"A monk, a lawyer, and an engineer are to be guillotined. The monk puts his head on the block, and the rope is pulled but nothing happens. He claims he has been saved by Heaven and is released.The lawyer puts his head on the guillotine, but again, nothing happens, he claims he can't be executed twice for the same crime and is set free.The engineer places his head under the killer machine. He looks at the release mechanism and says, 'Wait ... wait, hmmm, now I see the problem!'""'The tug of war' metaphor vividly captures the dynamics of opposition and conflict. Imagine two teams pulling on opposite ends of a rope, each striving to gain ground. In a tug of war, both sides exert equal effort. Neither team gains an advantage unless they overpower the other. This mirrors situations where opposing forces are evenly matched, creating a tense standoff. If both teams pull with equal strength, the rope remains stationary—a stalemate. The metaphor emphasizes the struggle, balance, and persistence inherent in opposition," Cananga went while seeing two teams against each other in a test of strength: teams pull on opposite ends of a rope, with the goal being to bring the rope a certain distance in one direction against the force of the opposing team's pull. The phrase 'tug of war' originally meant 'the decisive contest; the real struggle or tussle; a severe contest for supremacy'."Similarly, in real-life conflicts, opposing parties may reach a point where neither can make significant progress. The rope may sway back and forth as one team gains momentum momentarily. Likewise, in opposition, there are shifts—temporary victories or setbacks—before equilibrium is restored. Teams strategize, adjusting their grip and timing. Similarly, opponents in conflicts adapt tactics, seeking advantages or exploiting weaknesses.Opposition parties encounter several challenges that can impact their effectiveness and ability to hold the government accountable. In Presidential systems, 'winner-takes-all' dynamics are often exhibited. Winner-takes-all dynamics have significant impacts across various sectors of society. From a business perspective, according to R. Srinivasan, some markets are inherently dominated by one or a few platforms. These markets are characterized by what is popularly known as 'winner takes all' (WTA) dynamics. It may not always be due to conventional first mover advantages or classic economies of scale—these traditional sources of advantages may result in oligopolies or monopolistic competition. In network markets, WTA dynamics manifest themselves through the power of network effects, and the switching/multi-homing costs associated with the same. In winner-takes-all markets, a few top performers disproportionately accumulate rewards (e.g., wealth, income, or market share). This exacerbates economic inequality, leaving the majority with marginal gains.In a presidential system, small parties struggle to gain representation, limiting political diversity. This impacts policy choices and representation. It essentially describes a scenario where the 'winners' take most of the rewards, leaving little for others. In electoral systems, winner-takes-all rules (e.g., first-past-the-post) favor major parties.In a presidential system, incumbency provides several advantages for the sitting president. Incumbent presidents are well-known figures, benefiting from widespread name recognition. Their actions, speeches, and policies receive extensive media coverage, ensuring high visibility among voters. Incumbents can directly influence policy implementation. They can propose legislation, issue executive orders, and shape the national agenda, leveraging their position to enact desired changes.
In his YouTube Channel—for observers of legal and politics in Indonesia, this channel is worth following and paying attention, Prof Mahfud MD suggests the differences between the 'rule of law' and 'rule by law'.The concepts of 'rule by law' and 'rule of law' are often used in discussions about governance and legal systems. In a system characterized by rule by law, the law is used as an instrument by those in power to control and govern. The government uses laws to maintain order, but these laws can be arbitrary and serve the interests of the rulers rather than the governed. In rule by law, the government and its officials may not be subject to the law. They can manipulate laws to justify their actions and maintain authority, often disregarding the principles of justice and fairness. Rule by law does not necessarily ensure that those who govern are accountable to the people. It allows for the potential abuse of power, as the laws can be changed or interpreted to suit the needs of the ruling class. The application of the law can be arbitrary and selective. Laws may be enforced strictly on ordinary citizens while those in power may evade or manipulate them.The rule of law is a principle of governance where all individuals and institutions, including the government, are subject to and accountable under the law. It ensures that laws are applied equally and fairly. In a system governed by the rule of law, the government itself is subject to the law. This means that government actions are constrained by legal principles, and officials can be held accountable for unlawful actions. The rule of law promotes transparency and accountability in governance. Laws are clear, publicized, and stable, and they protect fundamental rights. This ensures that citizens can understand and abide by the law, and can hold the government accountable. The law is applied equally to all individuals, regardless of status or power. The judiciary is independent and impartial, ensuring that justice is administered without bias or favoritism. The rule of law protects individual rights and liberties by ensuring that laws are just and that legal processes are fair. It provides mechanisms for the redress of grievances and protection against arbitrary power.In summary, rule by law exists when the law is used as a tool by the government to control the population. The government is above the law, which can be applied arbitrarily to maintain power and serve the interests of the rulers. On the contrary, the rule of law exists when the law governs both the rulers and the ruled, ensuring accountability, fairness, and equality. The government operates within a legal framework that protects individual rights and applies laws impartially.Hence, governments must operate within the framework