkah mereka, uang siapa yang mereka pakai untuk berfoya-foya?? sungguh tak habis pikir, bisa-bisanya mereka haha hihi di negara orang sedangkan rakyat disini berteriak-teriak minta tolong. Apakah anda-anda sekalian tidak malu dengan negara lain yang memberikan sumbangan kepada negara ini? Cukup mengherankan memang. Entah urat malunya sudah putus atau apa saya tidak tau.
Apabila dilihat dari berbagai kasus yang menimpa Indonesia sejak dulu, sungguh terlihat birokrasi yang anjlok. Semuanya hanya didasarkan pada harta dan status sosial.
BY : NERISSA
Sistem Politik di Indonesia
Masa revolusi Fisik adalah masa dimana pemikiran-pemikiran yang berkembang pada masa pergerakan nasional menguji keampuhannnya dalam rangka patriotisme menghadapi Belanda, yaitu usaha mendapatkan pengakuan kedaulatan. Faksi-faksi yang berkembang membentuk kelompok pro dan kontra berunding Indonesia dengan Belanda. Dua faksi terbesar pada masa revolusi fisik, yaitu pertama faksi pemerintah yang didukung oleh dwitunggal Soekarno-Hata yang lebih dikenal dengan sayap Kiri. Lalu Persatuan Perjuangan (PP) sebagai oposisi pemerintah. Sayap kiri terdiri dari kaum Sosialis Kanan Sjahrir yang dikenal dengan sebutan SosKa lalu kelompok Komunis Gadungan Amir Syarifudin yang dikenal dengan sebutan KomGa (SosKa+KomGa=Partai Sosialis), ditambah dengan Pesindo,PKI, dll. Sedangkan PP terdiri dari komunis nasional Tan Malaka, Hizbullah, dll yang terkenal dengan sebutan kelompok kiri. Diluar kelompok Ini ada dua partai yang mempunyai kekuatan besar, yakni Masyumi sebuah partai federasi dengan ideology nasionalisme Islam dan PNI dengan ideologi nasionalis Sekuler. Disamping itu ketiga kekuatan pada masa revolusi fisik ada dua kekuatan Dwitunggal Soekarno-Hatta dan tentara. Secara garis besar pada masa revolusi Fisik pemikiran yang berkembang adalah tentang bagaimana cara mendapatkan kedaulatan Indonesia baik dimeja perundingan maupun di medan perang termasuk membentuk tentara regular yang homogen.
Tercapainya pengakuan kedaulatan pada 27 Desember 1949 dalam Konferensi meja KMB yang selanjutnya dikuti dengan perubahan konstitusi Indonesia dari konstitusi RIS menuju UUDS 1950 adalah tonggak diterapkannya demokrasi Liberal di Indonesia. Begitupun dengan bentuk Negara yang awalnya federal menurut Konstitusi RIS berubah menjadi Republik Kesatuan melalui sebuah mosi integral M. Natsir.
catatan: ketua delegasi belanda di konferensi KMB saat itu mendapat kecaman keras dari kerjaan belanda karena gagal mempertahankan kolonial mereka yg sangat mereka banggakan lebih dari 300 tahun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_National_Revolution
Liberal democracy period in Indonesia
An era of Liberal Democracy (Indonesian: Demokrasi Liberal) in Indonesia began in 1950 following the securing of Indonesian independence in the Indonesian National Revolution, and ended with the imposition of martial law and President Sukarno's introduction of Guided Democracy in 1957. It saw a number of important events, including the 1955 Asia-Africa Conference, Indonesia's first general and Constitutional Assembly elections, and was an extended period of political instability, with no cabinet lasting as long as two years.
Timeline
A dead militant following a 1956 attack against a rubber plantation.
1948 - 1962: Darul Islam rebellions begin in West Java, spread to other provinces but conclude with the execution of its leader Kartosoewiryo.
1952, 17 October: General Nasution is suspended as army chief of staff following army indiscipline over command and support that threatens the government.
1955, April: The city of Bandung hosts the Asia-Africa Conference. It is the first meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement and is attended by world leaders including China's Zhou Enlai, India's Nehru, Egypt's Nasser and Yugoslavia's Tito.
1955, September: Indonesia holds general parliamentary elections; the last free national elections until 1999; support for the parties is widely distributed with four parties each gaining 16-22 per cent and the remaining votes split between 24 parties.
1958, May 18: US Air Force pilot Allen Pope is shot down over Ambon, revealing covert American support of regional rebellions, and ends the Dulles brothers' failure to subvert the Sukarno government.
1950s/60s: The military articulate the doctrines of dwifungsi and hankamrata: i.e. a military roles in the country's socio-political development as well as security; and a requirement that the resources of the people be at the call of the armed forces.
1959, 5 July: With armed forces support, Sukarno issues a decree dissolving the Constituent Assembly and reintroducing the Constitution of 1945 with strong presidential powers, and assumes the additional role of Prime Minister, which completes the structure of 'Guided Democracy'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy_period_in_Indonesia
Guided Democracy in Indonesia
Guided Democracy (Indonesian: Demokrasi Terpimpin) was the political system in place in Indonesia from 1957 until the New Order began in 1966. It was the brainchild of President Sukarno, and was an attempt to bring about political stability. Instead, he sought a system based on the traditional village system of discussion and consensus, which occurred under the guidance of village elders.
Sukarno proposed a threefold blend of nasionalisme ('nationalism'), agama ('religion'), and komunisme ('communism') into a co-operative 'Nas-A-Kom' government. This was intended to appease the three main factions in Indonesian politics — the army, Islamic groups, and the communists. With the support of the military, he proclaimed in February 1957, 'Guided Democracy', and proposed a cabinet representing all political parties of importance (including the PKI). Western-style parliamentary democracy was thus finished in Indonesia until the 1999 elections of the Reformasi era.
Background
The Liberal Democracy period from the reestablishment of the unitary Republic of Indonesia in 1950 until the declaration of martial law in 1957 saw the rise and fall of six cabinets, the longest-lasting surviving for just under two years. Even Indonesia's first national elections in 1955 failed to bring about political stability.
In 1957, Indonesia faced a series of crises, including the beginning of the Permesta rebellion in Makassar and the army takeover of authority in South Sumatra. One of the demands of the Permesta rebels was that 70 percent of the members of Sukarno's proposed National Council should be members from the regions (i.e. non-Javanese). Another demand was that the cabinet and National Council be led by the dual-leadership (Indonesian: dwitunggal) of Sukarno and former Vice-President Hatta (Simanjuntak, 2003).
In March 1957, Sukarno accepted Army chief of staff Nasution's proposal for a declaration of martial law across the whole nation. This would put the military in charge, and would be a way to deal with the rebellious army commanders, as it would effectively legitimize them.
In the face of a growing political crisis amid splits in the cabinet, Prime Minister Ali Sastroadmidjojo returned his mandate to the president on 14 March.
The establishment of Guided Democracy
President Sukarno made an official visit to the People's Republic of China in October 1956. He was impressed with the progress made there since the Civil War, and concluded that this was due to the strong leadership of Mao Zedong, whose centralization of power was in sharp contrast to the political disorder in Indonesia. According to former foreign minister Ide Anak Agung Gde Agung, Sukarno began to believe he had been "chosen by providence" to lead the people and "build a new society".
Shortly after his return from China, on 30 October 1956, Sukarno spoke of his konsepsi (concept) of a new system of government. Two days earlier he had called for the political parties to be buried. Initially the parties were opposed to the idea, but once it became clear that they would not need to be abolished, the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) threw its support behind Sukarno.
On 21 February 1957, Sukarno detailed his plan. It would be a form of government more suited to the nature of Indonesia, as opposed to the western system. The centerpiece would be a 'mutual cooperation' cabinet of the major parties advised by a National Council (Indonesian: Dewan Nasional) of functional groups. The legislature would not be abolished. As well as the PKI, the Indonesian National Party (PNI) supported Sukarno, while the Islamist Masyumi Party and the Socialist Party of Indonesia opposed the plan. There were demonstrations in support of it.
On 15 March 1957 President Sukarno appointed PNI chairman Soewirjo to form a "working cabinet", which would be tasked with establishing the National Council in accordance with the president's concept. However, that fact that Masyumi were not asked to participate in the formation of the cabinet led to Soewirjo's efforts coming to nothing. However, on 25 March, Sukarno asked Soewirjo to try again, and gave him one week to for a cabinet, but once again, Soewirjo failed. Finally, Sukarno held a meeting with 69 party figures at the state Palace on 4 April, at which he announced his intention to form an emergency extra-parliamentary working cabinet, and that "citizen" Sukarno would set it up. The new "Working Cabinet", headed by non-party prime Minister Djuanda Kartawidjaja was announced on 8 April 1957 at the Bogor Palace. Although the PKI was not included, several members were sympathetic to the party. In fact, in theory, it was a non-party cabinet.
The National Council was established by emergemcy law in May 1957. It was chaired by Sukarno, with Ruslan Abdulgani as vice-chairman. At its inaugaration on 12 July, it comprised 42 members representing groups such as peasants, workers and women, as well as the various religions. Decisions were reached by consensus rather than through voting. As a non-political body based on fujnctional groups, it was intended as a counterbalance to the political system. The cabinet was not obliged to heed the advice given by the National Council, but in practice rarely ignored it.
Meanwhile, the army was trying to enhance its role by establishing functional groups of its own. In June 1957 Nasution began trying to woo the parties' functional groups and managed to unite the veterans groups under army control. He also used martial law to arrest several politicians for alleged corruption, while regional army commanders restricted party activities, particularly those of the PKI, whose headquarters in Jakarta was attacked in July.
Following the failure of a United Nations resolution calling on the Netherlands to negotiate with Indonesia over the West Irian issue, n 3 December, PKI and PNI unions began taking over Dutch companies, but 11 days later, Nasution stated that the army would run these companies. This gave the army a major economic role.
The end of Guided Democracy
During his 1964 Independence Day speech, Sukarno publicly denounced the United States. An anti-American campaign ensued in which American companies were threatened, American movies were banned, American libraries and other buildings were attacked, American journalists banned, and the American flag was often torn apart. Large anti-American propaganda posters were set up around Jakarta's streets. American aid was stopped. In August 1965, Sukarno announced that Indonesia was withdrawing from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and in his Independence Day speech on 17 August, announced the Jakarta-Phnom Penh-Hanoi-Peking-Pyongyang Axis, and said that the people would be armed. On 27 September, Nasution announced that he opposed the "fifth force" and the "Nasakomization" of the army.
On the night of 30 September 1965, six generals were kidnapped and murdered and a group calling itself the 30 September Movement seized control of the national radio station and the center of Jakarta. Although the movement was quickly crushed by Suharto it marked the end of guided democracy and of Sukarno as an effective president. The New Order regime established by Suharto had its own ideology — Pancasila Democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_Democracy_in_Indonesia
New Order (Indonesia)
The New Order (Indonesian: Orde Baru) is the term coined by former Indonesian President Suharto to characterize his regime as he came to power in 1966 (see Transition to the New Order). Suharto used this term to contrast his rule with that of his predecessor, Sukarno (dubbed the "Old Order," or Orde Lama). The term "New Order" in more recent times has become synonymous with the Suharto years (1965–1998).
Immediately following the attempted coup in 1965, the political situation was uncertain, but the Suharto's New Order found much popular support from groups wanting a separation from Indonesia's problems since its independence. The 'generation of 66' (angkatan 66) epitomised talk of a new group of young leaders and new intellectual thought. Following Indonesia's communal and political conflicts, and its economic collapse and social breakdown of the late 1950s through to the mid-1960s, the "New Order" was committed to achieving and maintaining political order, economic development, and the removal of mass participation in the political process. The features of the "New Order" established from the late 1960s were thus a strong political role for the military, the bureaucratization and corporatization of political and societal organizations, and selective but effective repression of opponents.
Within a few years, however, many of its original allies had become indifferent or averse to the New Order, which comprised a military faction supported by a narrow civilian group. Among much of the pro-democracy movement which forced Suharto to resign in the Indonesian 1998 Revolution and then gained power, the term "New Order" has come to be used pejoratively. It is frequently employed by them to describe figures who were either tied to the Suharto period, or who upheld practices of his authoritarian regime, such as corruption, collusion and nepotism (widely known by the acronym KKN: korupsi, kolusi, nepotisme).
Downfall of Suharto
Support for Suharto and his New Order government began to increasingly wane in the 1990s with more strident demands for democracy from within Indonesia's legal political parties. Criticism of the New Order's authoritarianism, human rights abuses, and situation of East Timor from Western NGOs and politicians began to isolate the regime diplomatically. The onset of the 1997 Asian financial crisis in Indonesia, and the stubbornness of Suharto in adopting reforms to address the crisis drew greater scrutiny from international lenders to the New Order corruption and lack of transparency. These factors culminated in the Indonesian Revolution of 1998 and the resignation of Suharto as president.
The Reformasi (Reform) of 1998 led to changes in Indonesia's various governmental institutions, reforms upon the structures of the judiciary, legislature, and executive office. Generally the fall of Suharto in 1998 is traced from events starting in 1996, when forces opposed to the New Order regime began to rally around Megawati Sukarnoputri, head of the PDI and daughter of the founding president Sukarno. When Suharto attempted to have Megawati removed as head of this party in a back-room deal, student activists loyal to Megawati occupied the headquarters of PDI in Jakarta. This culminated in Black Saturday on July 27, when the Indonesian military broke up the demonstrations.
These actions, along with increasing concerns over human rights violations in Indonesian-occupied East Timor, began to unsettle Suharto's normally friendly relations with Western nations Australia, Great Britain, and the United States. These further worsened when the Asian financial crisis of 1997 reached Indonesia, highlighting the rampant corruption of the Suharto regime as well.
