Sistem Politik Perbandingan Gabriel A. Almond


Gabriel A. Almond (1956) menyatakan, dalam jurnalnya yang berjudul Comparative Political System, bahwa teori sosial adalah sebuah konsep cure-all bagi semua “penyakit” disiplin ilmu (dalam konteks ini, perbandingan pemerintahan). Kegunaan konsep sosiologi dalam menemukan perbedaan yang esensial diantara sistem-sistem politik. Konsep pertama adalah sistem politik adalah sistem dari tindakan yang artinya perbandingan harus diobeservasi melalui empiris. Kedua, sistem politik didefinisikan sebagai satu set dari semua role yang berperan atau sebagai sebuah struktur role. Ketiga, perbedaan sistem politik merupakan monopoli legitimasi pada paksaan fisik terhadap teritori dan populasi tertentu. Konsep keempat adalah orientasi terhadap aksi politis (pemahaman, pilihan dan evaluasi).

Setiap sistem politik terikat pada pola tertentu orientasi pada aksi politis, yakni apa yang kita sebut budaya berpolitik. Perlu diketahui bahwa budaya politik sejalan dengan sistem politik/ masyarakat serta ia tidak sama dengan budaya umum kendati masih berhubungan. Sebab orientasi politik meliputi pemahaman, intelektual, dan adaptasi dari situasi eksternal. Orientasi politik terpisah dari standar dan nilai budaya umum serta memiliki otonomi tersendiri. Fungsi dari skema konseptual ini akan dijelaskan melalui studi kasus.

Sistem Politik Anglo-American

Sistem politik Anglo-American terkarakteristik oleh sebuah homogenitas, budaya politik sekuler. Yang dimaksud oleh budaya politik sekuler adalah budaya politik multinilai, rasional, bargaining,dan budaya politik eksperimental. Mayoritas aktor dalam sistem politiknya menerima tujuan terakhir sistem politik dari kombinasi nilai-nilai kebebasan, kemakmuran dan perlindungan bersama. Oleh karenanya sistem politik sekuler meliputi individu dan memiliki otonomi di setiap role-nya. Setiap orang dalam set role dilengkapi dengan otonomi dalam urusan politis, juga dalam berpendapat. Maka struktur role yang terjadi dala, grup sistem politik ini: (1) sangat beragam, (2) manifestasi, tertata, dan terbirokratisasi, (3) terkarakterisasi oleh taraf tinggi dalam fungsi-fungsi role, dan (4) cenderung memiliki difusi kekuatan dan melakukan sistem politik secara keseluruhan.

Struktur Role dalam Sistem Politik Anglo-American

Sistem Politik Praindustri

Sistem politik praindustri atau sebagian terindustrialisasi dan Westernisasi terdeskripsikan sebagai budaya politik campuran. Di sini parlemen bisa menjadi sesuatu yang lain dari parlemen, partai-partai dan grup penekan berperilaku dalam cara yang tak lazim, birokrasi dan angkatan bersenjata seringkali mendominasi sistem politik, serta terdapat atmosfer yang tidak dapat terprediksi secara keseluruhan. Karakteristik dari sistem politik ini menjadi jelas dalam analisis struktur role politik yang mana tidak terlalu berkarakter: (1)derajat rendah dalam diferensiasi, (2) derajat tinggi dalam pertukaran role, (3) merupakan campuran dari struktur role politik

Sistem Politik Totalitarian

Dalam budaya politik totalitarian terdapat kesan homogenitas, namun homogenitas tersebut bersifat sintetis. Sebab tidak ada organisasi sukarelawan dan media yang tidak dipegang oleh pusat maka tidak akan terjadi penilain terhadap jalan mana yang diterima baik dari perintah totalitarian. Maka dalam sistem politik ini terhadap adanya paksaan kekerasan yang kuat untuk mendukung berlangsungnya sistem. Banyak pengamat yang mengakui bahwa tak hany monopoli kekuatan absolut, namun juga kepastian ketidakpararelan atas segala komando yang akan dilakukan; tetapi juga memudahkan independen dictator dari bawahannya dan menjadikannya mungkin bagi pertukaran dan perubahan mendadak dalam kebijakan.

Terdapat dua karakteristik dari struktur role totalitarian ini: (1) dominansi coercive role, dan (2) ketidakstabilan fungsi power roles – birokrasi, partai, angkatan bersenjata, dan polisi rahasia.

