DENIZENSHIP DI INDONESIA Model Citizenship Orang-orang yang Tertolak

Vegitya Ramadhani Putri, Prof. Dr. Purwo Santoso, MA., Ph.D.

2012 | Tesis | S2 Politik dan Pemerintahan

Indonesia memiliki model citizenship yang khas, yaitu mengkontestasikan paradigma liberal ke dalam konteks komunitarianisme – padahal keduanya merupakan regime of knowledge yang tak terdamaikan. Asumsi liberal ditolak dalam perspektif komunitarianisme, begitu juga sebaliknya, klaim komunitarianisme juga disangkal oleh paradigma liberal. Karakter model citizenship di Indonesia berupa bekerjanya ideologi yang berkontestasi tersebut dapat dilabeli sebagai model denizenship. Metode penelitian yang digunakan yaitu analisis wacana (discourse analysis) interteks, sedangkan instrumen teoritik yang digunakan yaitu perspektif liberal dan perspektif komunitarianisme. Jejak konstruksi model denizenship dapat ditelusuri dari agenda setting dan konsekuensi dari agenda setting tersebut, yang berupa kecenderungan-kecenderungan. Arena penelitian ini yaitu mengelaborasi model citizenship di Indonesia dalam logic-framework perumus kebijakan publik. Lebih spesifik lagi yaitu, pada arena politik subsidi energi. Dari arena studi, dapat ditelusuri jejak-jejak konstruksi citizenship dalam nalar perumus kebijakan. Berdasarkan jejak-jejak tersebut dapat diidentifikasi bahwa bekerjanya structural adjustment program – yang pada kelanjutannya berkorelasi terhadap pengetatan APBN dan reduksi subsidi – dapat dijadikan bukti bahwa liberalisme adalah orientasi nalar perumus kebijakan dalam memaknai relasi kuasa antara negara dan warganegara. Nalar liberal bekerja dengan meminimalisir peran negara kepada warganegara sekaligus mengintegrasikan warganegara kepada pasar global. Terdapat situasi diskursif yang terjadi akibat bekerjanya nalar liberal dan nalar komunitarianisme secara bersamaan pada kebijakan subsidi energi. Privatisasi sektor pertambangan migas merupakan bagian dari paket liberalisasi investasi melalui deregulasi sektor tersebut. Akibatnya, terjadi tranformasi posisi energi sebagai komoditas strategis yang merupakan bagian dari amanat UUD 1945 – sebagai ‘hajat hidup orang banyak’ sehingga harus ‘dikuasai negara’—menjadi komoditas komersial yang diserahkan kepada mekanisme pasar. Meskipun Mahkamah Konstitusi telah memutuskan agar UU Migas dan UU Ketenagalistrikan di amandemen karena tidak sesuai dengan amanat konstitusi, namun pada kenyataannya, argumenargumen perumus kebijakan tetap dilandasi nilai-nilai liberalisme, sekaligus juga menggunakan klaim-klaim komunitarianisme. Komunitarianisme para perumus kebijakan tampak pada standingposition para pihak yang didasarkan pada kepentingan partai politik, instrumentasi lembaga-lembaga komunal, dan pertimbanganpertimbangan yang mendasari suatu keputusan, juga respon-respon terhadap keputusan tersebut. Dari perdebatan di parlemen maupun perdebatan di media massa, tampak bahwa para policy-maker – baik yang pro maupun yang kontra – sama-sama mempekerjakan nalar yang saling berkontestasi tersebut. Hal tersebut tampak pada pernyataan-pernyataan, konsideran-konsideran pada produk hukum, format dan orientasi harga, solusi kompensasi yang ditawarkan, alasan-alasan penolakan maupun dukungan, juga klaim-klaim yang diajukan. Melalui kata-kata kunci yang eksplisit, maka secara implisit dapat dirumuskan model citizenship dalam nalar perumus kebijakan publik di Indonesia, yaitu denizenship. Model denizenship adalah citizenship yang mempekerjakan dua nalar yang saling berkontestasi sehingga tak terdamaikan secara ideologis. Manifestasi model denizenship yaitu (1) menginstrumentasi legitimasi, melalui instrumentasi institusi komunitarian, instrumentasi institusi legal-formal, instrumentasi sentimen regional dan instrumentasi isu-isu populer; (2) berpolemik dengan eksklusi, dan (3) terobsesi pada kesetaraan. Sementara itu, operasionalisasi model denizenship melalui (a) transformasi hak menjadi derma, (b) transformasi warganegara menjadi konsumen, (c) transformasi kewajiban menjadi sukarela, (d) distorsi partisipasi, dan (e) bekerjanya fragmentasi dan eksklusi. Dengan demikian, maka dapat disimpulkan bahwa model citizenship di Indonesia adalah hibridasi-oposisional antara nilai-nilai liberal dan metode komunitarian, sehingga tepat jika disebut sebagai model denizenship. Oleh karena Indonesia menghibridasi paradigma liberal dan paradigma komunitarian – yang sejatinya keduanya bekerja dengan logika yang saling berkebalikan – maka berbagai friksi, pro dan kontra menjadi tak terhindarkan. Dengan bekerjanya model denizenship – yaitu mempekerjakan dan dipekerjakan oleh regime of knowledge yang saling berkontestasi dan tak terdamaikan– maka jelaslah causa berbagai polemik dan dilemma dalam relasi kuasa antara negara dan warganegara di Indonesia.