Economic instability from the crisis affected much of the country, in the form of increased prices for staple foods and goods, and lowered standards of living and quality of life. These touched off riots, many targeting ethnic Chinese-Indonesians; bolstered by the findings of Parliamentary and independent investigations, it is often theorized that these anti-Chinese riots were instigated or aided by the military to divert anger away from Suharto himself.[citation needed]
Growing dissatisfaction with Suharto's authoritarian rule and the rapid erosion of the economy led many, chiefly the younger generation, to renew their protests directly against the regime. In 1998, Suharto made the decision to stand before the parliament for a re-election and won. The result was considered so outrageous that students occupied the Parliament. Suharto soon stood down from the presidency, and named Jusuf Habibie (of Suharto's own Golkar party) his successor. Considered the unseen power behind the throne, General Wiranto of the Chief of Staff over the military that was central to the New Order, is believed to have been behind the decision of Suharto to step down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Order_(Indonesia)
Reformasi Era
Habibie presidency (1998–1999)
On Suharto's resignation, Vice President Jusuf Habibie was sworn in as President of Indonesia. As President, Habibie undertook numerous political reforms.
In February 1999, Habibie's Government passed the Political Parties Law.Under this law, political parties were not limited to just three as had been the case under the Suharto regime. Political parties were also not required to have Pancasila as their ideology. This resulted in the emergence of many political parties and 48 would go on to compete in the 1999 Legislative Election.
In May 1999, Habibie's Government passed the Regional Autonomy Law.This law was the first step in decentralizing Indonesia's Government and in allowing Provinces to have more part in Governing their Province.
The Press became liberated under Habibie's Government although the Ministry of Information continued to exist.
Habibie also released political prisoners such as Sri Bintang Pamungkas, Muchtar Pakpahan, and Xanana Gusmao.
Habibie also presided over the 1999 legislative elections, the first free election since the 1955 Legislative Election. This election was supervised by the independent General Elections Commission (KPU) instead of an elections commission filled with government ministers as had been the case during Suharto's regime.
In a move that surprised many, and angered some, Habibie called for a referendum on the future of East Timor. Subsequently, on August 30, the inhabitants of East Timor voted to break away from Indonesian rule and become an independent nation. The territorial loss to Indonesia harmed Habibie's popularity and political alliances.
Following Habibie's presidency, Abdurrahman Wahid and Megawati Sukarnoputri served as president. In 2004 Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was elected President--a position he has held since. Yudhoyono's coalition, which brings together figures from the military, business community, and conservative Islam, has restabilized the office of the Presidency.
Wahid presidency (1999–2001)
In 1999, Abdurrahman Wahid became President of Indonesia. His first Cabinet, dubbed the National Unity Cabinet, was a Coalition Cabinet which consisted of members of various political parties. PDI-P, PKB, Golkar, PPP, PAN, and Justice Party (PK). Non-partisans and the military were also represented in the Cabinet. Wahid then went on to make two administrative reforms. The first administrative reform was to abolish the Ministry of Information, the Suharto's regime main weapon in controlling the media while the second administrative reform was to disband the Ministry of Welfare which had become corrupt and extortionist under the Suharto regime.
Autonomy and tolerance toward dissent
Wahid's plan in Aceh was to give it a referendum. However, this referendum would be to decide on various modes of autonomy rather than to decide on independence like in East Timor. Wahid also wanted to adopt a softer stance towards Aceh by having less military personnel on the ground. In March, Wahid's Government began to open negotiations with the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). Two months later, in May, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding with GAM to last until the beginning of 2001, by which time both signatories would have breached the agreement .
On 30 December, Wahid visited Jayapura the capital of Papua province (then known as "Irian Jaya"). During his visit, Wahid was successful in convincing West Papuan leaders that he was a force for change and even encouraged the use of the name Papua.
In September 2000, Wahid declared martial law in Maluku. By now, it was evident that Laskar Jihad were being assisted by members of the military and it was also apparent that they were financed by Fuad Bawazier, the last Minister of Finance to have served under Suharto.[citation needed] During the same month, the West Papuans raised their Morning Star flag. Wahid's response was to allow the West Papuans to do this provided that the Morning Star flag was placed lower than the Indonesian flag For this, he was severely criticized by Megawati and Akbar. On 24 December 2000, a series of bombings were directed against churches in Jakarta and in eight cities across Indonesia.
In March of that year, Wahid suggested that the 1966 Provisional People's Consultative Assembly (MPRS) resolution on the banning of Marxism-Leninism be lifted.
Relationship with the military
When he ascended to the Presidency, one of Wahid's goals was to reform the military and to take it out of its dominant socio-political role. In this venture, Wahid found an ally in Agus Wirahadikusumah who he made Commander of Kostrad in March. In July, Agus began uncovering a scandal involving Dharma Putra, a foundation with affiliations to Kostrad. Through Megawati, military members began pressuring Wahid to remove Agus. Wahid gave in to the pressure but then planned to have Agus appointed as the Army Chief of Staff to which top military leaders responded by threatening to retire and Wahid once again bowed down to pressure.
Wahid's relationship with the military deteriorated even further when in July it was revealed that Laskar Jihad had arrived in Maluku and was being armed by the military. Laskar Jihad, a radical Islamic militia had earlier in the year planned to go to Maluku and assist Muslims there in their communal conflict with the Christians. Wahid had ordered military to block Laskar Jihad from going to Maluku, but nevertheless they still made it to Maluku and they were then being armed with what turned out to be military weapons.
Buloggate and Bruneigate
2000 saw Wahid embroiled in two scandals which would damage his Presidency. In May, the State Logistics Agency (BULOG) reported that US$4 million was missing from its cash reserve. The missing cash was then attributed to Wahid's own masseur who had claimed that Wahid sent him to Bulog to collect the cash. Although the money was returned, Wahid's opponents took the chance of accusing him of being involved in the scandal and of being aware of what his masseur was up to. At the same time, Wahid was also accused of keeping US$2 million for himself. The money was a donation by the Sultan of Brunei to provide assistance in Aceh. However, Wahid failed to account for the money.
Impeachment
By the end of 2000, there were many within the political elite who were disillusioned with Wahid. The most obvious person who showed this disillusion was Amien Rais who showed regret at supporting Wahid to the Presidency the previous year. Amien also attempted to rally opposition by encouraging Megawati and Akbar to flex their political muscles. Megawati surprisingly defended Wahid whilst Akbar preferred to wait for the 2004 Legislative Elections. At the end of November, 151 DPR members signed a petition calling for the impeachment of Wahid.
In January 2001, Wahid made the announcement that Chinese New Year was to become an optional holiday. Wahid followed this up in February by lifting the ban on the display of Chinese characters and the importing of Chinese publications. In February, Wahid visited Northern Africa as well as Saudi Arabia to undertake the hajj pilgrimage. Wahid made his last overseas visit in June 2001 when he visited Australia.
At meeting with university rectors on 27 January 2001, Wahid commented on the possibility of Indonesia descending into anarchy. Wahid then made the suggestion that he may be forced to dissolve the DPR if that happened. Although the meeting was off-the-record, it caused quite a stir and added to the fuel of the movement against him. On 1 February, the DPR met to issue a memorandum against Wahid. Two memorandums constitutes an MPR Special Session where the impeachment and removal of a President would be legal. The vote was overwhelmingly for the memorandum and PKB members could only walk out in protest. The memorandum caused widespread protests by NU members. In East Java, NU members went attacked Golkar's regional offices. In Jakarta, Wahid's opposition began accusing him of encouraging the protests. Wahid denied it and went to talk to the protesters at the town of Pasuruan, encouraging them to get off the streets. Nevertheless, NU protesters continued to show their support for Wahid and in April, made the announcement that they were ready to defend and die for the president.
In March, Wahid tried to counter the opposition by moving against dissidents within his own cabinet. Minister of Justice Yusril Ihza Mahendra was removed for making public his demands for the President's resignation while Minister of Forestry Nurmahmudi Ismail was also removed under the suspicion of chanelling his department's funds to Wahid's opposition. In response to this, Megawati began to distance herself and did not show up for the inauguration of the Ministers' replacement. On 30 April, the DPR issued a second memorandum and on the next day called for an MPR Special Session to be held on 1 August.
By July, Wahid grew desperate and ordered Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the Coordinating Minister for Politics and Security to declare a State of Emergency. Yudhoyono refused and Wahid removed him from his position. Finally on 20 July, Amien declared that the MPR Special Session will be brought forward to 23 July. TNI, having had a bad relationship with Wahid through his tenure as President, stationed 40,000 troops in Jakarta and placed tanks with their turrets pointing at the Presidential Palace in a show of force. On 23 July, the MPR unanimously voted to impeach Wahid and to replace him with Megawati as President. Wahid continued to insist that he was the President and stayed for some days in the Presidential Palace but bowed down to reality and left the residence on 25 July to immediately fly overseas to America for health treatment.
Megawati presidency (2001–2004)
Under Megawati Sukarnoputri, the process of democratic reform begun under Habibie and Wahid continued, albeit slowly and erratically. Megawati appeared to see her role mainly as a symbol of national unity, and she rarely actively intervened in government business. Under her tenure, the Kabinet Gotong Royong (Mutual Assistance Cabinet) helped govern the country. It included Megawati's successor, the retired General Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. The military, disgraced at the time of Suharto's fall, regained much of its influence. Corruption continued to be pervasive, though Megawati herself was seldom blamed for this.
Some Indonesian scholars explained Megawati's apparent passivity in office by reference to Javanese mythology. Megawati, they said, saw her father, Sukarno, as a "Good King" of Javanese legend. Suharto was the "Bad Prince" who had usurped the Good King's throne. Megawati was the Avenging Daughter who overthrew the Bad Prince and regained the Good King's throne. Once this had been achieved, they said, Megawati was content to reign as the Good Queen and leave the business of government to others[citation needed]. Some prominent critics such as Benedict Anderson jokingly referred to the president as "Miniwati."
Although by 2004 Indonesia's economy had stabilized and partly recovered from the 1997 crisis, unemployment and poverty remained high. The Indonesian Constitution was amended to provide for the direct election of the President, and Megawati stood for a second term. She consistently trailed in the opinion polls, due in part to the preference for male candidates among Muslim voters, and in part due to what was widely seen as a mediocre performance in office. Despite a somewhat better than expected performance in the first round of the elections, in the second round she was defeated by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
Yudhoyono presidency (2004–present)
Two months after Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono assumed office, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami struck in the province of Aceh and many other countries along the Indian Ocean coastline. Three months later, an aftershock of the earthquake which triggered the tsunami occurred in Nias Island. In 2006, Mount Merapi erupted and this was followed by an earthquake that struck Yogyakarta.
Indonesia also suffered a small outbreak of bird flu and endured the Sidoarjo mud flow. In 2007 severe floods struck Jakarta. Yudhoyono allowed Jakarta Governor Sutiyoso to open the Manggarai watergate with the risk of flooding the Presidential Palace.
On October 1, 2005, suicide bombings occurred on the island of Bali. The attacks bear the hallmarks of the militant Islamic group Jemaah Islamiah (JI) -- a group with links to Al-Qaeda -- though the police investigation is ongoing. This group was also responsible for the 2002 Bali bombing. Yudhoyono condemned the attack, promising to "hunt down the perpetrators and bring them to justice.".
In 2005, the economic growth was 5.6% which decreased to 5.4% in 2006 Inflation reached 17.11% in 2005 but decreased to 6.6% in 2006.[citation needed] Yudhoyono also allocated more funds in an effort to further decrease poverty. In 2004, 11 trillion rupiah was set aside, increasing to 23 trillion in 2005 and 42 trillion in 2006. For 2007, 51 trillion was allocated. In March 2005 and again in October 2005, Yudhoyono made the unpopular decision to cut fuel subsidies, leading to increases in fuel prices of 29% and 125% respectively. The poor were somewhat compensated by the Direct Cash Assistance (BLT), but the subsidy cutting damaged Yudhoyono's popularity. In May 2008, rising oil prices contributed to Yudhoyono's decision to again cut fuel subsidies, which were the subject of protests in May and June 2008.
In 2009, Yudhoyono was elected again in 2009 Presidential Election along with Boediono, former Governor of Bank Indonesia. They defeated 2 candidates: Megawati Soekarnoputri - Prabowo Subianto and incumbent vice president, Jusuf Kalla - Wiranto. Yudhoyono - Boediono win the election with more than 60% votes of nationwide in the first round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Suharto_Era
Tercapainya pengakuan kedaulatan pada 27 Desember 1949 dalam Konferensi meja KMB yang selanjutnya dikuti dengan perubahan konstitusi Indonesia dari konstitusi RIS menuju UUDS 1950 adalah tonggak diterapkannya demokrasi Liberal di Indonesia. Begitupun dengan bentuk Negara yang awalnya federal menurut Konstitusi RIS berubah menjadi Republik Kesatuan melalui sebuah mosi integral M. Natsir.
catatan: ketua delegasi belanda di konferensi KMB saat itu mendapat kecaman keras dari kerjaan belanda karena gagal mempertahankan kolonial mereka yg sangat mereka banggakan lebih dari 300 tahun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_National_Revolution
Liberal democracy period in Indonesia
An era of Liberal Democracy (Indonesian: Demokrasi Liberal) in Indonesia began in 1950 following the securing of Indonesian independence in the Indonesian National Revolution, and ended with the imposition of martial law and President Sukarno's introduction of Guided Democracy in 1957. It saw a number of important events, including the 1955 Asia-Africa Conference, Indonesia's first general and Constitutional Assembly elections, and was an extended period of political instability, with no cabinet lasting as long as two years.
Timeline
A dead militant following a 1956 attack against a rubber plantation.
1948 - 1962: Darul Islam rebellions begin in West Java, spread to other provinces but conclude with the execution of its leader Kartosoewiryo.
1952, 17 October: General Nasution is suspended as army chief of staff following army indiscipline over command and support that threatens the government.
1955, April: The city of Bandung hosts the Asia-Africa Conference. It is the first meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement and is attended by world leaders including China's Zhou Enlai, India's Nehru, Egypt's Nasser and Yugoslavia's Tito.
1955, September: Indonesia holds general parliamentary elections; the last free national elections until 1999; support for the parties is widely distributed with four parties each gaining 16-22 per cent and the remaining votes split between 24 parties.
1958, May 18: US Air Force pilot Allen Pope is shot down over Ambon, revealing covert American support of regional rebellions, and ends the Dulles brothers' failure to subvert the Sukarno government.