Sistem Politik Benua Eropa

Sistem Eropa merupakan fragmentasi dari sistem politik budayanya. Berbeda dengan sistem non-Western yang merupakan campuran budaya-budaya politik yang sangat kontras satu sama lainnya, sistem Eropa pola budaya politik terkarakteristik oleh pola ketidakseimbangan perkembangan. Variasi kebudayaan mereka merupakan outcroppings dari kebudayaan-kebudayaan sebelumnya dan manifestasi politis. jadi variasi kebudayaan dari sistem Eropa, berbeda dengan non-Western, berasal dari satu akar kebudayaan yang sama dan berbagi warisan yang sama. Bisa dikatan pula bahwa sistem Eropa memiliki subkultur-subkultur politik.

Karakteristik struktur  role politik dari sistem ini berasal dari alienasi umum dari pasar politik dan tidak terdapatnya role politik indvidu sebab role terikat dalam subkultur dan mengkonstitusikan diri terpisah dari subkultur. Maka  karakteristiknya : (1) memiliki derajat yang tinggi dalam substitutabilitas roles daripada politik Anglo-Amerika dan derjar yang lebih kecil daripada sistem non-Western, (2) berpotensi adanya ancaman Caesaristic sebagaimana non-Western kendati dengan situasi dan penyebab yang berbeda.

Analisis

Kesimpulannya adalah bahwa pertumbuhan konseptual dan terminologikal dalam ilmu pengetahuan tidak bisa diacuhkan begitu saja sebagaimana pertumbuhan bahasa. Namun sebagaimana bahasa slang dan neologisme yang tidak bisa selamanya bertahan, akan begitu yang tersingkirkan dan hanya sedikit saja yang akan diterima. Dan itu penetua dari kriteria diterima atau tidaknya merupakan fasilitas yang berada di tangan pemikir masa  datang yang akan mencoba menemukan kecocokan. Masing-masing tempat memiliki karakteristik dan kebudayaan masing-masing yang tidak bisa diabaikan dalam sistem politik perbandingan

SUMBER:

—— Almond, Gabriel.1956.Comparative Political System.http://www.jstor.org/(diakses 26 September 2006)

ACTORS IN WORLD POLITIC


At the most general level, an actor in world politics has been defined as ‘any entity which plays an identifiable role in international relation’ (Evans and Nenham 1990, p.6)

This definition is so broad as even to encompass individuals. Although this inclusion is open to debate (Rossenau, 1990: Girrad, 1994), most authors reject it because the influence of individuals in international politics is most often incidental and tend to diminish over time (Taylor, 1984, p.20). In his seminal essay ‘The Actors in World Politics’, Oran Young (1972, p.140) offers a way out to refine the above general definition by defining an actor as: “any organized entity that is composed, at least indirectly, of human beings, is not wholly subordinate to any other actor in the world system in effective terms, and participate in power relationships with other actors.”

This definition suggests that to be considered an actor in world politics the entity under consideration needs to possess a degree of autonomy.

TYPES OF NON-STATE ACTORS

Non-state actors are non-sovereign entities that exercise significant economic, political, or social power and influence at a national, and in some cases international level.

  1. Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs). These groups are typically considered a part of civil society. A non-governmental organization is a legally constituted organization created by private organizations or people with no participation or representation of any government. In the cases in which NGOs are funded totally or partially by governments, the NGO maintains its non-governmental status in so far as it excludes government representative from membership in the organization. Example: Red Cross, Green Peace, etc.
  2. Multinational Corporation (MNCs). Multinational corporations are for profit organizations that operate in three or more sovereign states. The traditional multinational is a private company headquartered in one country and with subsidiaries in others, all operating in accordance with a coordinated global strategy to win market share and achieve cost efficiencies. A significant portion of the discussion, however, centered on the relatively recent “multi-nationalization” of state-owned enterprises, such as Russia’s arms-export monopoly Rosonboron export or Chinese oil company CNPC, which as state entities may or may not share the same incentives and goals as their private counterpart.
  3. The International Media. Example: BBC
  4. Armed Groups. Armed groups include for example rebel opposition forces, military, and warlords.
  5. Terrorist Organization. Including groups, such as Al-Qaeda. In addition to inflicting pain and damage and weakening the existing political order, terrorism, writes Hoffman, “is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is very little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorist seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or an international scale.