of the law. The rule of law ensures that everyone, including government officials, is subject to the law. This provides a safeguard against arbitrary governance and protects individual rights. Governments should be transparent in their actions and decisions, allowing citizens to hold them accountable. Mechanisms such as a free press, open government records, and independent oversight bodies help maintain transparency and accountability.Voters often perceive incumbents as experienced and competent leaders. Their familiarity with the complexities of governance can be an advantage, especially during times of stability.Incumbents benefit from the state of the economy during their tenure. Positive economic indicators (such as low unemployment rates and GDP growth) enhance their chances of reelection. Incumbent presidents, in general, have an established track record in foreign affairs. Diplomatic achievements or crisis management can boost their credibility and appeal to voters. Incumbent presidents have an established track record in foreign affairs. Party machinery, fundraising networks, and endorsements contribute to their campaign efforts.A healthy democracy relies on active and informed participation by its citizens. This includes voting, engaging in public debate, joining civil society organizations, and participating in civic activities. Civic engagement ensures that the government remains responsive to the needs and desires of its citizens. While majority rule is a fundamental principle of democracy, protecting the rights of minorities is equally important. A democratic government must ensure that the rights of all individuals, including those in minority groups, are safeguarded against the tyranny of the majority. In a democratic society, the government should be ruled by the people through a system of representative democracy, underpinned by principles of popular sovereignty, checks and balances, the rule of law, civic participation, protection of minority rights, and transparency and accountability. This ensures that the government serves its primary purpose of protecting the rights and welfare of its citizens.In a presidential system, the absence of a formal opposition party can have several significant implications for the political landscape and governance of the country. Without a formal opposition, the ruling party or president may face less scrutiny and oversight. This can lead to unchecked power, increasing the risk of corruption, abuse of power, and undemocratic practices. The absence of an opposition reduces the mechanisms for holding the government accountable for its actions, policies, and spending. The ruling party may push through legislation and policies without adequate debate or consideration of alternative perspectives. This can result in poorly crafted or one-sided policies that do not adequately address the needs and concerns of all citizens. There may be a lack of innovation and dynamism in policy-making, as the absence of opposition can lead to complacency.A healthy democracy relies on a competitive political environment where different parties can challenge each other, propose alternative policies, and represent diverse viewpoints. Without opposition, the democratic process can be undermined, leading to a lack of debate and discussion on important issues. When citizens feel that their views and interests are not represented due to the lack of opposition, it can lead to public dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the political system. In extreme cases, this dissatisfaction can result in social unrest, protests, or even the emergence of extremist groups seeking to challenge the status quo outside the formal political framework.The absence of a formal opposition can affect how other countries perceive the political stability and democratic health of the nation. It can impact foreign relations, aid, and investments. Democracies generally prefer to engage with other democracies, and a lack of opposition can raise concerns about the country's commitment to democratic principles.The absence of formal opposition can weaken political institutions, such as the legislature and judiciary, that rely on a balance of power to function effectively. Over time, the erosion of these institutions can lead to a more centralized and authoritarian form of governance. Without an opposition to advocate for civil liberties and human rights, there is a higher risk of these rights being eroded. The government may implement policies that infringe on freedom of speech, assembly, and the press without significant resistance. The lack of formal opposition in a presidential system can lead to a concentration of power, reduced accountability, weakened democratic processes, potential public unrest, negative international perceptions, institutional weaknesses, and erosion of civil liberties. The presence of a robust opposition is crucial for the health and functioning of a democratic political system.If governments exist to protect their citizens and those citizens’ rights, who should rule the government? A successful society is a progress machine. It takes in the raw material of innovations and produces broad human advancement.We'll be continuing in the next episode, biidhnillah."Then Cananga recited a poem,ternyata kita butuh kecerdasan dan kedewasaan sosial[it turns out we need intelligence and social maturity]kata tikus yang mencuri kelapa[said the mouse who stole the coconut]dan ular yang meninggalkan bisa pada korbannya[and snakes that leave venom in their victims]ternyata kita butuh kecerdasan dan kedewasaan ekonomi[It turns out we need intelligence and economic maturity]kata beruang yang bertapa depan perapian sampai mati kelaparan[said the bear who meditated in front of the fireplace until he starved to death]kata harimau yang menghabiskan sisa makan siangnya[said the tiger who finished the rest of his lunch]di tengah kerabatnya yang juga mati kelaparan *)[amidst his relatives who were also starving to death]
Citations & References:
- Prof. Dr. H. Mohammad Mahfud Mahmodin, S.H., S.U., M.I.P, Mahfud MD Official, YouTube
- R. Srinivasan, Platform Business Models for Executives, 2023, Springer
- Anand Giridharadas, Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World, 2018, Alfred A. Knopf
- David Hubert, Ph.D., Attenuated Democracy: A Critical Introduction to U.S. Government and Politics, 2020, Salt Lake Community College
*) "Ternyata Kita Butuh" written by Gilang Teguh Pambudi