1950s/60s: The military articulate the doctrines of dwifungsi and hankamrata: i.e. a military roles in the country's socio-political development as well as security; and a requirement that the resources of the people be at the call of the armed forces.
1959, 5 July: With armed forces support, Sukarno issues a decree dissolving the Constituent Assembly and reintroducing the Constitution of 1945 with strong presidential powers, and assumes the additional role of Prime Minister, which completes the structure of 'Guided Democracy'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy_period_in_Indonesia
Guided Democracy in Indonesia
Guided Democracy (Indonesian: Demokrasi Terpimpin) was the political system in place in Indonesia from 1957 until the New Order began in 1966. It was the brainchild of President Sukarno, and was an attempt to bring about political stability. Instead, he sought a system based on the traditional village system of discussion and consensus, which occurred under the guidance of village elders.
Sukarno proposed a threefold blend of nasionalisme ('nationalism'), agama ('religion'), and komunisme ('communism') into a co-operative 'Nas-A-Kom' government. This was intended to appease the three main factions in Indonesian politics — the army, Islamic groups, and the communists. With the support of the military, he proclaimed in February 1957, 'Guided Democracy', and proposed a cabinet representing all political parties of importance (including the PKI). Western-style parliamentary democracy was thus finished in Indonesia until the 1999 elections of the Reformasi era.
Background
The Liberal Democracy period from the reestablishment of the unitary Republic of Indonesia in 1950 until the declaration of martial law in 1957 saw the rise and fall of six cabinets, the longest-lasting surviving for just under two years. Even Indonesia's first national elections in 1955 failed to bring about political stability.
In 1957, Indonesia faced a series of crises, including the beginning of the Permesta rebellion in Makassar and the army takeover of authority in South Sumatra. One of the demands of the Permesta rebels was that 70 percent of the members of Sukarno's proposed National Council should be members from the regions (i.e. non-Javanese). Another demand was that the cabinet and National Council be led by the dual-leadership (Indonesian: dwitunggal) of Sukarno and former Vice-President Hatta (Simanjuntak, 2003).
In March 1957, Sukarno accepted Army chief of staff Nasution's proposal for a declaration of martial law across the whole nation. This would put the military in charge, and would be a way to deal with the rebellious army commanders, as it would effectively legitimize them.
In the face of a growing political crisis amid splits in the cabinet, Prime Minister Ali Sastroadmidjojo returned his mandate to the president on 14 March.
The establishment of Guided Democracy
President Sukarno made an official visit to the People's Republic of China in October 1956. He was impressed with the progress made there since the Civil War, and concluded that this was due to the strong leadership of Mao Zedong, whose centralization of power was in sharp contrast to the political disorder in Indonesia. According to former foreign minister Ide Anak Agung Gde Agung, Sukarno began to believe he had been "chosen by providence" to lead the people and "build a new society".
Shortly after his return from China, on 30 October 1956, Sukarno spoke of his konsepsi (concept) of a new system of government. Two days earlier he had called for the political parties to be buried. Initially the parties were opposed to the idea, but once it became clear that they would not need to be abolished, the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) threw its support behind Sukarno.
On 21 February 1957, Sukarno detailed his plan. It would be a form of government more suited to the nature of Indonesia, as opposed to the western system. The centerpiece would be a 'mutual cooperation' cabinet of the major parties advised by a National Council (Indonesian: Dewan Nasional) of functional groups. The legislature would not be abolished. As well as the PKI, the Indonesian National Party (PNI) supported Sukarno, while the Islamist Masyumi Party and the Socialist Party of Indonesia opposed the plan. There were demonstrations in support of it.
On 15 March 1957 President Sukarno appointed PNI chairman Soewirjo to form a "working cabinet", which would be tasked with establishing the National Council in accordance with the president's concept. However, that fact that Masyumi were not asked to participate in the formation of the cabinet led to Soewirjo's efforts coming to nothing. However, on 25 March, Sukarno asked Soewirjo to try again, and gave him one week to for a cabinet, but once again, Soewirjo failed. Finally, Sukarno held a meeting with 69 party figures at the state Palace on 4 April, at which he announced his intention to form an emergency extra-parliamentary working cabinet, and that "citizen" Sukarno would set it up. The new "Working Cabinet", headed by non-party prime Minister Djuanda Kartawidjaja was announced on 8 April 1957 at the Bogor Palace. Although the PKI was not included, several members were sympathetic to the party. In fact, in theory, it was a non-party cabinet.
The National Council was established by emergemcy law in May 1957. It was chaired by Sukarno, with Ruslan Abdulgani as vice-chairman. At its inaugaration on 12 July, it comprised 42 members representing groups such as peasants, workers and women, as well as the various religions. Decisions were reached by consensus rather than through voting. As a non-political body based on fujnctional groups, it was intended as a counterbalance to the political system. The cabinet was not obliged to heed the advice given by the National Council, but in practice rarely ignored it.
Meanwhile, the army was trying to enhance its role by establishing functional groups of its own. In June 1957 Nasution began trying to woo the parties' functional groups and managed to unite the veterans groups under army control. He also used martial law to arrest several politicians for alleged corruption, while regional army commanders restricted party activities, particularly those of the PKI, whose headquarters in Jakarta was attacked in July.
Following the failure of a United Nations resolution calling on the Netherlands to negotiate with Indonesia over the West Irian issue, n 3 December, PKI and PNI unions began taking over Dutch companies, but 11 days later, Nasution stated that the army would run these companies. This gave the army a major economic role.
The end of Guided Democracy
During his 1964 Independence Day speech, Sukarno publicly denounced the United States. An anti-American campaign ensued in which American companies were threatened, American movies were banned, American libraries and other buildings were attacked, American journalists banned, and the American flag was often torn apart. Large anti-American propaganda posters were set up around Jakarta's streets. American aid was stopped. In August 1965, Sukarno announced that Indonesia was withdrawing from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and in his Independence Day speech on 17 August, announced the Jakarta-Phnom Penh-Hanoi-Peking-Pyongyang Axis, and said that the people would be armed. On 27 September, Nasution announced that he opposed the "fifth force" and the "Nasakomization" of the army.
On the night of 30 September 1965, six generals were kidnapped and murdered and a group calling itself the 30 September Movement seized control of the national radio station and the center of Jakarta. Although the movement was quickly crushed by Suharto it marked the end of guided democracy and of Sukarno as an effective president. The New Order regime established by Suharto had its own ideology — Pancasila Democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_Democracy_in_Indonesia
New Order (Indonesia)
The New Order (Indonesian: Orde Baru) is the term coined by former Indonesian President Suharto to characterize his regime as he came to power in 1966 (see Transition to the New Order). Suharto used this term to contrast his rule with that of his predecessor, Sukarno (dubbed the "Old Order," or Orde Lama). The term "New Order" in more recent times has become synonymous with the Suharto years (1965–1998).
Immediately following the attempted coup in 1965, the political situation was uncertain, but the Suharto's New Order found much popular support from groups wanting a separation from Indonesia's problems since its independence. The 'generation of 66' (angkatan 66) epitomised talk of a new group of young leaders and new intellectual thought. Following Indonesia's communal and political conflicts, and its economic collapse and social breakdown of the late 1950s through to the mid-1960s, the "New Order" was committed to achieving and maintaining political order, economic development, and the removal of mass participation in the political process. The features of the "New Order" established from the late 1960s were thus a strong political role for the military, the bureaucratization and corporatization of political and societal organizations, and selective but effective repression of opponents.
Within a few years, however, many of its original allies had become indifferent or averse to the New Order, which comprised a military faction supported by a narrow civilian group. Among much of the pro-democracy movement which forced Suharto to resign in the Indonesian 1998 Revolution and then gained power, the term "New Order" has come to be used pejoratively. It is frequently employed by them to describe figures who were either tied to the Suharto period, or who upheld practices of his authoritarian regime, such as corruption, collusion and nepotism (widely known by the acronym KKN: korupsi, kolusi, nepotisme).
Downfall of Suharto
Support for Suharto and his New Order government began to increasingly wane in the 1990s with more strident demands for democracy from within Indonesia's legal political parties. Criticism of the New Order's authoritarianism, human rights abuses, and situation of East Timor from Western NGOs and politicians began to isolate the regime diplomatically. The onset of the 1997 Asian financial crisis in Indonesia, and the stubbornness of Suharto in adopting reforms to address the crisis drew greater scrutiny from international lenders to the New Order corruption and lack of transparency. These factors culminated in the Indonesian Revolution of 1998 and the resignation of Suharto as president.
The Reformasi (Reform) of 1998 led to changes in Indonesia's various governmental institutions, reforms upon the structures of the judiciary, legislature, and executive office. Generally the fall of Suharto in 1998 is traced from events starting in 1996, when forces opposed to the New Order regime began to rally around Megawati Sukarnoputri, head of the PDI and daughter of the founding president Sukarno. When Suharto attempted to have Megawati removed as head of this party in a back-room deal, student activists loyal to Megawati occupied the headquarters of PDI in Jakarta. This culminated in Black Saturday on July 27, when the Indonesian military broke up the demonstrations.
These actions, along with increasing concerns over human rights violations in Indonesian-occupied East Timor, began to unsettle Suharto's normally friendly relations with Western nations Australia, Great Britain, and the United States. These further worsened when the Asian financial crisis of 1997 reached Indonesia, highlighting the rampant corruption of the Suharto regime as well.
Economic instability from the crisis affected much of the country, in the form of increased prices for staple foods and goods, and lowered standards of living and quality of life. These touched off riots, many targeting ethnic Chinese-Indonesians; bolstered by the findings of Parliamentary and independent investigations, it is often theorized that these anti-Chinese riots were instigated or aided by the military to divert anger away from Suharto himself.[citation needed]
Growing dissatisfaction with Suharto's authoritarian rule and the rapid erosion of the economy led many, chiefly the younger generation, to renew their protests directly against the regime. In 1998, Suharto made the decision to stand before the parliament for a re-election and won. The result was considered so outrageous that students occupied the Parliament. Suharto soon stood down from the presidency, and named Jusuf Habibie (of Suharto's own Golkar party) his successor. Considered the unseen power behind the throne, General Wiranto of the Chief of Staff over the military that was central to the New Order, is believed to have been behind the decision of Suharto to step down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Order_(Indonesia)
Reformasi Era
Habibie presidency (1998–1999)
On Suharto's resignation, Vice President Jusuf Habibie was sworn in as President of Indonesia. As President, Habibie undertook numerous political reforms.
In February 1999, Habibie's Government passed the Political Parties Law.Under this law, political parties were not limited to just three as had been the case under the Suharto regime. Political parties were also not required to have Pancasila as their ideology. This resulted in the emergence of many political parties and 48 would go on to compete in the 1999 Legislative Election.
In May 1999, Habibie's Government passed the Regional Autonomy Law.This law was the first step in decentralizing Indonesia's Government and in allowing Provinces to have more part in Governing their Province.
The Press became liberated under Habibie's Government although the Ministry of Information continued to exist.
Habibie also released political prisoners such as Sri Bintang Pamungkas, Muchtar Pakpahan, and Xanana Gusmao.
Habibie also presided over the 1999 legislative elections, the first free election since the 1955 Legislative Election. This election was supervised by the independent General Elections Commission (KPU) instead of an elections commission filled with government ministers as had been the case during Suharto's regime.
In a move that surprised many, and angered some, Habibie called for a referendum on the future of East Timor. Subsequently, on August 30, the inhabitants of East Timor voted to break away from Indonesian rule and become an independent nation. The territorial loss to Indonesia harmed Habibie's popularity and political alliances.
Following Habibie's presidency, Abdurrahman Wahid and Megawati Sukarnoputri served as president. In 2004 Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was elected President--a position he has held since. Yudhoyono's coalition, which brings together figures from the military, business community, and conservative Islam, has restabilized the office of the Presidency.
Wahid presidency (1999–2001)
In 1999, Abdurrahman Wahid became President of Indonesia. His first Cabinet, dubbed the National Unity Cabinet, was a Coalition Cabinet which consisted of members of various political parties. PDI-P, PKB, Golkar, PPP, PAN, and Justice Party (PK). Non-partisans and the military were also represented in the Cabinet. Wahid then went on to make two administrative reforms. The first administrative reform was to abolish the Ministry of Information, the Suharto's regime main weapon in controlling the media while the second administrative reform was to disband the Ministry of Welfare which had become corrupt and extortionist under the Suharto regime.
Autonomy and tolerance toward dissent
Wahid's plan in Aceh was to give it a referendum. However, this referendum would be to decide on various modes of autonomy rather than to decide on independence like in East Timor. Wahid also wanted to adopt a softer stance towards Aceh by having less military personnel on the ground. In March, Wahid's Government began to open negotiations with the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). Two months later, in May, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding with GAM to last until the beginning of 2001, by which time both signatories would have breached the agreement .
On 30 December, Wahid visited Jayapura the capital of Papua province (then known as "Irian Jaya"). During his visit, Wahid was successful in convincing West Papuan leaders that he was a force for change and even encouraged the use of the name Papua.
In September 2000, Wahid declared martial law in Maluku. By now, it was evident that Laskar Jihad were being assisted by members of the military and it was also apparent that they were financed by Fuad Bawazier, the last Minister of Finance to have served under Suharto.[citation needed] During the same month, the West Papuans raised their Morning Star flag. Wahid's response was to allow the West Papuans to do this provided that the Morning Star flag was placed lower than the Indonesian flag For this, he was severely criticized by Megawati and Akbar. On 24 December 2000, a series of bombings were directed against churches in Jakarta and in eight cities across Indonesia.
In March of that year, Wahid suggested that the 1966 Provisional People's Consultative Assembly (MPRS) resolution on the banning of Marxism-Leninism be lifted.
Relationship with the military
When he ascended to the Presidency, one of Wahid's goals was to reform the military and to take it out of its dominant socio-political role. In this venture, Wahid found an ally in Agus Wirahadikusumah who he made Commander of Kostrad in March. In July, Agus began uncovering a scandal involving Dharma Putra, a foundation with affiliations to Kostrad. Through Megawati, military members began pressuring Wahid to remove Agus. Wahid gave in to the pressure but then planned to have Agus appointed as the Army Chief of Staff to which top military leaders responded by threatening to retire and Wahid once again bowed down to pressure.