As a ‘weapon weak’, terrorism is deployed by groups to gain media attention and visibility as the first step in gaining “name recognition” within the international community.

Even if acts of terrorism are universally commended, they can stimulate media coverage of an issue and provide an opening for the more moderate cause is being promotes. In this regard one must note that one of the observable outcomes of 9/ 11 has indeed been a spotlight of media attention on the Middle East and Isla, and an opening  for more moderate voices to have their grievances at least publicly considered and deliberated, to a much greater extent than had been possible prior to 9/ 10.

  1. Criminal Organization. Example of the criminal organizations is drug cartels such as the Gulf Cartel.
  2. Religious Groups. Politically active organization based on strong religious conviction.

The Quaker is quite active in their international advocacy effort and their supportive role at International conference.

  1. Transnational Diaspora communities. A Diaspora is a transnational community that defined itself as a singular ethnic group based upon its shared identity. Ethno-political groups: common nationality, language, cultural tradition, kinship ties.
  2. Certain Individuals/ Super-empowered individuals is a person who have overcome constraints, conventions, and rules to wield unique political, economic, intellectual, or cultural influence over the course of human events. They generated the most wide-raging discussion. “Archetypes” include industrialists, criminals, financiers, media moguls, celebrity activists, religious leaders, and terrorists. The ways in which they exert their influence (money, moral authority, expertise) are as varied as their fields of endeavor. As bounded by seminar participants, this category excludes political office holders (although some super empowered individuals eventually attain political office), those with heredity power, or the merely rich or famous. This includes an individual such as Victor Bout.

REALIST AND LIBERALIST

The realist perspective acknowledges the existence of non-state actors, but argues that they are peripheral to the international security environment as compared to states. Security threats emanate primarily from states and are responded to primarily by states. Power is treated as an attribute that is distributed across unitary state actors who must each prioritize their own security interest. When realist does look explicitly at the activities of non-state actors, they often view them as being mere extensions of existing configurations of state power and capabilities. The realist lens suggests a particular response is to either refocus attention on threats from states, treat violent non-state actors as proxies for state interest, or to view non-state actors as being “state-like”. The overall policy response is therefore to combat terrorism as one would combat security threats emanating from state through a military response.

In the Liberal Perspective, non-state actors have figured much more prominently in their view of the international security environment. Liberals view power as being distributed not just across state, but also embedded in other entities such as international institution and NGOs. Their view of power is multidimensional, with an emphasis on the “soft power” of economic factors or the power of ideas, in addition to military power. In this world-view, non-state actors have been largely assumed to play a stabilizing role in the international system as extensions of domestic interest groups, or as members of a global civil society that can contribute to international stability by performing tasks such as monitoring human rights violations and assisting in post-conflict reconstruction and development.

THE EFFECT OF NON-STATE ACTORS ON THE WESTPHALIAN STATE MODEL

The proliferation of non-state actors in the post-Cold War era has been one of the factors leading to the theorizing of the Cobweb paradigm in international Politics. Under this paradigm, the traditional Westphalian non-state is experiencing an erosion of power and sovereignty, and non-state actors are part of the cause. Facilitated by globalization, NSAs have challenged nation-state borders and claims to sovereignty. MNCs are not always sympathetic to home country’s or host country’s national interests, but instead loyalty is given to the corporation’s interest. NGOs are challenging the nation-state’s sovereignty over internal matters through advocacy for societal issues, human right, and the environment.

Many armed non-state actors, opposition group, that operate without state control and are involved in trans-border conflicts. The prevalence of these groups in armed conflicts has added layers of complexity to traditional conflict management and resolution. These conflicts are often fought not only between non-state actors and states, but also between non-state actors. Any attempts at intervention in such conflicts has been particularly challenging given the fact that international law and norms governing the use of force for intervention or peacekeeping purposes has been primarily written in the context of nation-state. So, the demands of non-state actors at the local and international level have further complicated international relations.

