Pancasila Democracy Research Articles

Transformasi Teologis Politik Demokrasi Indonesia (Telaah singkat Tentang Masyarakat Madani dalam Wacana Pluralisme Agama di Indonesia)

Raised the urgency of the terms are, how the concept of civil society as a societal good that is created in the life of the nation in Indonesia, as the frame of the existing diversity, religion and culture, and political system of Pancasila democracy. Civil society in the context of Indonesian is how to control the formation of communities in the state through institutional self-activity, independence and autonomy, as well as the establishment of an embodiment of a democratic society. In the context of the Indonesian Pancasila principles, and also with a democratic system of governance, and there is this dilemma and think about the ideal, which is between the Islamic faith and respect for the rights and freedom of religion, politics and the state. The presence of Islam in the transformation objective and mainly do the religious rights and political and human resources in line with the agenda, as well as religious harmony. Islam in Indonesia is constructed precisely by turning good value in the social sphere, culture, politics, economy, education, and access to the system, which in this case involves the rules in the management of the nation's life. We need to develop democratic institutions, especially political institutionalization, as well as to ensure the continuity of effective bureaucratic government open and participatory. This paper examines an attempt to briefly try on civil society in the discourse of religious pluralism in Indonesia with the social - political approach.

Aktualisasi Demokrasi Pancasila dalam Kehidupan Berbangsa dan Bernegara

Democracy, as well as a fundamental principle in virtually all countries, has also become principles in the country. Several typologies of democracy indicates a new pattern generated from the basic theory of democracy. Pancasila Democracy is essentially the norms regulating the conduct of the people’s sovereignty and the running state government, in the political, economic, social, cultural, and defense, for every citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, both at central and regional levels. The concept of Pancasila democracy excavated from the original values of the society that developed in Indonesia. Pancasila Democracy is a middle path that must be addressed wisely because it is a unifying alternative between Indonesia multicultural society. Permalink/DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15408/sd.v2i2.2815

Demokrasi dalam Sejarah Ketatanegaraan Republik Indonesia

Abstract; this paper highlights democracy in the history of the constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. In the history of the nation, from independence to now, there are three kinds of democracy that once applied in the constitutional life of Indonesia, namely the liberal democracy, the guided democracy, and the Pancasila democracy. The liberal democracy leads to a failure of the Constituent establishing Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 as a replacement of Undang-Undang Dasar Sementara 1950. The Guided Democracy is under the reign of the old order and the Pancasila democracy is under the rule of the new order. Although the initial concept for the period intended as an implementation of the fourth principle of Pancasila, but the power was ultimately centralized on the hand of President. A failure of the old and the new order to uphold the values of democracy cause a reformation. In this reformation era, the values of democracy are expected to be enforced.Keywords: The liberal democracy, the guided democracy, the Pancasila democracy

Karakteristik kewarganegaraan yang demokratis dalam perspektif demokrasi Pancasila

Pancasila democracy is a constitutional democracy. Characteristics of Pancasila democracy are: (1) the scope is not limited in the sense of political democracy, but also covering the economic and social democracy, (2) in the spirit it contains the religious, humanist, collectivism (kekelurgaan­patterns of village life), (3) although modern democratic institutions that are used but in decision­making mechanisms of soao-cultural institution that is native consultation system. Pancasila democracy has these' characteristics, a characteristic of democratic citizen in the Homeland, for . example: relegious, humanist, nationalist, democratic and socialjustice. Suchh characteristics will distinguish the state with citizens of non-Pancasila democracy

The Difficult Journey of Democratization in Indonesia

Based on the current literature on democratization in Indonesia is not yet consolidated. The masses and elites need to learn to adjust their political practices and institutions to modern liberal political behavior. This article argues that democratization may be more fruitful if seen from an Indonesian context. In Indonesias political history western ideas of liberalization and freedom and local and political ideas such as the New Orders Pancasila democracy religious and traditional attitudes and mass movements inspire many of the political practices in post-Soharto politics. It is through exchanges of those ideas political practices and institutional experiences that new social agreements on the future form of in Indonesia will emerge. (authors)

Progress in Democratic Experiment in Indonesia?