Wahid's relationship with the military deteriorated even further when in July it was revealed that Laskar Jihad had arrived in Maluku and was being armed by the military. Laskar Jihad, a radical Islamic militia had earlier in the year planned to go to Maluku and assist Muslims there in their communal conflict with the Christians. Wahid had ordered military to block Laskar Jihad from going to Maluku, but nevertheless they still made it to Maluku and they were then being armed with what turned out to be military weapons.
Buloggate and Bruneigate
2000 saw Wahid embroiled in two scandals which would damage his Presidency. In May, the State Logistics Agency (BULOG) reported that US$4 million was missing from its cash reserve. The missing cash was then attributed to Wahid's own masseur who had claimed that Wahid sent him to Bulog to collect the cash. Although the money was returned, Wahid's opponents took the chance of accusing him of being involved in the scandal and of being aware of what his masseur was up to. At the same time, Wahid was also accused of keeping US$2 million for himself. The money was a donation by the Sultan of Brunei to provide assistance in Aceh. However, Wahid failed to account for the money.
Impeachment
By the end of 2000, there were many within the political elite who were disillusioned with Wahid. The most obvious person who showed this disillusion was Amien Rais who showed regret at supporting Wahid to the Presidency the previous year. Amien also attempted to rally opposition by encouraging Megawati and Akbar to flex their political muscles. Megawati surprisingly defended Wahid whilst Akbar preferred to wait for the 2004 Legislative Elections. At the end of November, 151 DPR members signed a petition calling for the impeachment of Wahid.
In January 2001, Wahid made the announcement that Chinese New Year was to become an optional holiday. Wahid followed this up in February by lifting the ban on the display of Chinese characters and the importing of Chinese publications. In February, Wahid visited Northern Africa as well as Saudi Arabia to undertake the hajj pilgrimage. Wahid made his last overseas visit in June 2001 when he visited Australia.
At meeting with university rectors on 27 January 2001, Wahid commented on the possibility of Indonesia descending into anarchy. Wahid then made the suggestion that he may be forced to dissolve the DPR if that happened. Although the meeting was off-the-record, it caused quite a stir and added to the fuel of the movement against him. On 1 February, the DPR met to issue a memorandum against Wahid. Two memorandums constitutes an MPR Special Session where the impeachment and removal of a President would be legal. The vote was overwhelmingly for the memorandum and PKB members could only walk out in protest. The memorandum caused widespread protests by NU members. In East Java, NU members went attacked Golkar's regional offices. In Jakarta, Wahid's opposition began accusing him of encouraging the protests. Wahid denied it and went to talk to the protesters at the town of Pasuruan, encouraging them to get off the streets. Nevertheless, NU protesters continued to show their support for Wahid and in April, made the announcement that they were ready to defend and die for the president.
In March, Wahid tried to counter the opposition by moving against dissidents within his own cabinet. Minister of Justice Yusril Ihza Mahendra was removed for making public his demands for the President's resignation while Minister of Forestry Nurmahmudi Ismail was also removed under the suspicion of chanelling his department's funds to Wahid's opposition. In response to this, Megawati began to distance herself and did not show up for the inauguration of the Ministers' replacement. On 30 April, the DPR issued a second memorandum and on the next day called for an MPR Special Session to be held on 1 August.
By July, Wahid grew desperate and ordered Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the Coordinating Minister for Politics and Security to declare a State of Emergency. Yudhoyono refused and Wahid removed him from his position. Finally on 20 July, Amien declared that the MPR Special Session will be brought forward to 23 July. TNI, having had a bad relationship with Wahid through his tenure as President, stationed 40,000 troops in Jakarta and placed tanks with their turrets pointing at the Presidential Palace in a show of force. On 23 July, the MPR unanimously voted to impeach Wahid and to replace him with Megawati as President. Wahid continued to insist that he was the President and stayed for some days in the Presidential Palace but bowed down to reality and left the residence on 25 July to immediately fly overseas to America for health treatment.
Megawati presidency (2001–2004)
Under Megawati Sukarnoputri, the process of democratic reform begun under Habibie and Wahid continued, albeit slowly and erratically. Megawati appeared to see her role mainly as a symbol of national unity, and she rarely actively intervened in government business. Under her tenure, the Kabinet Gotong Royong (Mutual Assistance Cabinet) helped govern the country. It included Megawati's successor, the retired General Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. The military, disgraced at the time of Suharto's fall, regained much of its influence. Corruption continued to be pervasive, though Megawati herself was seldom blamed for this.
Some Indonesian scholars explained Megawati's apparent passivity in office by reference to Javanese mythology. Megawati, they said, saw her father, Sukarno, as a "Good King" of Javanese legend. Suharto was the "Bad Prince" who had usurped the Good King's throne. Megawati was the Avenging Daughter who overthrew the Bad Prince and regained the Good King's throne. Once this had been achieved, they said, Megawati was content to reign as the Good Queen and leave the business of government to others[citation needed]. Some prominent critics such as Benedict Anderson jokingly referred to the president as "Miniwati."
Although by 2004 Indonesia's economy had stabilized and partly recovered from the 1997 crisis, unemployment and poverty remained high. The Indonesian Constitution was amended to provide for the direct election of the President, and Megawati stood for a second term. She consistently trailed in the opinion polls, due in part to the preference for male candidates among Muslim voters, and in part due to what was widely seen as a mediocre performance in office. Despite a somewhat better than expected performance in the first round of the elections, in the second round she was defeated by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
Yudhoyono presidency (2004–present)
Two months after Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono assumed office, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami struck in the province of Aceh and many other countries along the Indian Ocean coastline. Three months later, an aftershock of the earthquake which triggered the tsunami occurred in Nias Island. In 2006, Mount Merapi erupted and this was followed by an earthquake that struck Yogyakarta.
Indonesia also suffered a small outbreak of bird flu and endured the Sidoarjo mud flow. In 2007 severe floods struck Jakarta. Yudhoyono allowed Jakarta Governor Sutiyoso to open the Manggarai watergate with the risk of flooding the Presidential Palace.
On October 1, 2005, suicide bombings occurred on the island of Bali. The attacks bear the hallmarks of the militant Islamic group Jemaah Islamiah (JI) -- a group with links to Al-Qaeda -- though the police investigation is ongoing. This group was also responsible for the 2002 Bali bombing. Yudhoyono condemned the attack, promising to "hunt down the perpetrators and bring them to justice.".
In 2005, the economic growth was 5.6% which decreased to 5.4% in 2006 Inflation reached 17.11% in 2005 but decreased to 6.6% in 2006.[citation needed] Yudhoyono also allocated more funds in an effort to further decrease poverty. In 2004, 11 trillion rupiah was set aside, increasing to 23 trillion in 2005 and 42 trillion in 2006. For 2007, 51 trillion was allocated. In March 2005 and again in October 2005, Yudhoyono made the unpopular decision to cut fuel subsidies, leading to increases in fuel prices of 29% and 125% respectively. The poor were somewhat compensated by the Direct Cash Assistance (BLT), but the subsidy cutting damaged Yudhoyono's popularity. In May 2008, rising oil prices contributed to Yudhoyono's decision to again cut fuel subsidies, which were the subject of protests in May and June 2008.
In 2009, Yudhoyono was elected again in 2009 Presidential Election along with Boediono, former Governor of Bank Indonesia. They defeated 2 candidates: Megawati Soekarnoputri - Prabowo Subianto and incumbent vice president, Jusuf Kalla - Wiranto. Yudhoyono - Boediono win the election with more than 60% votes of nationwide in the first round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Suharto_Era
Perbedaan sistem politik di berbagai Negara
• Sistem Politik Di Negara Komunis
Bercirikan pemerintahan yang sentralistik, peniadaan hak milk pribadi,peniadaan hak-haak sipil dan politik, tidak adanya mekanisme pemilu yang terbuka,tidak adanya oposisi, serta terdapat pembatasan terhadap arus informasi dankebebasan berpendapat
• Sistem Politik Di Negara Liberal
Bercirikan adanya kebebasan berpikir bagi tiap individu atau kelompok;pembatasan kekuasaan; khususnya dari pemerintah dan agama; penegakan hukum;pertukaran gagasan yang bebas; sistem pemerintahan yang transparan yangdidalamnya terdapat jaminan hak-hak kaum minoritas
• Sistem Politik Demokrasi Di Indonesia
Sistem politik yang didasarkan pada nilai, prinsip, prosedur, dan kelembagaan yang demokratis. Adapun sendi-sendi pokok dari sistem politik demokrasi di Indonesia adalah :
1. Ide kedaulatan rakyat
2. Negara berdasarkan atas hukum
3. Bentuk Republik
4. Pemerintahan berdasarkan konstitusi
5. Pemerintahan yang bertanggung jawab
6. Sistem Pemilihan langsung
7. Sistem pemerintahan presidensiil
Bercirikan pemerintahan yang sentralistik, peniadaan hak milk pribadi,peniadaan hak-haak sipil dan politik, tidak adanya mekanisme pemilu yang terbuka,tidak adanya oposisi, serta terdapat pembatasan terhadap arus informasi dankebebasan berpendapat
• Sistem Politik Di Negara Liberal
Bercirikan adanya kebebasan berpikir bagi tiap individu atau kelompok;pembatasan kekuasaan; khususnya dari pemerintah dan agama; penegakan hukum;pertukaran gagasan yang bebas; sistem pemerintahan yang transparan yangdidalamnya terdapat jaminan hak-hak kaum minoritas
• Sistem Politik Demokrasi Di Indonesia
Sistem politik yang didasarkan pada nilai, prinsip, prosedur, dan kelembagaan yang demokratis. Adapun sendi-sendi pokok dari sistem politik demokrasi di Indonesia adalah :
1. Ide kedaulatan rakyat
2. Negara berdasarkan atas hukum
3. Bentuk Republik
4. Pemerintahan berdasarkan konstitusi
5. Pemerintahan yang bertanggung jawab
6. Sistem Pemilihan langsung
7. Sistem pemerintahan presidensiil
5 Kapabilitas Penilaian Prestasi Sistem Politik
Terdapat 5 kapabilitas yang menjadi penilaian prestasi sebuah sistem politik :
1.Kapabilitas Ekstraktif, yaitu kemampuan Sumber daya alam dan sumber dayamanusia. Kemampuan SDA biasanya masih bersifat potensial sampai kemudiandigunakan secara maksimal oleh pemerintah. Seperti pengelolaan minyak tanah,pertambangan yang ketika datang para penanam modal domestik itu akanmemberikan pemasukan bagi pemerintah berupa pajak. Pajak inilah yangkemudian menghidupkan negara.
2.Kapabilitas Distributif. SDA yang dimiliki oleh masyarakat dan negara diolahsedemikian rupa untuk dapat didistribusikan secara merata, misalkan sepertisembako yang diharuskan dapat merata distribusinya keseluruh masyarakat.Demikian pula dengan pajak sebagai pemasukan negara itu harus kembalididistribusikan dari pemerintah pusat ke pemerintah daerah.
3.Kapabilitas Regulatif (pengaturan). Dalam menyelenggaran pengawasan tingkahlaku individu dan kelompok maka dibutuhkan adanya pengaturan. Regulasiindividu sering memunculkan benturan pendapat. Seperti ketika pemerintahmembutuhkan maka kemudian regulasi diperketat, hal ini mengakibatkanketerlibatan masyarakat terkekang.
4.Kapabilitas simbolik, artinya kemampuan pemerintah dalam berkreasi dan secaraselektif membuat kebijakan yang akan diterima oleh rakyat. Semakin diterimakebijakan yang dibuat pemerintah maka semakin baik kapabilitas simbolik sistem.
5.Kapabilitas responsif, dalam proses politik terdapat hubungan antara input danoutput, output berupa kebijakan pemerintah sejauh mana dipengaruhi olehmasukan atau adanya partisipasi masyarakat sebagai inputnya akan menjadiukuran kapabilitas responsif. kapabilitas dalam negeri dan internasional. Sebuahnegara tidak bisa sendirian hidup dalam dunia yang mengglobal saat ini, bahkansekarang banyak negara yang memiliki kapabilitas ekstraktif berupa perdaganganinternasional. Minimal dalam kapabilitas internasional ini negara kaya atau berkuasa (superpower) memberikan hibah (grants) dan pinjaman (loan) kepada negara-negara berkembang.
1.Kapabilitas Ekstraktif, yaitu kemampuan Sumber daya alam dan sumber dayamanusia. Kemampuan SDA biasanya masih bersifat potensial sampai kemudiandigunakan secara maksimal oleh pemerintah. Seperti pengelolaan minyak tanah,pertambangan yang ketika datang para penanam modal domestik itu akanmemberikan pemasukan bagi pemerintah berupa pajak. Pajak inilah yangkemudian menghidupkan negara.
2.Kapabilitas Distributif. SDA yang dimiliki oleh masyarakat dan negara diolahsedemikian rupa untuk dapat didistribusikan secara merata, misalkan sepertisembako yang diharuskan dapat merata distribusinya keseluruh masyarakat.Demikian pula dengan pajak sebagai pemasukan negara itu harus kembalididistribusikan dari pemerintah pusat ke pemerintah daerah.
3.Kapabilitas Regulatif (pengaturan). Dalam menyelenggaran pengawasan tingkahlaku individu dan kelompok maka dibutuhkan adanya pengaturan. Regulasiindividu sering memunculkan benturan pendapat. Seperti ketika pemerintahmembutuhkan maka kemudian regulasi diperketat, hal ini mengakibatkanketerlibatan masyarakat terkekang.
4.Kapabilitas simbolik, artinya kemampuan pemerintah dalam berkreasi dan secaraselektif membuat kebijakan yang akan diterima oleh rakyat. Semakin diterimakebijakan yang dibuat pemerintah maka semakin baik kapabilitas simbolik sistem.