REFERENCES:

–          Rochester, Martin. J. 2002. Between Two Epochs: What’s Ahead for America, the World, and Global Politics in the Twenty First Century. NJ: Prentice Hall

–          Davies, Thomas Richard. 2007. The Possibilities of Transnational Activism: the Campaign for Disarmament between the two World War. ISBN 9789004162587

–          Stone, Diane. 2004. Transfer Agents and Global Networks in Trans-nationalization of Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11 (3) 2004: 545-66

–          Glasius, M; Kaldor, M; Anheier, H. 2006. Global Civil Society. London: Sage

–          Rossenau, JN. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf

–          Smith, S. 1989. Paradigm Dominance in International Relation: The Development of International Relation as a Social Science, in H. C. Dyer & l. Mangaserian (eds) The Study of International Relation: The State of the Art. London: Mc Millan

–          http://docs.lib.duke.edu/igo/guides/ngo/define.htm.worldbankdefiningNGO

–          http://www.Ise.ac.uk/collections/CCS/pdf/int-work-paper.pdf(100KB)

–          http://www.intractableconlict.org

NATIONAL POWER


THE CONCEPT

The concept power in international relations can be described as the degree of sources, capabilities, and influences in the international affairs. It is often divided up into the concept of hard power and soft power.

1. Hard Power

It refers to coercive tactics the threat or use of armed forces, economic pressure or sanction association and subterfuge, or other forms of intimidation. Hard power is generally associated to the stronger of nations, as the ability of other nations through military threats.

2. Soft Power

Instruments of soft power include debates on cultural values, dialogues on ideology, the attempt to influence through good example, and the appeal to commonly accepted human values. Means of exercising soft power include diplomacy, dissemination of information, analysis, propaganda, and cultural programming to achieve political ends.

CATAGORIES OF POWER

Modern discourse generally speaks in term of state power, indicating both economic and military power, indicating both economic and military power. Those state that have significant amounts of power within the systems are referred to (although there’s no commonly accepted standard for what DEFINE):

  1. Middle Power

a subjective description of second-tier influential states that could not be described as Great Powers. Ex: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, etc.

  1. Great Power

refers to any nations that have strong political, cultural, and economic influence over nations around it and across the world. Ex: China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States

  1. Superpower

Fox (1944) defined the Superpower as ‘great power plus great mobility of power’. Ex: United States, Soviet Union, and British Empire.

  1. Hyper power

coined to describe the post-Cold War, United States or the British Empire shortly after the Napoleonic wars.

IDENTIFICATION OF POWER

  1. Regional Power

It used to describe a nation that exercises influence and power within a region. Being a regional power isn’t mutually exclusive with any of the above categories.

  1. The term energy Superpower

It describes a country that has immense influence or even direct control over much of the world’s energy supplies. Ex: Russia and Saudi Arabia, given their abilities to globally influence or even directly control prices to certain country.

  1. Entertainment/ Culture Superpower

It describes a country in which has immense influence or even direct control over much of the world’s entertainment or has an immense large cultural influence on much of the world. Ex: United States, United Kingdom, and Japan given their abilities to distribute their entertainment and cultural motivation worldwide.

  1. Agricultural Superpower

It describes a country that has immense influence and direct control over much of the world’s food supplies, and even has immense ability to control food prices on a worldwide scale. Ex: Thailand and Brazil.

STANDARIZATION OF POWER

  1. Realist and National Power

National power has an absolute meaning since it can be defined in terms of military, economic, political, diplomatic, or even cultural resources. But for a realist, power is primarily a relative term: “Does a state have the ability to defend itself against the power of another state? Does a state have the ability to coerce another state to change that state policies?”

The realist believes that all nations work for their own benefit, for their gain, without pause regarding their own safety and security.

This emphasis on relative, and not absolute power, derives from realist conception of the international system which is, for the realist, an anarchical environment. All states have to rely upon their own resources to secure their interest, enforce whatever agreements they may have entered into with other states, or to maintain a desirable domestic and international order. There is no authority over the nation-state, nor, for the realist, should there be.

Since, however, the natural tendency of state is to increase their power, the preservation of a decentralized system must be purchased with force, by a system called Balance of power.

In short, realist deifies power: the power to maintain the state, to perpetuate the state and to push forward the state’s interest onto the anarchic international playing field.

  1. Liberalist and Power

Liberalism believes that state inclinations, rather than state capabilities, primarily determine the behavior of the state. As opposed to realism, in which the state is perceived as solo force, plurality of action is the cornerstone of liberalist thought. Varying aspects like economic system, government type, or cultural will shape preferences for a state’s practices.

