From yesterday, up to now, this issue, in which has been long quite unheard suddenly moves toward surface. Ya, the politics of dynasty. From the news, this was triggered by the intention of vice-governor in Banten to step down from his position. Rano Karno, Banten's vice-governor allegedly wanted to leave his position since he thought there are no fair task allocation given to him. Mr. Karno probably thinks that as a vice-governor, he deserves to get better task allocation from his boss, the Banten's Governor Mrs Ratu Atu Choisyah. Since Rano Karno was an actor and functions as vote gatherer in the Banten Election, he may think that the tasks should be well allocated between him and the governor. Well, some political scientist and observer think this is the cause of the deteriorating relationship between this two 'holder' of Banten Province.
The disharmony relationship between vice governor and the governor has long been the story of our local politics. This case isn't a new one, but there are others in which was ended with stepping down from the position, more likely the vice governor. We still remember that this happen when Mr. Fauzi Bowo was the Governor of Jakarta and Mr Prijanto was his Vice. The unfairly tasks allocation was the main problem of why finally Mr Prijanto resigned as Vice Governor of Jakarta before he should actually end in 2012. The other was the resignation of Dicky Chandra as wakil bupati (Vice Mayor) of Garut Regency, West Java. The background of his case isn't too much different from the previous one. This unfairly tasks allocation is still in the top as the cause of the disharmony relationship between our local leader.
Though the unfairly task allocation is still in the top as the cause of this phenomenon, many political observer and scientist still think that there are another factors. The one that I'd like to highlight is the politics of dynasty which has been a political phenomenon in Indonesia. In this case, politics of dynasty is phenomenon when the leader in the local level mobilizes his/her family to compete in election and govern certain area within his/her province. This can be seen in Banten where Mrs Ratu Atut mobilizes her family to govern several regency and area within her Province. Many political scientist and observer are still arguing about the impact of this phenomenon. As a political scientist, I'd like to view this phenomenon as fair as possible. Firstly, if we see it from the 'goggles' of democracy, there's nothing wrong with this phenomenon. Everyone can compete in the election as long as they fulfill the requirements set by the election agency and written in the law. As democracy emphasizes the freedom, everyone has rights to be chosen as the leader. Whether we like it or not, it's a democracy we've been long to hope and dream. Democracy guarantees the rights of everyone to be chosen as a leader. It's the point, the freedom and political right is guaranteed by democracy.
Even though democracy guarantees the freedom, this thing happens to be a paradox. Every one has a right to be chosen as a leader, but if the leader employs their family and relatives to lead several area and regency within his/her province, this may injure the meaning of democracy itself. Employing all family to govern within his/her province will automatically block the chances of others to have the same chance as the leader. If this happened, then it's not a democracy anymore, but more likely oligarchy or elite-democracy. it's a nightmare of the democracy itself. Democracy guaranteed that every one has a right to be chosen, but if it's been block, then only certain people who have relations to the leader get a chance to lead. If we've been in democracy for quite long, so what's the meaning of democracy for us if this happened? if we back to the case of Mr Rano Karno as Banten's Vice-Governor, many political scientist and also the legislative member from his party offer this phenomenon as a reason of why Mr Karno wants to resign. The electability of Rano Karno is quite high, above Mrs Atut. Allegedly has prepared one of her family member to continue the leadership in 2017 as she can not again lead Banten since this term is her second. If this happened, again, this is the nightmare of democracy.
After all this explanation, there's a question: how should the government react to this phenomenon? should it be prohibited to have family member or relatives govern certain area? if this question is asked to me, my best answer will be: Government should not prohibit this phenomenon as this will again injure our democracy. The best way that government can do is to limit the time. If one of the family member has led the province or certain regions, the other family member or relatives should wait at least one period ( five years) before he/she is able to compete in election. This is I think the best way. By giving a one period off, other candidate which come outside the family/relative circle still have a chance to govern the area. This is not for just the fairness sake but also for the goodness of our democracy which guarantees everyone to have a chance to be chosen. As a closing statement, politics of dynasty can't be prohibited, but we can control it by limiting the time.
Pandu Dewa Nata
No comments:
Post a Comment