5.Kapabilitas responsif, dalam proses politik terdapat hubungan antara input danoutput, output berupa kebijakan pemerintah sejauh mana dipengaruhi olehmasukan atau adanya partisipasi masyarakat sebagai inputnya akan menjadiukuran kapabilitas responsif. kapabilitas dalam negeri dan internasional. Sebuahnegara tidak bisa sendirian hidup dalam dunia yang mengglobal saat ini, bahkansekarang banyak negara yang memiliki kapabilitas ekstraktif berupa perdaganganinternasional. Minimal dalam kapabilitas internasional ini negara kaya atau berkuasa (superpower) memberikan hibah (grants) dan pinjaman (loan) kepada negara-negara berkembang.
Directorial system
A Directorial Republic is a country ruled by a College of several people which jointly exercise the powers of Head of State. This system of government is in contrast both with presidential republics and parliamentary republics. In political history, the term Directory, in French Directoire, applies to high collegial institutions of state composed of members styled director. The most important of these by far was the French Directory. However, France also imposed this form of government on conquered regions of Europe
Nowadays, the sole country using this form of government is Switzerland, where directories rule all levels of administration, federal, cantonal and municipal. If the Swiss Federal Council is appointed by the Parliament for 4 years (but it can't be dismissed), direct popular elections are used at local level. In past, Uruguay and Yugoslavia (after Tito's death) were ruled by directories. The government of the Soviet Union could in some ways be characterized as a directory, but developed in a much different pattern discussed in the article on Communist states.
Nowadays, the sole country using this form of government is Switzerland, where directories rule all levels of administration, federal, cantonal and municipal. If the Swiss Federal Council is appointed by the Parliament for 4 years (but it can't be dismissed), direct popular elections are used at local level. In past, Uruguay and Yugoslavia (after Tito's death) were ruled by directories. The government of the Soviet Union could in some ways be characterized as a directory, but developed in a much different pattern discussed in the article on Communist states.
Dictatorship
A government controlled by one person, or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests entirely on the person or group of people, and can be obtained by force or by inheritance. The dictator(s) may also take away much of its peoples' freedom.
In the twentieth century and early twenty-first century, hereditary dictatorship remained a relatively common phenomenon.
For some scholars, dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed (similar to authoritarianism), while totalitarianism describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what is the government). In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) opposes pluralism (government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When governments' power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life.
In the twentieth century and early twenty-first century, hereditary dictatorship remained a relatively common phenomenon.
For some scholars, dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed (similar to authoritarianism), while totalitarianism describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what is the government). In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) opposes pluralism (government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When governments' power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life.
City-state
A city-state is an independent entity whose territory consists of a city which is not administered as part of another local government.
Whereas nation-states rely on a common heritage, be it linguistic, historical, economic, etc., the city-state relies on the common interest in the function of the urban center. The urban center and its activity supplies the livelihoods of all urbanites inhabiting the city-state.
Historical city-states
Examples include the city-states of ancient Greece (the poleis such as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth), the Phoenician cities of Canaan (such as Tyre and Sidon), the Sumerian cities of Mesopotamia (such as Babylon and Ur), the Maya of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including sites such as Chichen Itza and El Mirador), the central Asian cities along the Silk Road (which includes Samarkand and Bukhara), and the city-states of Italy (such as Florence, Genoa, Siena, Venice and many others) and Croatian city-state of Ragusa (Dubrovnik).
Within the transalpine part of the Holy Roman Empire the Free Imperial Cities enjoyed a considerable autonomy, buttressed legally by the Lübeck law which was emulated by many other cities. Some cities — though also members of different confederacies at that time — officially became sovereign city-states in the 19th century — such as the Canton of Basel City (1833–48), the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen (1806–11 and again 1813–71), the Free City of Frankfurt upon Main (1815–66), the Canton of Geneva (1813–48), the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg (1806–11 and again 1814–71) and the Free and Hanseatic City of Lübeck (1806–11 and again 1813–71). Another city-state, though lacking sovereignty, was West Berlin (1948–90), being a state legally not belonging to any other state, but ruled by the Western Allies. They allowed — not withstanding their overlordship as occupant powers — its internal organisation as one state simultaneously being a city, officially called Berlin (West). Though West Berlin held close ties to the West German Federal Republic of Germany, it was legally never part of it. A number of the aforementioned city-states — though partly with altered borders — continue to exist as city-states within today's Federal Republic of Germany and today's Swiss Confederation (see below: 'Cities that are component states of federations').
Among the most well-known periods of city-state culture in human history include ancient Greek city-states, and the merchant city-states of Renaissance Italy, who organised themselves in small independent centres. The success of small regional units coexisting as autonomous actors in loose geographical and cultural unity, as in Italy or Greece, often prevented their amalgamation into larger national units. However, such small political entities often survived only for short periods because they lacked the resources to defend themselves against incursions by larger states. Thus they inevitably gave way to larger organisations of society, including the empire and the nation state.
Whereas nation-states rely on a common heritage, be it linguistic, historical, economic, etc., the city-state relies on the common interest in the function of the urban center. The urban center and its activity supplies the livelihoods of all urbanites inhabiting the city-state.
Historical city-states
Examples include the city-states of ancient Greece (the poleis such as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth), the Phoenician cities of Canaan (such as Tyre and Sidon), the Sumerian cities of Mesopotamia (such as Babylon and Ur), the Maya of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including sites such as Chichen Itza and El Mirador), the central Asian cities along the Silk Road (which includes Samarkand and Bukhara), and the city-states of Italy (such as Florence, Genoa, Siena, Venice and many others) and Croatian city-state of Ragusa (Dubrovnik).
Within the transalpine part of the Holy Roman Empire the Free Imperial Cities enjoyed a considerable autonomy, buttressed legally by the Lübeck law which was emulated by many other cities. Some cities — though also members of different confederacies at that time — officially became sovereign city-states in the 19th century — such as the Canton of Basel City (1833–48), the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen (1806–11 and again 1813–71), the Free City of Frankfurt upon Main (1815–66), the Canton of Geneva (1813–48), the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg (1806–11 and again 1814–71) and the Free and Hanseatic City of Lübeck (1806–11 and again 1813–71). Another city-state, though lacking sovereignty, was West Berlin (1948–90), being a state legally not belonging to any other state, but ruled by the Western Allies. They allowed — not withstanding their overlordship as occupant powers — its internal organisation as one state simultaneously being a city, officially called Berlin (West). Though West Berlin held close ties to the West German Federal Republic of Germany, it was legally never part of it. A number of the aforementioned city-states — though partly with altered borders — continue to exist as city-states within today's Federal Republic of Germany and today's Swiss Confederation (see below: 'Cities that are component states of federations').
Among the most well-known periods of city-state culture in human history include ancient Greek city-states, and the merchant city-states of Renaissance Italy, who organised themselves in small independent centres. The success of small regional units coexisting as autonomous actors in loose geographical and cultural unity, as in Italy or Greece, often prevented their amalgamation into larger national units. However, such small political entities often survived only for short periods because they lacked the resources to defend themselves against incursions by larger states. Thus they inevitably gave way to larger organisations of society, including the empire and the nation state.
Mixed economy
A mixed economy is an economy that includes a variety of private and government control, or a mixture of capitalism and socialism.
There is not one single definition for a mixed economy, but relevant aspects include: a degree of private economic freedom (including privately owned industry) intermingled with centralized economic planning and government regulation (which may include regulation of the market for environmental concerns, social welfare or efficiency, or state ownership and management of some of the means of production for national or social objectives).
For some states, there is not a consensus on whether they are capitalist, socialist, or mixed economies. Economies ranging from the United States to Cuba have been termed mixed economies.
The mixed economy as an economic ideal is supported by social democrats as a compromise between classic socialism (government ownership of the means of production) and free-market capitalism, among others.
History
The term "mixed economy" arose in the context of political debate in the United Kingdom in the postwar period, although the set of policies later associated with the term had been advocated from at least the 1930s. Supporters of the mixed economy, including R. H. Tawney, Anthony Crosland and Andrew Shonfield were mostly associated with the British Labour Party, although similar views were expressed by Conservatives including Harold Macmillan.
Critics of the British mixed economy, including Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, argued that what is called a mixed economy is a move toward socialism and increasing the influence of the state.
There is not one single definition for a mixed economy, but relevant aspects include: a degree of private economic freedom (including privately owned industry) intermingled with centralized economic planning and government regulation (which may include regulation of the market for environmental concerns, social welfare or efficiency, or state ownership and management of some of the means of production for national or social objectives).
For some states, there is not a consensus on whether they are capitalist, socialist, or mixed economies. Economies ranging from the United States to Cuba have been termed mixed economies.
The mixed economy as an economic ideal is supported by social democrats as a compromise between classic socialism (government ownership of the means of production) and free-market capitalism, among others.
History
The term "mixed economy" arose in the context of political debate in the United Kingdom in the postwar period, although the set of policies later associated with the term had been advocated from at least the 1930s. Supporters of the mixed economy, including R. H. Tawney, Anthony Crosland and Andrew Shonfield were mostly associated with the British Labour Party, although similar views were expressed by Conservatives including Harold Macmillan.
Critics of the British mixed economy, including Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, argued that what is called a mixed economy is a move toward socialism and increasing the influence of the state.
Anarchism
Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations. Anarchists may widely disagree on what additional criteria are required in anarchism. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."
Etymology and terminology
For more information, see Anarchist terminology
The term anarchism derives from the Greek ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers", from the prefix ἀν- (an-, "without") + ἀρχή (archê, "sovereignty, realm, magistracy") + -ισμός (-ismos, from the suffix -ιζειν, -izein "-izing"). There is some ambiguity with the use of the terms "libertarianism" and "libertarian" in writings about anarchism. Since the 1890s from France, the term "libertarianism" has often been used as a synonym for anarchism and was used almost exclusively in this sense until the 1950s in the United States; its use as a synonym is still common outside the United States. Accordingly, "libertarian socialism" is sometimes used as a synonym for socialist anarchism, to distinguish it from "individualist libertarianism" (individualist anarchism). On the other hand, some use "libertarianism" to refer to individualistic free-market philosophy only, referring to free-market anarchism as "libertarian anarchism"
Etymology and terminology
For more information, see Anarchist terminology
The term anarchism derives from the Greek ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers", from the prefix ἀν- (an-, "without") + ἀρχή (archê, "sovereignty, realm, magistracy") + -ισμός (-ismos, from the suffix -ιζειν, -izein "-izing"). There is some ambiguity with the use of the terms "libertarianism" and "libertarian" in writings about anarchism. Since the 1890s from France, the term "libertarianism" has often been used as a synonym for anarchism and was used almost exclusively in this sense until the 1950s in the United States; its use as a synonym is still common outside the United States. Accordingly, "libertarian socialism" is sometimes used as a synonym for socialist anarchism, to distinguish it from "individualist libertarianism" (individualist anarchism). On the other hand, some use "libertarianism" to refer to individualistic free-market philosophy only, referring to free-market anarchism as "libertarian anarchism"
Communism
Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless society structured upon communal ownership of the means of production and the end of wage labour and private property. The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly used interchangeably with socialism; however, communist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the way to communism.
A variety of different forms of communism have developed, each based upon the ideas of different political theorists, usually as additions or interpretations of various forms of Marxism, the collective philosophies of Karl Marx. Marxism-Leninism is the synthesis of Vladimir Lenin's contributions to Marxism, such as how a revolutionary party should be organised; Trotskyism is Leon Trotsky's conception of Marxism and Maoism is Mao Tse Tung's interpretation of Marxism to suit the conditions of China at that time.
Communist theory generally states that the only way to solve the problems existing within capitalism is for the working class, referred to as the proletariat, who is the main producer of wealth in society and is exploited by the capitalist class, as explained in theories such as surplus value, to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class to establish a society without class divisions, called socialism, as a prelude to attempting to achieve the final stage of communism.
Pure communism, or the stage in history after socialism, refers to a classless, stateless society, one where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made in the best interests of the collective society with the interests of every member of society given equal weight in the practical decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.
Karl Marx, as well as some other communist philosophers, purposely never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as a social system. In the communist manifesto, Marx lays out a 10-point plan advising the redistribution of land and production to achieve his social ideals. However, Marx fervently denies that this plan is to be carried out by any specific group or "class". According to Marx, communal ownership of the means of production and the end of wage labour inevitably arises due to contradictions and class conflicts existing in capitalism, and the communists are merely professors who help frame struggles in terms of class struggle. In this way, communism avoids the contradiction of creating a new class to replace the old one.
The origins of communism are debatable, and there are various historical groups, as well as theorists, whose beliefs have been subsequently described as communist. Some theorists have considered hunter-gatherer societies to adhere to a form of primitive communism, whilst historical figures like Plato and Thomas More have been described as espousing early forms of the ideology. The communist movement as it is known today largely took shape in the nineteenth century, when it was developed.In the twentieth century, revolutions led to openly communist governments taking power in many countries, leading to the creation of states like the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Cuba.
In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of these governments, which were one party systems operating under centrally planned economies and a state ownership of the means of production. Most of these governments based their ideology on Marxism-Leninism. These systems, sometimes referred to as state socialism are argued by many, including those on the left, that states never made an attempt to transition to a communist society, while others even argue that they never achieved socialism.
In the 20th and 21st centuries democratic elections led to communist, and communist inspired, governments being elected in other parts of the world such as in Bolivia and Venezuela. Today, although communism is a less influential political force compared to what it was in much of the twentieth century, there are still powerful communist and aligned socialist movements in many parts of the world, especially southern Asia and South America, and since the economic crisis of 2008 there has been a resurgence of interest in communist theory, especially the theories of Karl Marx.
A variety of different forms of communism have developed, each based upon the ideas of different political theorists, usually as additions or interpretations of various forms of Marxism, the collective philosophies of Karl Marx. Marxism-Leninism is the synthesis of Vladimir Lenin's contributions to Marxism, such as how a revolutionary party should be organised; Trotskyism is Leon Trotsky's conception of Marxism and Maoism is Mao Tse Tung's interpretation of Marxism to suit the conditions of China at that time.
Communist theory generally states that the only way to solve the problems existing within capitalism is for the working class, referred to as the proletariat, who is the main producer of wealth in society and is exploited by the capitalist class, as explained in theories such as surplus value, to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class to establish a society without class divisions, called socialism, as a prelude to attempting to achieve the final stage of communism.