Liberalism believes that “instead of an anarchic international system, there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation and broader nations of power, such as cultural capital and other forms of ‘soft power’. The ability to get what you want through relations with allies, economic assistance and cultural exchanges with rhetorical support for democracy and human rights and more generally, maintaining favorable public opinion and credibility abroad.” (Spear)

DOMAIN POWER

Domain power defined as power that done to society, territory and wealth. Then, range power is decision or rule of state as gift (to good action) or punishment (to bad action). And scope is all environments that obey government’s power.

MY OPINION

I think that the world has need of mutual understanding. The liberal mindset may have shortcomings and failings, but it is only through cooperation and communication that we can abolish war and engender war.

REFERENCES

–          Morghenthau, Hans. J. 1978. Six Principle of Political Realism, Politic Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, pp 4-15

–          Griffith, Mochn & O’Callaghan, Terry. 2002. International Relation: The Key Concepts. London & New York: Routledge

–          Evans, Graham & Newnham, Jeffrey. 1998. Dictionary of International Relations. London: Penguin Book pp. 522

–          Oxford Learner’s Pocket Dictionary

–          http://www.hoover.org (diakses 2008)

–          http://www.mtholyke.edu/acad/interl/pol11 (diakses 2008)

NATIONAL INTEREST


National interest is a county’s goal and ambitions ether economic, military or culture. National interest of a state is multifaceted. Primary is the state’s survival and security. Also important is the pursuit of wealth and economic growth and power.

Many states, especially in modern times, regard the preservation of the nation’s culture as of great importance.

Some claim that Morgenthau is the founder of international relations as an independent discipline. Before him, it was studied under history, political thought or international law. The more interesting side of him is function as a witness to his time.

DEFINITION AND ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST

In Defense of the National Interest (1951) he contended that moral principles must be linked with national interest and called for a reconsideration of the approach of the founding fathers. General moral principles must be filtered through the national interest if an effective political morality is to be attained, he argued.

Upon further investigation, there terms can be collapse into 2 general categories:

  1. The national interest of a single nation.
  2. The degree of communality of interest among two/ more nations.

We have the following six national interests:

  1. Primary interest: include protection of the nation’s physic, political, and cultural identity, survival against encroachment from the outside. It can never be compromised.
  2. Secondary interest: are those falling outside of a but contributing to it.
  3. Permanent interest: are those which are relatively constant over long periods of time. They vary with time, but only slowly.
  4. Variable interest: are what a given nation at any particular time chooses to regard as its national interest.
  5. General interest: are those which the nation can apply in a positive manner to a large geographic area.
  6. Specific interest: are usually closely defined in time/ space and often are the logical outgrowth of general interest.

We also have international interest:

  1. Identical interest: are those in which those nations hold in common.
  2. Complementary interest: those which (although not identical) at least are capable of forming the basis of agreement on specific issues.
  3. Conflicting interest: those not include in 7 & 8. Today, conflicting interest can be transformed through diplomacy, occurrence of events or the passage of time into common or complementary interest.

THE RELATIONS BETWEEN INTEREST AND POWER

Interest defined as power is at the core of politics. The pursuit of power is the struggle for control over the minds and actions of others. While many goals are pursued. In international affairs, attention to power is essential because goals are unlikely to be attained without it.

NATIONAL INTEREST AND MORALITY

Power is pursued through consequential thinking. That is, actions are taken in anticipation of particular consequences being achieved, not because of prior ethical/ moral imperatives, for instance. Power cannot be successfully pursued with arrogance because the latter leads to misperception and poor judgment.

PROPOSITION ABOUT THE NATIONAL INTEREST

  1. War and the use of force
  2. alliances
  3. diplomatic negotiations

MY OPINION

Today, the concept of the national interest is often associated with politic or realist who wish to differentiate their policies from ‘idealistic’ policies – that seek either to inject morality into foreign policy or promote solutions that rely on multilateral institutions which might weaken the independence of the state. As considerable disagreement exist in every country over what is or is not in the national interest, the term is as often invoked to justify isolationist and pacifistic policies as to justify interventionist or warlike policies.