It would otherwise have been routine business just as it has been once every five years. The People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) resulting from the general elections the year before would convene. It was the fourth in the period of the New Order since President Soeharto came to power. And as before, the outcome would have almost entirely been a foregone conclusion. President Soeharto's accountability report to the MPR would be approved. President Soeharto would be re-elected for another five-year term, his fifth. And, as before, a new Vice-President would be elected. Something, however, seems to have gone awry this time. Though aborted, there had been two candidates for the vice-presidency. It was unprecedented, and no one seemed quite prepared for the unexpected turn of events. Was there to be voting? What would happen to Pancasila democracy, usually conceived as a uniquely Indonesian democracy based on the state ideology of Pancasila, or the five principles of belief in God, humanity, national unity, democracy and social justice, which should adhere to the principle of unanimity? Was it a setback or progress in Indonesian democratic life? What does the future hold for Indonesian democracy? In such a light, the year 1988 was thus, in a sense, a turning point in Indonesia. It was a turning point in democratic experimentation. But the unprecedented development represented by the emergence of two candidates for the vice-presidency, important though it was in itself for the future of Indonesian democracy, may have been but an expression of expectations that permeated the atmosphere surrounding the sessions of the MPR. There were expectations that this time the MPR sessions would be more than routine business. It might be the onset of the long-awaited process of a peaceful generational change, the transfer of national leadership.1 That, indeed, was an issue of great significance for the future of the nation. But how was, and is, this generational change to proceed or to be effectuated in the context of Indonesian democracy? Does Pancasila democracy provide the necessary mechanism, while the country is yet to develop a tradition of peaceful change of leadership? Did the MPR sessions of 1988 provide any clues? How should Pancasila democracy develop in the face of such an unavoidable challenge? These are crucial issues to which Indonesians should squarely address themselves sooner or later, and perhaps better sooner than later, if the nation is to avoid a leadership change that would have to be triggered by another traumatic social and political upheaval that would be a serious

An introduction to the articles on Indonesia

In May 1987, general elections will be held in Indonesia. These will be the fifth such elections since the country's independence in 1945, and the contesting parties will be the government electoral organization, GOLKAR, which convincingly won the last elections, the largely Muslim PPP (Unity Development party), and the small Christian and nationalist PDI (Indonesian Democratic party). After the previous elections in 1982, the Indonesian government made the claim that the proceedings had been “direct, general, free and secret,” and indeed it was difficult to find more than incidental evidence of fraud or manipulation in the conduct of the poll itself. However, this attempt by “Pancasila Democracy” to claim kinship with the Western democratic tradition studiously ignored the context of political restriction which has operated in Indonesia for the last three decades. Since such claims are likely to be revised after the coming elections to suggest that the power of the New Order government of President Suharto rests on the active consent of the people, the editors of the Bulletin have thought it appropriate to devote this issue to a closer examination of the recent political history of Indonesia.

The 1977 Indonesian Election And New Order Legitimacy

the cause of this tension was the difference between what the government said and what it did, between the stated commitment to build Panca Sila Democracy and the general perception of few-holds-barred manipulations designed to ensure government victory and opposition defeat. The effect was that, despite a 62% popular majority, the government's goal of maintaining its right to rule through electoral processes was not achieved. Ongoing conflicts over leadership, policies, and constitutional issues have thus not been resolved and indeed have been only marginally influenced (probably to the disadvantage of the present government) by the campaign and its outcome. Establishing Legitimate Government in Indonesia In liberal democratic theory, elections are'the link between the principle of popular sovereignty and the practice of government by a small number of officials. Citizens choose their leaders and, through those choices, decide on the substantive issues of the day. Assurance that election results reflect the people's will is provided by a set of guarantees ? usually contained in a constitution or other basic law ?concerning freedoms of speech, press and assembly, election procedures, an independent judiciary, and so on. These rules are accepted by politicians as a given of the system in which they operate and constitute an essential constraint on their behaviour. From the early days of Indonesian nationalism, popular sovereignty has been the generally accepted legitimating principle of government. The 1950 Constitution, on which the first posttransfer of sovereignty governments was based, expressed this principle in liberal democratic terms. An elected Parliament and a cabinet chosen by majority rule were the central institutions of government. In the first general election in 1955, a large number of parties competed for 257 seats in Parliament. Four were successful: the Indonesian Nationalist Party (PNI), with 22.3% of the votes and 57 seats; the Masyumi, a modernist Muslim party, with 20.9% of the vote and 57 seats; the Nahdatul Ulama (NU), a more conservative Islamic party, with 18.4% and 45 seats; the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) with 16.4% and 39 seats. No other party won more than 8 seats (Herbert Feith, The Indonesian Elections of 1955, Ithaca,