Pure communism, or the stage in history after socialism, refers to a classless, stateless society, one where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made in the best interests of the collective society with the interests of every member of society given equal weight in the practical decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.
Karl Marx, as well as some other communist philosophers, purposely never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as a social system. In the communist manifesto, Marx lays out a 10-point plan advising the redistribution of land and production to achieve his social ideals. However, Marx fervently denies that this plan is to be carried out by any specific group or "class". According to Marx, communal ownership of the means of production and the end of wage labour inevitably arises due to contradictions and class conflicts existing in capitalism, and the communists are merely professors who help frame struggles in terms of class struggle. In this way, communism avoids the contradiction of creating a new class to replace the old one.
The origins of communism are debatable, and there are various historical groups, as well as theorists, whose beliefs have been subsequently described as communist. Some theorists have considered hunter-gatherer societies to adhere to a form of primitive communism, whilst historical figures like Plato and Thomas More have been described as espousing early forms of the ideology. The communist movement as it is known today largely took shape in the nineteenth century, when it was developed.In the twentieth century, revolutions led to openly communist governments taking power in many countries, leading to the creation of states like the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Cuba.
In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of these governments, which were one party systems operating under centrally planned economies and a state ownership of the means of production. Most of these governments based their ideology on Marxism-Leninism. These systems, sometimes referred to as state socialism are argued by many, including those on the left, that states never made an attempt to transition to a communist society, while others even argue that they never achieved socialism.
In the 20th and 21st centuries democratic elections led to communist, and communist inspired, governments being elected in other parts of the world such as in Bolivia and Venezuela. Today, although communism is a less influential political force compared to what it was in much of the twentieth century, there are still powerful communist and aligned socialist movements in many parts of the world, especially southern Asia and South America, and since the economic crisis of 2008 there has been a resurgence of interest in communist theory, especially the theories of Karl Marx.
Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the market rather than by central planning by the government; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.
Political benefits
Economic growth
World's GDP per capita shows exponential growth since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Capitalism and the economy of the People's Republic of China
In years 1000 - 1820 world economy grew sixfold, 50 % per person. After capitalism had started to spread more widely, in years 1820 - 1998 world economy grew 50-fold, i.e., 9-fold per person. In most capitalist economic regions such as Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the economy grew 19-fold per person even though these countries already had a higher starting level, and in Japan, which was poor in 1820, to 31-fold, whereas in the rest of the world the growth was only 5-fold per person.
Many theorists and policymakers in predominantly capitalist nations have emphasized capitalism's ability to promote economic growth, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), capacity utilization or standard of living. This argument was central, for example, to Adam Smith's advocacy of letting a free market control production and price, and allocate resources. Many theorists have noted that this increase in global GDP over time coincides with the emergence of the modern world capitalist system.
Proponents argue that increasing GDP (per capita) is empirically shown to bring about improved standards of living, such as better availability of food, housing, clothing, and health care.The decrease in the number of hours worked per week and the decreased participation of children and the elderly in the workforce have been attributed to capitalism.
Proponents also believe that a capitalist economy offers far more opportunities for individuals to raise their income through new professions or business ventures than do other economic forms. To their thinking, this potential is much greater than in either traditional feudal or tribal societies or in socialist societies.
Political benefits
Economic growth
World's GDP per capita shows exponential growth since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Capitalism and the economy of the People's Republic of China
In years 1000 - 1820 world economy grew sixfold, 50 % per person. After capitalism had started to spread more widely, in years 1820 - 1998 world economy grew 50-fold, i.e., 9-fold per person. In most capitalist economic regions such as Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the economy grew 19-fold per person even though these countries already had a higher starting level, and in Japan, which was poor in 1820, to 31-fold, whereas in the rest of the world the growth was only 5-fold per person.
Many theorists and policymakers in predominantly capitalist nations have emphasized capitalism's ability to promote economic growth, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), capacity utilization or standard of living. This argument was central, for example, to Adam Smith's advocacy of letting a free market control production and price, and allocate resources. Many theorists have noted that this increase in global GDP over time coincides with the emergence of the modern world capitalist system.
Proponents argue that increasing GDP (per capita) is empirically shown to bring about improved standards of living, such as better availability of food, housing, clothing, and health care.The decrease in the number of hours worked per week and the decreased participation of children and the elderly in the workforce have been attributed to capitalism.
Proponents also believe that a capitalist economy offers far more opportunities for individuals to raise their income through new professions or business ventures than do other economic forms. To their thinking, this potential is much greater than in either traditional feudal or tribal societies or in socialist societies.
Semi-presidential system
The semi-presidential system, also known as the presidential-parliamentary system, or premier-presidential system, is a system of government in which a president and a prime minister are both active participants in the day-to-day administration of the state. It differs from a parliamentary republic in that it has a popularly elected head of state who is more than a purely ceremonial figurehead, and from the presidential system in that the cabinet, although named by the president, is responsible to the legislature, which may force the cabinet to resign through a motion of no confidence.
Parliamentary weakness
Semi-presidential systems are characterized by the limitation of the powers of the parliament, in contrast not only with parliamentary systems, but also with pure presidential systems. The French Constitution explicitly enumerates the matters in which the parliament is allowed to create laws, while all other affairs are reserved to the government decrees; it forbids sessions longer than four months in a year without the approval of the Prime minister or his majority and a presidential decree; it puts out of order every bill or amendment which would reduce public revenues or increase charges on the revenues; and it allows no more than eight parliamentary committees, thus reducing the parliamentary workload in comparison to parliaments of pure presidential countries, like the United States Congress.
Parliamentary weakness
Semi-presidential systems are characterized by the limitation of the powers of the parliament, in contrast not only with parliamentary systems, but also with pure presidential systems. The French Constitution explicitly enumerates the matters in which the parliament is allowed to create laws, while all other affairs are reserved to the government decrees; it forbids sessions longer than four months in a year without the approval of the Prime minister or his majority and a presidential decree; it puts out of order every bill or amendment which would reduce public revenues or increase charges on the revenues; and it allows no more than eight parliamentary committees, thus reducing the parliamentary workload in comparison to parliaments of pure presidential countries, like the United States Congress.
Presidential system
A presidential system is a system of government where an executive branch exists and presides (hence the name) separately from the legislature, to which it is not responsible and which cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it.
The concept of separate spheres of influence of the executive and legislature is specified in the Constitution of the United States, with the creation of the office of President of the United States elected separately from Congress.
Although not exclusive to republics, and applied in the case of semi-constitutional monarchies where a monarch exercises power (both as head of state and chief of the executive branch of government) alongside a legislature, the term is often associated with republican systems in the Americas.
Advantages of presidential systems
Supporters generally claim four basic advantages for presidential systems:
1. Direct mandate — in a presidential system, the president is often elected directly by the people. To some, this makes the president's power more legitimate than that of a leader appointed indirectly. However, in the United States, the president is elected neither directly nor through the legislature, but by an electoral college.
2. Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Supporters say that this arrangement allows each structure to monitor and check the other, preventing abuses.
3. Speed and decisiveness — some argue that a president with strong powers can usually enact changes quickly. However, others argue that the separation of powers slows the system down.
4. Stability — a president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than a prime minister who can be dismissed at any time.
The concept of separate spheres of influence of the executive and legislature is specified in the Constitution of the United States, with the creation of the office of President of the United States elected separately from Congress.
Although not exclusive to republics, and applied in the case of semi-constitutional monarchies where a monarch exercises power (both as head of state and chief of the executive branch of government) alongside a legislature, the term is often associated with republican systems in the Americas.
Advantages of presidential systems
Supporters generally claim four basic advantages for presidential systems:
1. Direct mandate — in a presidential system, the president is often elected directly by the people. To some, this makes the president's power more legitimate than that of a leader appointed indirectly. However, in the United States, the president is elected neither directly nor through the legislature, but by an electoral college.
2. Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Supporters say that this arrangement allows each structure to monitor and check the other, preventing abuses.
3. Speed and decisiveness — some argue that a president with strong powers can usually enact changes quickly. However, others argue that the separation of powers slows the system down.
4. Stability — a president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than a prime minister who can be dismissed at any time.
Parliamentary system
A parliamentary system is a system of government in which the ministers of the executive branch are drawn from the legislature and are accountable to that body, such that the executive and legislative branches are intertwined. In such a system, the head of government is both de facto chief executive and chief legislator.
A Parliamentary system may consist of two styles of Chambers of Parliament one with two chambers (or houses): an elected lower house, and an upper house or Senate which may be appointed or elected by a different mechanism from the lower house. This style of two houses is called bicameral system. Legislatures with only one house are known as unicameral system
A Parliamentary system may consist of two styles of Chambers of Parliament one with two chambers (or houses): an elected lower house, and an upper house or Senate which may be appointed or elected by a different mechanism from the lower house. This style of two houses is called bicameral system. Legislatures with only one house are known as unicameral system
Monarchy
Definition
A monarchy is a form of government in which all political power is absolutely or nominally lodged with an individual, known as a monarch ("single ruler"), or king (male), queen (female).
Etymology
The word monarch (Latin: monarcha) comes from the Greek μονάρχης (from μόνος, "one/singular," and ἄρχων, "leader/ruler/chief") which referred to a single, at least nominally absolute ruler. With time, the word has been succeeded in this meaning by others, such as autocrat or dictator. In modern use the word monarchy generally is used when referring to a traditional system of hereditary rule, with elective monarchies often considered as exceptions.
History
Tribal kingship is often connected to sacral functions, so that the king acts as a priest, or is considered of divine ancestry. The sacral function of kingship was transformed into the notion of "divine right of kings" in the Christian Middle Ages, while the Chinese, Japanese and Nepalese monarchs continued to be considered living gods into the modern period.
The system of monarchy since antiquity has contrasted with forms of parliamentarianism, where executive power is wielded by assemblies of free citizens. In antiquity, monarchies were abolished in favour of such assemblies in Ancient Rome (Roman Republic, 509 BC), Ancient Athens (Athenian democracy, 500 BC).
In Germanic antiquity, kingship was primarily a sacral function, and the king was elected from among eligible members of royal families by the thing. Such ancient "parliamentarism" declined during the European Middle Ages, but it survived in forms of regional assemblies, such as the Icelandic Commonwealth, the Swiss Landsgemeinde and later Tagsatzung, and the High Medieval communal movement linked to the rise of medieval town privileges. The modern resurgence of parliamentarism and anti-monarchism begins with the overthrow of the English monarchy by the Parliament of England in 1649, followed by American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1792. Much of 19th century politics was characterized by the division between anti-monarchist Radicalism and monarchist Conservativism. Many monarchies were abolished in the 20th century, especially in the wake of either World War I or World War II.
Characteristics and role
A 19th century portrayal of Emperor Jinmu, the first Emperor of Japan.
Today, the extent of a monarch's powers varies:
In an absolute monarchy, the monarch rules as an autocrat, with absolute power over the state and government—for example, the right to rule by decree, promulgate laws, and impose punishments. Absolute monarchies are not necessarily authoritarian; the enlightened absolutists of the Age of Enlightenment were monarchs who allowed various freedoms.
In a constitutional monarchy (Pacte), the monarch is largely a ceremonial figurehead subject to a constitution. Sovereignty rests formally with and is carried out in name of The Crown, but politically rests with the people (electorate), as represented by the parliament or other legislature. Constitutional monarchs have limited political power, and are constituted by tradition and precedent, popular opinion, or by legal codes or statutes. They serve as symbols of continuity for the state and carry out largely ceremonial functions. Still, many constitutional monarchs retain certain privileges (inviolability, sovereign immunity, an official residence) and powers (to grant pardons, to appoint titles of nobility). Additionally, some monarchs retain reserve powers, such as to dismiss a prime minister, refuse to dissolve parliament, or withhold Royal Assent to legislation, effectively vetoing it.
Most states only have a single monarch at any given time, although two monarchs have ruled simultaneously in some countries (diarchy), as in the ancient Greek city-state of Sparta or 17-th century Russia, and there are examples of joint sovereignty of spouses or relatives (such as William and Mary in the Kingdoms of England and Scotland).
A regent may rule when the monarch is a minor, absent, or debilitated.
Monarchy, especially absolute monarchy, sometimes is linked to religious aspects; many monarchs once claimed the right to rule by the will of a deity (Divine Right of Kings, Mandate of Heaven), a special connection to a deity (sacred king) or even purported to be divine kings, or incarnations of deities themselves (imperial cult).
In Islam, a caliph is a head of state who is both a temporal leader (of the caliphate, Islamic state) and a religious one (leader of the Ummah, community of believers). Many monarchs have been styled Fidei defensor (Defender of the Faith); some hold official positions relating to the state religion or established church.
Monarchs have various titles, including king or queen, prince or princess (Sovereign Prince of Monaco), emperor or empress (Emperor of Japan, Emperor of India), or even duke or grand duke (Grand Duke of Luxembourg) or duchess. Many monarchs also are distinguished by styles, such as "Majesty", "Royal Highness" or "By the Grace of God".
Monarchs often take part in certain ceremonies, such as a coronation.
Monarchies are associated with political or sociocultural hereditary rule, in which monarchs rule for life (although some monarchs do not hold lifetime positions, such as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia, who serves a five-year term) and pass the responsibilities and power of the position to their children or family when they die. Most monarchs, both historically and in the modern day, have been born and brought up within a royal family, the center of the royal household and court. Growing up in a royal family (when present for several generations it may be called a dynasty), and future monarchs were often trained for the responsibilities of expected future rule.
Different systems of succession have been used, such as proximity of blood, primogeniture, and agnatic seniority (Salic law). While traditionally most modern monarchs have been male, many female monarchs also have ruled in history; the term queen regnant may refer to a ruling monarch, while a queen consort may refer to the wife of a reigning king. Form of governments may be hereditary without being considered monarchies, such as that of family dictatorships or political families in many democracies.
Some monarchies are non-hereditary. In an elective monarchy, the monarch is elected, but otherwise serves as any other monarch. Historical examples of elective monarchy include the Holy Roman Emperors (chosen by prince-electors, but often coming from the same dynasty), and the free election of kings of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Modern examples include the pope of the Roman Catholic Church (who rules as Sovereign of the Vatican City State and is elected to a life term by the College of Cardinals) and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia.