REFERENCES

ü  Robinson, Thomas. W. 1969. National Interests. New York: Wayne State University Press

ü  Morgenthau, Hans & Thompson, Kenneth. 1985. Politics Among Nations, 6thedition. New York: McGraw Hill, p. 165

ü  http://www.nationalinterest.org

ü  http://www.hawaii.edu/intlrel/pols315/text…s

Copenhagen Accord: (ENGLISH)


Introduction

Copenhagen Accord is a set agreement made either by a small country (referring to developing countries) and large (refer to developed countries) in order to limit carbon dioxide emissions and replace the Kyoto Protocol (1997).

Copenhagen Accord is promises made by small states or big states to limit carbon dioxide emissions generated by them. This means they must make major commitments to reducing greenhouse gases which are subject to an international consulting and analysis. The deal was brokered by the five countries, China, Brazil, South Africa, India, and led by the United States and previously has been summarized into the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali (2009) which produces COP 15. COP 15 is at the important subject to be presented in negotiations by collecting approximately 115 countries around the world.

However, the agreement in Copenhagen Accord did not end with unanimous support, amid anger from some developing countries who say the Copenhagen Accord have specific targets to reduce carbon emissions. The result is far from an agreement legally binding which many people expect. The agreement set out in the Copenhagen Accord includes recognition of limiting temperature increase to less than 2C, and promised increased funding of $ 30bn (£ 18.5bn) to developing countries for three years to combat problems that are believed to contribute to climate change so far, such as illegal logging to promote forest preservation, industrial development with environment-friendly technologies and others. This describes the purpose of providing $ 100 billion per year in 2020 to help poor countries cope with climate change impacts.

What Conpenhagen Accord implies:

• “110 world leaders present and one issue on the agenda”; show there never was a meeting like this before. Countries that broker Copenhagen Accord, United States, China, India, South Africa, Brazil and the European Union, also represents a world in which the Balance of Power has changed significantly in the last 20 years.
• At the primary level, the conference showed a debate between the countries in terms of awareness to provide support and take action to address climate change issues. Explicitly, it symbolizes the awareness that climate change is currently central to the political thought of each country.
• Public awareness has also increased greatly. Seen from a wide variety of campaigns conducted around the world in the run-up to Copenhagen by non-governmental agencies, NGOs and the media business. So that shows that climate change issues have been understood and widely discussed by the whole society.
• Another change is very important is the concept of environmentally friendly is now a new economic model that now applies to every country. Business ideas without the concept of “environmentally friendly” is a bad idea. In Copenhagen, the developing countries and the world economies have agreed to announce a low carbon emission concept is a plan to progressively forward.
For the Copenhagen Accord is a failure (a tough combination):

• a combination of political will, public pressure and economic aid deemed not enough to make a lot of countries want to follow what is stipulated in the Copenhagen Accord.
• Negotiations are going on in the deal might have been the lowest bargaining position given by most countries due to not mention the Copenhagen Accord in a transparent manner required amount of emissions reduced.

• there is no verification of actions performed by developing countries, unless they are paid by developed countries.

• Although this agreement target limits global warming to 2C by-state temperature limit of pre-industrial countries as a quantitative need for action by countries and developed countries -but it remains unclear how the targets are achieved.

REFERENCE:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/COPENHAGEN/8426036.stm%5Bdiakses pada 19 Desember 2009]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/copenhagen/8424522.stm [diakses pada 19 Desember 2009]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/science/nature/8426835.stm [diakses pada 19 Desember 2009]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/science/nature/8426835.stm [diakses pada 19 Desember 2009]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/science/nature/8422133.stm [Pada 19 Desember 2009]

English version by Renny Candradewi

Tell your thinking about the issue of environmental change?
Americans as the largest contributor to emissions by 17% only agreed to reduce emissions with a bid of as much as 4% only. How do you see this American Policy?