Monarchies have existed throughout the world, although in recent centuries many states have abolished the monarchy and become republics. Advocacy of republics is called republicanism, while advocacy of monarchies is called monarchism. The principal advantage of hereditary monarchy is the immediate continuity of leadership, usually with a short interregnum (as seen in the classic phrase "The King is dead. Long live the King!").
In some cases monarchs are dependent on other powers (see vassals, suzerainty, puppet state, hegemony). In the British colonial era indirect rule under a paramount power existed, such as the princely states under the British Raj.
In other cases the monarch's power is limited, not due to constitutional restraints, but to effective military rule. In the late Roman Empire, the Praetorian Guard several times deposed Roman Emperors and installed new emperors. The Hellenistic kings of Macedon and of Epirus were elected by the army, which was similar in composition to the ecclesia of democracies, the council of all free citizens; military service often was linked with citizenship among the male members of the royal house.
Military domination of the monarch has occurred in modern Thailand and in medieval Japan (where a hereditary military chief, the shogun was the de facto ruler, although the Japanese emperor nominally ruled). In Fascist Italy the Savoy monarchy under King Victor Emmanuel III coexisted with the Fascist single-party rule of Benito Mussolini; Romania under the Iron Guard and Greece during the Axis occupation were much the same way. Spain under Francisco Franco was officially a monarchy, although there was no monarch on the throne. Upon his death, Franco was succeeded as head of state by the Bourbon heir, Juan Carlos I, who proceeded to make Spain a democracy with himself as a figurehead constitutional monarch.
A self-proclaimed monarchy is established when a human claims the monarchy without any historical ties to a previous dynasty. Napoleon I of France declared himself Emperor of the French and ruled the First French Empire after previously calling himself First Consul following his seizure of power in the coup of 18 Brumaire. Jean-Bédel Bokassa of the Central African Empire declared himself "Emperor." Yuan Shikai crowned himself Emperor of the short-lived "Empire of China" a few years after the Republic of China was founded.
In a personal union, the same person serves as monarch of separate independent states.
Sometimes titles are used to express claims to territories that are not held in fact (for example, English claims to the French throne) or titles not recognized (antipopes). A pretender is a claimant to an abolished throne or to a throne already occupied by somebody else. Abdication is when a monarch resigns.
Unique or unusual situations exist in several countries:
In Malaysia, the federal king, called the Yang di-Pertuan Agong ("Paramount Ruler") is elected for a five-year term from and by the hereditary rulers (mostly sultans) of nine of the federation's constitutive states, all on the Malay peninsula.
Andorra currently is the world's sole co-principality. Located in the Pyrenees between Spain and France, it has two co-princes: the Bishop of Urgell (a prince-bishop) in Spain and the President of France. It is the only situation in which an independent country's monarch is democratically elected by the citizens of another country.
In Botswana, South Africa, Ghana and Uganda, the ancient kingdoms and chiefdoms that were met by the colonialists when they first arrived on the continent are now constitutionally protected as regional and/or sectional entities. Furthermore, in Nigeria, though the hundreds of traditional states that exist there are not provided for in the current constitution, they are never the less legally recognised aspects of the structure of governance that operates in the nation. In addition to these five countries, peculiar monarchies of varied sizes and complexities exist in various other parts of Africa.
A monarchy is a form of government in which all political power is absolutely or nominally lodged with an individual, known as a monarch ("single ruler"), or king (male), queen (female).
Etymology
The word monarch (Latin: monarcha) comes from the Greek μονάρχης (from μόνος, "one/singular," and ἄρχων, "leader/ruler/chief") which referred to a single, at least nominally absolute ruler. With time, the word has been succeeded in this meaning by others, such as autocrat or dictator. In modern use the word monarchy generally is used when referring to a traditional system of hereditary rule, with elective monarchies often considered as exceptions.
History
Tribal kingship is often connected to sacral functions, so that the king acts as a priest, or is considered of divine ancestry. The sacral function of kingship was transformed into the notion of "divine right of kings" in the Christian Middle Ages, while the Chinese, Japanese and Nepalese monarchs continued to be considered living gods into the modern period.
The system of monarchy since antiquity has contrasted with forms of parliamentarianism, where executive power is wielded by assemblies of free citizens. In antiquity, monarchies were abolished in favour of such assemblies in Ancient Rome (Roman Republic, 509 BC), Ancient Athens (Athenian democracy, 500 BC).
In Germanic antiquity, kingship was primarily a sacral function, and the king was elected from among eligible members of royal families by the thing. Such ancient "parliamentarism" declined during the European Middle Ages, but it survived in forms of regional assemblies, such as the Icelandic Commonwealth, the Swiss Landsgemeinde and later Tagsatzung, and the High Medieval communal movement linked to the rise of medieval town privileges. The modern resurgence of parliamentarism and anti-monarchism begins with the overthrow of the English monarchy by the Parliament of England in 1649, followed by American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1792. Much of 19th century politics was characterized by the division between anti-monarchist Radicalism and monarchist Conservativism. Many monarchies were abolished in the 20th century, especially in the wake of either World War I or World War II.
Characteristics and role
A 19th century portrayal of Emperor Jinmu, the first Emperor of Japan.
Today, the extent of a monarch's powers varies:
In an absolute monarchy, the monarch rules as an autocrat, with absolute power over the state and government—for example, the right to rule by decree, promulgate laws, and impose punishments. Absolute monarchies are not necessarily authoritarian; the enlightened absolutists of the Age of Enlightenment were monarchs who allowed various freedoms.
In a constitutional monarchy (Pacte), the monarch is largely a ceremonial figurehead subject to a constitution. Sovereignty rests formally with and is carried out in name of The Crown, but politically rests with the people (electorate), as represented by the parliament or other legislature. Constitutional monarchs have limited political power, and are constituted by tradition and precedent, popular opinion, or by legal codes or statutes. They serve as symbols of continuity for the state and carry out largely ceremonial functions. Still, many constitutional monarchs retain certain privileges (inviolability, sovereign immunity, an official residence) and powers (to grant pardons, to appoint titles of nobility). Additionally, some monarchs retain reserve powers, such as to dismiss a prime minister, refuse to dissolve parliament, or withhold Royal Assent to legislation, effectively vetoing it.
Most states only have a single monarch at any given time, although two monarchs have ruled simultaneously in some countries (diarchy), as in the ancient Greek city-state of Sparta or 17-th century Russia, and there are examples of joint sovereignty of spouses or relatives (such as William and Mary in the Kingdoms of England and Scotland).
A regent may rule when the monarch is a minor, absent, or debilitated.
Monarchy, especially absolute monarchy, sometimes is linked to religious aspects; many monarchs once claimed the right to rule by the will of a deity (Divine Right of Kings, Mandate of Heaven), a special connection to a deity (sacred king) or even purported to be divine kings, or incarnations of deities themselves (imperial cult).
In Islam, a caliph is a head of state who is both a temporal leader (of the caliphate, Islamic state) and a religious one (leader of the Ummah, community of believers). Many monarchs have been styled Fidei defensor (Defender of the Faith); some hold official positions relating to the state religion or established church.
Monarchs have various titles, including king or queen, prince or princess (Sovereign Prince of Monaco), emperor or empress (Emperor of Japan, Emperor of India), or even duke or grand duke (Grand Duke of Luxembourg) or duchess. Many monarchs also are distinguished by styles, such as "Majesty", "Royal Highness" or "By the Grace of God".
Monarchs often take part in certain ceremonies, such as a coronation.
Monarchies are associated with political or sociocultural hereditary rule, in which monarchs rule for life (although some monarchs do not hold lifetime positions, such as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia, who serves a five-year term) and pass the responsibilities and power of the position to their children or family when they die. Most monarchs, both historically and in the modern day, have been born and brought up within a royal family, the center of the royal household and court. Growing up in a royal family (when present for several generations it may be called a dynasty), and future monarchs were often trained for the responsibilities of expected future rule.
Different systems of succession have been used, such as proximity of blood, primogeniture, and agnatic seniority (Salic law). While traditionally most modern monarchs have been male, many female monarchs also have ruled in history; the term queen regnant may refer to a ruling monarch, while a queen consort may refer to the wife of a reigning king. Form of governments may be hereditary without being considered monarchies, such as that of family dictatorships or political families in many democracies.
Some monarchies are non-hereditary. In an elective monarchy, the monarch is elected, but otherwise serves as any other monarch. Historical examples of elective monarchy include the Holy Roman Emperors (chosen by prince-electors, but often coming from the same dynasty), and the free election of kings of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Modern examples include the pope of the Roman Catholic Church (who rules as Sovereign of the Vatican City State and is elected to a life term by the College of Cardinals) and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia.
Monarchies have existed throughout the world, although in recent centuries many states have abolished the monarchy and become republics. Advocacy of republics is called republicanism, while advocacy of monarchies is called monarchism. The principal advantage of hereditary monarchy is the immediate continuity of leadership, usually with a short interregnum (as seen in the classic phrase "The King is dead. Long live the King!").
In some cases monarchs are dependent on other powers (see vassals, suzerainty, puppet state, hegemony). In the British colonial era indirect rule under a paramount power existed, such as the princely states under the British Raj.
In other cases the monarch's power is limited, not due to constitutional restraints, but to effective military rule. In the late Roman Empire, the Praetorian Guard several times deposed Roman Emperors and installed new emperors. The Hellenistic kings of Macedon and of Epirus were elected by the army, which was similar in composition to the ecclesia of democracies, the council of all free citizens; military service often was linked with citizenship among the male members of the royal house.
Military domination of the monarch has occurred in modern Thailand and in medieval Japan (where a hereditary military chief, the shogun was the de facto ruler, although the Japanese emperor nominally ruled). In Fascist Italy the Savoy monarchy under King Victor Emmanuel III coexisted with the Fascist single-party rule of Benito Mussolini; Romania under the Iron Guard and Greece during the Axis occupation were much the same way. Spain under Francisco Franco was officially a monarchy, although there was no monarch on the throne. Upon his death, Franco was succeeded as head of state by the Bourbon heir, Juan Carlos I, who proceeded to make Spain a democracy with himself as a figurehead constitutional monarch.
A self-proclaimed monarchy is established when a human claims the monarchy without any historical ties to a previous dynasty. Napoleon I of France declared himself Emperor of the French and ruled the First French Empire after previously calling himself First Consul following his seizure of power in the coup of 18 Brumaire. Jean-Bédel Bokassa of the Central African Empire declared himself "Emperor." Yuan Shikai crowned himself Emperor of the short-lived "Empire of China" a few years after the Republic of China was founded.
In a personal union, the same person serves as monarch of separate independent states.
Sometimes titles are used to express claims to territories that are not held in fact (for example, English claims to the French throne) or titles not recognized (antipopes). A pretender is a claimant to an abolished throne or to a throne already occupied by somebody else. Abdication is when a monarch resigns.
Unique or unusual situations exist in several countries:
In Malaysia, the federal king, called the Yang di-Pertuan Agong ("Paramount Ruler") is elected for a five-year term from and by the hereditary rulers (mostly sultans) of nine of the federation's constitutive states, all on the Malay peninsula.
Andorra currently is the world's sole co-principality. Located in the Pyrenees between Spain and France, it has two co-princes: the Bishop of Urgell (a prince-bishop) in Spain and the President of France. It is the only situation in which an independent country's monarch is democratically elected by the citizens of another country.
In Botswana, South Africa, Ghana and Uganda, the ancient kingdoms and chiefdoms that were met by the colonialists when they first arrived on the continent are now constitutionally protected as regional and/or sectional entities. Furthermore, in Nigeria, though the hundreds of traditional states that exist there are not provided for in the current constitution, they are never the less legally recognised aspects of the structure of governance that operates in the nation. In addition to these five countries, peculiar monarchies of varied sizes and complexities exist in various other parts of Africa.
Feudalism
* Feudalism was a set of political and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the ninth and fifteenth centuries. Although derived from the Latin word feodum (fief), then in use, the term feudalism and the system it describes were not conceived of as a formal political system by the people living in the Medieval Period. In its classic definition, by François-Louis Ganshof (1947), feudalism describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs. There is also a broader definition, as described by Marc Bloch (1939), that includes not only warrior nobility but the peasantry bonds of manorialism, sometimes referred to as a "feudal society". Because of multiple definitions and other issues, many now see the concept of feudalism as deprived of specific meaning, which has lead in recent decades to many historians and political theorists rejecting feudalism as a useful way for understanding society
* There is no broadly accepted modern definition of feudalism. The term, which was coined in the early modern period (17th century), was originally used in a political and propaganda context, but more modern definitions of feudalism exist. Since at least the 1960s, concurrent when Marc Bloch's Feudal Society (1939) was first translated into English in 1960, many medieval historians have included a broader social aspect, adding the peasantry bonds of manorialism, sometimes referred to as a "feudal society". Since the 1970s, when Elizabeth A. R. Brown published The Tyranny of a Construct (1974), many have re-examined the evidence and concluded that feudalism is an unworkable term and should be removed entirely from scholarly and educational discussion, or at least used only with severe qualification and warning.
Outside a European context, the concept of feudalism is normally used only by analogy (called semi-feudal), most often in discussions of Japan under the shoguns, and sometimes medieval and Gondarine Ethiopia. However, some have taken the feudalism analogy further, seeing it in places as diverse as ancient Egypt, the Parthian empire, the Indian subcontinent, and the antebellum American South.
The term feudalism has also been applied—often inappropriately or pejoratively—to non-Western societies where institutions and attitudes similar to those of medieval Europe are perceived to prevail. Ultimately, the many ways the term feudalism has been used has deprived it of specific meaning, leading many historians and political theorists today to reject it as a useful concept for understanding society.
* There is no broadly accepted modern definition of feudalism. The term, which was coined in the early modern period (17th century), was originally used in a political and propaganda context, but more modern definitions of feudalism exist. Since at least the 1960s, concurrent when Marc Bloch's Feudal Society (1939) was first translated into English in 1960, many medieval historians have included a broader social aspect, adding the peasantry bonds of manorialism, sometimes referred to as a "feudal society". Since the 1970s, when Elizabeth A. R. Brown published The Tyranny of a Construct (1974), many have re-examined the evidence and concluded that feudalism is an unworkable term and should be removed entirely from scholarly and educational discussion, or at least used only with severe qualification and warning.