Copenhagen Accord: Climate Change Issue


Pendahuluan
Berangkat dari isu lingkungan sebagai tempat tinggal manusia dan bumi sebagai sumber daya alam terbesar maka bukan hanya Indonesia, tapi juga seluruh negara di dunia lebih memberikan perhatian mereka terhadap pemeliharaan lingkungan hidup berkaca dari banyaknya bencana alam yang muncul karena ulah manusia, utamanya yang berkaitan dengan efek rumah kaca dan deforestation.
Copenhagen Accord adalah serangkaian agreement dibuat baik oleh negara kecil (merujuk pada negara berkembang) maupun besar (merujuk pada negara maju) dalam rangka membatasi emisi karbon dioksida sekaligus menggantikan Protocol Kyoto (1997) yang akan berakhir pada 2012 mendatang—perumusan poinnya terangkum dalam COP 15—hasil dari konferensi di Bali, dikenal dengan Bali Roadmap (2009). Copenhagen Accord dibrokeri oleh lima negara yakni China, Brazil, India, Afrika selatan dengan Amerika sebagai pemimpinnya.

Copenhagen Accord adalah salah satu janji yang dibuat oleh negara-negara kecil atau negara-negara besar untuk membatasi emisi karbon dioksida yang dihasilkan oleh mereka. Ini berarti mereka harus membuat komitmen utama untuk pengurangan gas rumah kaca dan tunduk pada konsultasi internasional dan analisis. Kesepakatan itu ditengahi oleh lima negara, Cina, Brasil, Afrika Selatan, India, dan dipimpin oleh Amerika Serikat dan sebelumnya telah dirangkum ke dalam United Nations Climate Change Conference di Bali (2009) yang menghasilkan COP 15. COP 15 inilah yang menjadi perihal penting untuk diajukan dalam negosiasi dengan mengumpulkan lebih kurang 115 negara di dunia.
Akan tetapi, kesepakatan dalam Copenhagen Accord tidak diakhiri dengan dukungan suara bulat, di tengah kemarahan dari beberapa negara berkembang yang mengatakan Copenhagen Accord yang sudah memiliki target spesifik untuk mengurangi emisi karbon. Hasil – keputusan untuk “mencatat” kesepakatan yang disusun oleh kelompok inti yang terdiri dari kepala negara pada Jumat malam – adalah jauh dari perjanjian yang mengikat secara hukum yang mana banyak orang harapkan. Kesepakatan yang tertuang dalam Copenhagen Accord antara lain mencakup pengakuan untuk membatasi peningkatan suhu menjadi kurang dari 2C dan menjanjikan kenaikan bantuan dana sebesar $ 30bn (£ 18.5bn) untuk negara-negara berkembang selama tiga tahun guna memerangi permasalahan yang diyakini menyumbang perubahan iklim selama ini, seperti ilegal logging, pemeliharaan hutan, pengembangan industri dengan teknologi yang ramah lingkungan dan lainnya. Ini menguraikan tujuan menyediakan $ 100 milyar per tahun pada tahun 2020 untuk membantu negara-negara miskin mengatasi dampak perubahan iklim tersebut.
Signifikasi dalam Copenhagen Accord:
• “110 pemimpin dunia hadir dan satu masalah pada agenda”; menunjukkan tidak pernah ada pertemuan seperti ini sebelumnya. Negara-negara yang menegahi Copenhagen Accord, Amerika Serikat, Cina, India, Afrika Selatan, Brasil dan Uni Eropa, juga mencerminkan suatu dunia di mana Balance of Power secara signifikan telah berubah dalam 20 tahun terakhir.
• Pada tingkat dasar, konferensi tersebut menunjukkan perdebatan antara negara-negara dalam hal kesadaran untuk memberi dukungan dan bertindak menyikapi persoalan perubahan iklim. Secara eksplisit, kesadaran ini menyimbolkan bahwa perubahan iklim merupakan pusat dari pemikiran politik dari setiap negara (saat ini).
• Kesadaran masyarakat juga meningkat secara besar-besaran. Terlihat dari berbagai kampanye yang luas dilakukan di seluruh dunia dalam run-up ke Kopenhagen oleh agensi non-pemerintah, LSM dan media bisnis. Sehingga secara menunjukkan bahwa isu perubahan iklim telah dipahami dan dibahas secara luas oleh seluruh lapisan masyarakat.
• perubahan lain yang sangat penting adalah konsep ramah lingkungan sekarang menjadi model ekonomi terbaru yang sekarang berlaku bagi setiap negara. Gagasan bisnis tanpa konsep “ramah lingkungan” adalah ide buruk. Dalam Kopenhagen, negara-negara berkembang dan dunia sepakat untuk mengumumkan ekonomi berkonsep emisi karbon rendah merupakan rencana ke depan yang progressif.
Sebab Copenhagen Accord merupakan suatu kegagalan (kombinasi yang alot):
• kombinasi kemauan politik, tekanan dari publik dan bantuan ekonomi dirasa kurang cukup untuk membuat banyak negara mau mengikuti apa yang telah ditetapkan dalam Copenhagen Accord.
• Negosiasi yang terjadi dalam kesepakatan kemungkinan besar merupakan posisi terendah tawar menawar yang diberikan oleh sebagian besar negara karena Copenhagen Accord tidak menyebutkan secara transparan jumlah emisi yang wajib dikurangi.
• tidak ada tindakan verifikasi dilakukan di negara berkembang, kecuali jika mereka dibayar oleh negara maju.
• Meskipun kesepakatan ini menargetkan batas pemanasan global hingga 2C berdasarkan batas temperatur negara-negara pre-industri sebagaimana kebutuhan akan aksi kuantitatif dari negara-negara berkembanga maupun negara maju—tapi masih belum jelas bagaimana target tersebut dicapai.