Outside a European context, the concept of feudalism is normally used only by analogy (called semi-feudal), most often in discussions of Japan under the shoguns, and sometimes medieval and Gondarine Ethiopia. However, some have taken the feudalism analogy further, seeing it in places as diverse as ancient Egypt, the Parthian empire, the Indian subcontinent, and the antebellum American South.
The term feudalism has also been applied—often inappropriately or pejoratively—to non-Western societies where institutions and attitudes similar to those of medieval Europe are perceived to prevail. Ultimately, the many ways the term feudalism has been used has deprived it of specific meaning, leading many historians and political theorists today to reject it as a useful concept for understanding society.
Federacy
*A federacy is a form of government where one or several substate units enjoy considerably more independence than the majority of the substate units. To some extent, such an arrangement can be considered as similar to asymmetric federalism.
*A federacy is a form of government that shares features of both a federation and unitary state. In a federacy, at least one of the constituent parts of the state is autonomous, while the majority of constituent parts are either not autonomous or comparatively less autonomous. An example of such an arrangement is Finland, where Åland, which has the status of autonomous province, has considerably more autonomy than the other provinces. The autonomous constituent part enjoys independence as though it was part of federation, while the other constituent parts are as independent as subunits in a unitary state. This autonomy is guaranteed in the country's constitution. The autonomous subunits are often former colonial possessions or are home to a different ethnic group as the rest of the country. These autonomous subunits often have a special status in international relations.
Comparison to other systems of autonomy
Devolution
A federacy differs from a devolved state, such as the United Kingdom, because, in a devolved state, the central government can revoke the independence of the subunits (Scottish Parliament, Welsh National Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly in the case of the UK) without changing the constitution.
Associated States
A federacy also differs from an associated state, such as the Federated States of Micronesia (in free association with the United States) and Cook Islands and Niue (which form part of the Realm of New Zealand). There are two kinds of associated states: in case of Micronesia, association is concluded by treaty between two sovereign states; in case of Cook Islands and Niue, association is concluded by domestic legal arrangements.
Crown dependencies
The relation between the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and the bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey in the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom is very similar to a federate relation: the Islands enjoy independence from the United Kingdom, which, via The Crown, takes care of their foreign relations and defence – although the UK Parliament does have overall power to legislate for the dependencies. However, the islands are neither an incorporated part of the United Kingdom, nor are they considered to be independent or associated states. The Isle of Man does not have a monarch but Queen Elizabeth II holds the position of Lord of Mann.
Overseas territories
British overseas territories are vested with varying degrees of power; some enjoy considerable independence from the United Kingdom, which only takes care of their foreign relations and defence. However, they are neither considered to be part of the United Kingdom, nor recognised as sovereign or associated states.
Asymmetric federations
In an asymmetric federation one of the substates has more independence than the others. Examples of this are Canada where Quebec has been given political deference to craft independent language and education policies. The difference between an asymmetric federation and federacy is indistinct; a federacy is essentially an extreme case of an asymmetric federation, either due to large differences in the level of autonomy, or the rigidity of the constitutional arrangements.
Special Administrative Regions (People's Republic of China)
The People's Republic of China has two special administrative regions, namely Hong Kong and Macau, in an arrangement some may consider as close to a federacy.[citation needed] Under the principle of "One Country, Two Systems", the two territories, according to their basic laws, enjoy extensive autonomy except in diplomatic affairs and defence, and participate in international organisations as "Hong Kong, China", and "Macau, China". Both are presented by deputies in the National People's Congress (NPC), who are selected by a committee appointed by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC). Each has its own court of last resort, extradition policies, immigration and border control, and currency, and forms its own customs territory. Laws of the People's Republic of China do not apply in Hong Kong or Macau unless otherwise stated in Annex III of the Basic Law of the territory concerned. Hong Kong and Macau were colonial possessions of, respectively, the United Kingdom and Portugal.
Several states are federacies. The exact autonomy of the subunits differs from country to country.
Denmark, Greenland, and Faroe Islands
See Rigsfællesskabet
Denmark has five regions (regioner). Greenland and the Faroe Islands are also part of the Kingdom, but as separate communities of the Kingdom, enjoy a high degree of autonomy. The relationship between Denmark on the one hand and Faroe and Greenland on the other, is that of federacy.[1] Most Danish laws have a specific clause stating that the laws do not extend to Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Each of them send two representatives to Folketinget (the Danish parliament). Defence and diplomatic affairs are duties of Denmark, but Faroe and Greenland do participate directly in some Nordic organizations, such as the Nordic Council. Both have chosen not to participate in the European Union. Decisions by the highest courts of Greenland and the Faroe Islands can be appealed to the Danish Supreme Court. Greenland and the Faroe Islands were originally respectively a colonial possession and a dependency; later integral parts of Denmark. The Faroe Islands were granted home rule in 1948, and Greenland followed suit in 1979.
[edit]
Finland and Åland This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information. (November 2010)
Finland is divided into six provinces. The archipelago of Åland – although one of the six provinces – enjoys a high degree of home rule, as opposed to the five in mainland Finland. Extensive autonomy is granted in the Act on the Autonomy of Åland of 1920 (last revised 1991), and the autonomy was affirmed by a League of Nations decision in 1921. The Parliament of Åland (Lagtinget) handles duties, that in other provinces are exercised by state provincial offices of the central government. Åland sends one representative to the Finnish parliament, and is a member of the Nordic Council. It is demilitarised, and the population is exempt from conscription. Åland has issued its own postage stamps since 1984, and runs its own police force. Most of Åland's inhabitants speak Swedish as their first language (91.2 % in 2007). Åland's autonomous status was a result of disputes between Sweden and Imperial Russia in 1809, and between Finland and Sweden 1917–1921.
France and its overseas lands
The French Republic is divided into 26 régions, 22 of which are in metropolitan France (Corsica, one of these, is strictly speaking not a région, but is often counted as such). Four of the régions are régions d'outre-mer (overseas regions). France also has four collectivités d'outre-mer, one territoire d'outre-mer. All are integral parts of France and subject to French law, but New Caledonia (a collectivité sui generis), and French Polynesia (one of the four collectivités d'outre-mer, but with the designation of pays d'outre-mer) have considerably more autonomy. All except the uninhabited French Southern and Antarctic Lands are represented in the French parliament. Defence and diplomatic affairs are responsibilities of France, but they do participate in some organisations directly. Réunion, for example, is a member of the Indian Ocean Commission. In addition, France has the remote Clipperton Island in the Pacific under direct authority of the Minister of Overseas France. French overseas territories were in the past colonial possessions.
Iraq and Kurdistan
Arab Iraq and Kurdistan have full sovereignty over internal matters for their respective regions. The agreement was upheld in the 2005 constitution.
Kashmir and India/Pakistan
After independence from British rule,princely states were givent the choice to either opt for India or Pakistan. The Kashmir state was ruled by a Hindu king but the majority of its population was Muslim. When Muslim Kashmiris stood up in revolt and Pathan tribesmen invaded his land, the king agreed to join the Indian Republic in return for its protection.
Currently, Kashmir is a disputed territory, with both India and Pakistan claiming it as their own. India controls about two-thirds and Pakistan controls the remainder. The area under the control of Pakistan is generally referred to as Azad Kashmir [literally translated:Free kashmir].
*A federacy is a form of government that shares features of both a federation and unitary state. In a federacy, at least one of the constituent parts of the state is autonomous, while the majority of constituent parts are either not autonomous or comparatively less autonomous. An example of such an arrangement is Finland, where Åland, which has the status of autonomous province, has considerably more autonomy than the other provinces. The autonomous constituent part enjoys independence as though it was part of federation, while the other constituent parts are as independent as subunits in a unitary state. This autonomy is guaranteed in the country's constitution. The autonomous subunits are often former colonial possessions or are home to a different ethnic group as the rest of the country. These autonomous subunits often have a special status in international relations.
Comparison to other systems of autonomy
Devolution
A federacy differs from a devolved state, such as the United Kingdom, because, in a devolved state, the central government can revoke the independence of the subunits (Scottish Parliament, Welsh National Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly in the case of the UK) without changing the constitution.
Associated States
A federacy also differs from an associated state, such as the Federated States of Micronesia (in free association with the United States) and Cook Islands and Niue (which form part of the Realm of New Zealand). There are two kinds of associated states: in case of Micronesia, association is concluded by treaty between two sovereign states; in case of Cook Islands and Niue, association is concluded by domestic legal arrangements.
Crown dependencies
The relation between the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and the bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey in the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom is very similar to a federate relation: the Islands enjoy independence from the United Kingdom, which, via The Crown, takes care of their foreign relations and defence – although the UK Parliament does have overall power to legislate for the dependencies. However, the islands are neither an incorporated part of the United Kingdom, nor are they considered to be independent or associated states. The Isle of Man does not have a monarch but Queen Elizabeth II holds the position of Lord of Mann.
Overseas territories
British overseas territories are vested with varying degrees of power; some enjoy considerable independence from the United Kingdom, which only takes care of their foreign relations and defence. However, they are neither considered to be part of the United Kingdom, nor recognised as sovereign or associated states.
Asymmetric federations
In an asymmetric federation one of the substates has more independence than the others. Examples of this are Canada where Quebec has been given political deference to craft independent language and education policies. The difference between an asymmetric federation and federacy is indistinct; a federacy is essentially an extreme case of an asymmetric federation, either due to large differences in the level of autonomy, or the rigidity of the constitutional arrangements.
Special Administrative Regions (People's Republic of China)
The People's Republic of China has two special administrative regions, namely Hong Kong and Macau, in an arrangement some may consider as close to a federacy.[citation needed] Under the principle of "One Country, Two Systems", the two territories, according to their basic laws, enjoy extensive autonomy except in diplomatic affairs and defence, and participate in international organisations as "Hong Kong, China", and "Macau, China". Both are presented by deputies in the National People's Congress (NPC), who are selected by a committee appointed by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC). Each has its own court of last resort, extradition policies, immigration and border control, and currency, and forms its own customs territory. Laws of the People's Republic of China do not apply in Hong Kong or Macau unless otherwise stated in Annex III of the Basic Law of the territory concerned. Hong Kong and Macau were colonial possessions of, respectively, the United Kingdom and Portugal.
Several states are federacies. The exact autonomy of the subunits differs from country to country.
Denmark, Greenland, and Faroe Islands
See Rigsfællesskabet
Denmark has five regions (regioner). Greenland and the Faroe Islands are also part of the Kingdom, but as separate communities of the Kingdom, enjoy a high degree of autonomy. The relationship between Denmark on the one hand and Faroe and Greenland on the other, is that of federacy.[1] Most Danish laws have a specific clause stating that the laws do not extend to Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Each of them send two representatives to Folketinget (the Danish parliament). Defence and diplomatic affairs are duties of Denmark, but Faroe and Greenland do participate directly in some Nordic organizations, such as the Nordic Council. Both have chosen not to participate in the European Union. Decisions by the highest courts of Greenland and the Faroe Islands can be appealed to the Danish Supreme Court. Greenland and the Faroe Islands were originally respectively a colonial possession and a dependency; later integral parts of Denmark. The Faroe Islands were granted home rule in 1948, and Greenland followed suit in 1979.
[edit]
Finland and Åland This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information. (November 2010)
Finland is divided into six provinces. The archipelago of Åland – although one of the six provinces – enjoys a high degree of home rule, as opposed to the five in mainland Finland. Extensive autonomy is granted in the Act on the Autonomy of Åland of 1920 (last revised 1991), and the autonomy was affirmed by a League of Nations decision in 1921. The Parliament of Åland (Lagtinget) handles duties, that in other provinces are exercised by state provincial offices of the central government. Åland sends one representative to the Finnish parliament, and is a member of the Nordic Council. It is demilitarised, and the population is exempt from conscription. Åland has issued its own postage stamps since 1984, and runs its own police force. Most of Åland's inhabitants speak Swedish as their first language (91.2 % in 2007). Åland's autonomous status was a result of disputes between Sweden and Imperial Russia in 1809, and between Finland and Sweden 1917–1921.
France and its overseas lands
The French Republic is divided into 26 régions, 22 of which are in metropolitan France (Corsica, one of these, is strictly speaking not a région, but is often counted as such). Four of the régions are régions d'outre-mer (overseas regions). France also has four collectivités d'outre-mer, one territoire d'outre-mer. All are integral parts of France and subject to French law, but New Caledonia (a collectivité sui generis), and French Polynesia (one of the four collectivités d'outre-mer, but with the designation of pays d'outre-mer) have considerably more autonomy. All except the uninhabited French Southern and Antarctic Lands are represented in the French parliament. Defence and diplomatic affairs are responsibilities of France, but they do participate in some organisations directly. Réunion, for example, is a member of the Indian Ocean Commission. In addition, France has the remote Clipperton Island in the Pacific under direct authority of the Minister of Overseas France. French overseas territories were in the past colonial possessions.
Iraq and Kurdistan
Arab Iraq and Kurdistan have full sovereignty over internal matters for their respective regions. The agreement was upheld in the 2005 constitution.
Kashmir and India/Pakistan
After independence from British rule,princely states were givent the choice to either opt for India or Pakistan. The Kashmir state was ruled by a Hindu king but the majority of its population was Muslim. When Muslim Kashmiris stood up in revolt and Pathan tribesmen invaded his land, the king agreed to join the Indian Republic in return for its protection.
Currently, Kashmir is a disputed territory, with both India and Pakistan claiming it as their own. India controls about two-thirds and Pakistan controls the remainder. The area under the control of Pakistan is generally referred to as Azad Kashmir [literally translated:Free kashmir].
Sabtu, 13 November 2010
Definition of Political System
A political system is a system of politics and government. It is usually compared to the legal system, economic system, cultural system, and other social systems. It is different from them, and can be generally defined on a spectrum from left, e.g. communism, to the right, e.g. fascism. However, this is a very simplified view of a much more complex system of categories involving the views: who should have authority, how religious questions should be handled, and what the government's influence on its people and economy should be.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)