SUMBE:
news.bbc.co.uk/COPENHAGEN/8426036.stm.html [diakses pada 19 Desember 2009]
news.bbc.co.uk/copenhagen/8424522.stm [diakses pada 19 Desember 2009]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/science/nature/8426835.stm [diakses pada 19 Desember 2009]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/science/nature/8426835.stm [diakses pada 19 Desember 2009]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/science/nature/8422133.stm [Pada 19 Desember 2009]

Indonesia version: Devania Annesya

Pemikiran Politik Barat: Locke v.s. Hobbes


John Locke

–          Doktrin monarki absolut dianggap sebagai solusi yang terbaik[1]

–          Terdapat eberapa perdebatan mengenai kinerja parlemen yang terbentuk dan adanya konflik gereja, (perang tiga puluh tahun antara empire katolik dan empire protestan, pada 1618-1648)

–          Fenomena Glorious Revolution, yang mengilhami ‘kekuasaan terbatas’

Anggapan ‘Monarki Absolut’ tidak bisa diterima oleh J Locke (inductive analysis[GER1] )

–          Manusia lahir dengan persamaan dan kebebasan yang masih tunduk di bawah hukum alam yang bersifat normatif

–          Keadaan alamiah manusia ialah memiliki hak milik, hak hidup, dan kemerdekaan

–          Kebutuhan adanya masyarakat politik adalah untuk menjamin hak milik, hak hidup dan kemerdekaan manusia tadi (secara kolektif)

–          Masyarakat politik didasari pada kemauan manusia untuk menyerahkan kekuasaan pada tiap diri mereka pada pemerintah yang ada (ke dalam commonwealth-persemakmuran), sehingga yang berhak menarik kesimpulan terhadap segenap pelanggaran yang terjadi adalah masyarakat politik itu tadi, bukan penguasa secara otoriter[2]

–          Masyarakat sipil/ politik dibentuk untuk (melayani) kepentingan-kepentingan sipil mereka sendiri, yakni untuk hidup, merdeka, dan bebas

–          Sehingga jelaslah, monarki absolut tidak bisa diterima dalam alam pemikiran J Locke

pemikiran John Locke yang lain

  • Kondisi alamiah
  • Kontrak sosial
  • Kekuasaan mayoritas
  • Kedudukan agama dan negara
  • Keadaan perang: kekerasan yang digunakan terhadap orang lain
  • Kekuasaan orang tua (atas anak): sebatas kewajiban semata

[1] Doktrin monarki absolut memiliki akar dari pemikir Thomas Hobbes, yang menyatakan bentuk negara yang menurutnya paling ideal adalah kekuasaan yang terpusat pada satu orang pemimpin saja, tanpa pembagian kekuasaan pada parlemen, karena dikhawatirkan nanti ada pertentangan antara dua kekuasaan yakni antara parlemen dan penguasa itu sendiri sebagaimana yang dialami oleh Thomas Hobbes, dia terpaksa hijrah dari Inggris ke Perancis karena kekacauan antara Raja Inggris saat itu dengan parlemen yang berkuasa;

[2] J Locke menyangkal proposisi oleh T Hobbes


[GER1]

Teori Kontrak Sosial Thomas Hobbes v.s. Teori Kontrak Sosial John Locke