Background: Exposure to ultraviolet rays can cause damage to the skin, which include the process of tanning response as well as the decreased of skin elasticity. Research on the effects of UV exposure on human skin elasticity and tanning response has been demonstrated in various studies, but the correlation between tanning response and skin elasticity due to exposure to UV rays is still unclear. Objective: To examine the association between the elasticity of the skin with the tanning process that occurs due to exposure to UV rays. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried on 63 subjects, by measurement of RRT, L *, a*, b* and ITA ° of each subject. Examination of the elasticity and skin tanning was conducted in the extensor and flexor of subject’s lower right arm, using Reviscometer ® and Kromameter. Data analysis was performed using the technique of Pearson product moment correlation. Results: There is a significant correlation between the tanning response and skin elasticity due to exposure to UV rays. Based on the results of the analysis is known that tanning response based on skin brightness (Δ L*) and the changes in skin elasticity (Δ RRT) has significant and positive correlation, with coefficient correlation between two variables r = 0.501, and p = 0.000 (p <0.05) and tanning response based on skin color (Δ ITAo) and the changes in skin elasticity (Δ RRT) has significant and positive correlation, with coefficient correlation between two variables r = 0.508, and p = 0.000 (p <0.05) Conclusion: There is a correlation between the tanning response with the decreased of human skin elasticity due to UV exposure. package of investment liberalization through the deregulation of the sector. As a result, there was a transformation of the energy position as a strategic commodity that is part of the 1945 Constitution - as the 'welfare of the majority' so it must be 'controlled by state' become a commercial commodity delivered to the market mechanism. Although the Constitutional Court has decided that the Oil and Gas Law and the Electricity Act on the amendment because it is not mandated by the Constitution, but in reality, the arguments of policy-based fixed values of liberalism, while also using communitarianism claims. Communitarianism in the mind of policy makers was looked at the standing-position of the parties based on the interests of political parties, instrumentation-based communal institutions of the time, and the considerations underlying the decision, as well as responses to the decision. Of debate in parliament and debate in the media, it appears that the policy-maker - both pro and con - are equally employ the logic of mutual contestation. This is shown in the statements, preamble, preamble to the law of the product, format and price orientation, compensation solutions offered, the reasons for rejection or support, as well as claims filed. Through the key words are explicit, the implicit model of citizenship can be formulated in the sense of public policy formulation in Indonesia, namely denizenship. Model of citizenship that employs denizenship are two mutually contestation reason so ideologically irreconcilable. Chapter 2 Construction of citizenship is built not only as a consequence of the pressures that are supported by many parties, but also as a response to \"demands\" of the ruling class - in this study focused on policy makers. Tracking the traces of citizenship through the corridor construction (a) agenda setting and a variety of (b) trends as a consequence of setting the agenda shows that: First, interpretation of power relations between state and citizens affected by the liberal paradigm. This is evidenced by: (a) a gradual reduction of energy subsidies in the budget from year to year is a political choice based on the demands of structural adjustment programs to save money wherever possible state budget expenditure. (b) the implementations of structural adjustment programs in Indonesia is consequential to the tightening of budget spending - which option is the tightening of spending reductions in state energy subsidies - the impact on the configuration of the relation of its citizens. Options for tightening (spending) of government spending turned out to prefer a reduction of budget subsidies than others. Reflection of public policy choices are: minimization of the role of the state going to nationals, and at the same time, integrates citizens to the global market that emphasizes the price mechanism. Second, the liberal paradigm of dealing with the context of commonality in society that led to political choices taken - the policy of subsidizing the energy sector - a real dilemma and inconsistent with the liberal orientation itself. Contestation of liberal paradigm and communitarianism paradigm become inevitable. Meanwhile, the two regimes of knowledge are opposite to each other - that's where the assumption of the regime rejected the assumption that one regime to another - thus create oppositional hybridization. Ambivalence of oppositional contestation is the crucial issue on the model of citizenship in Indonesia. Of traces of polemics and dilemmas in the liberal-communitarian contestation that this oppositional model of citizenship, it can be elaborated in Indonesia is a denizenship model. Chapter 3 A similar situation can be interpreted so differently when interpreted by the regime of knowledge differently. Even so, this also happens when policymakers make sense of citizenship in relation to the politics of energy. Privatization of the mining sector - since the enactment of the Gas and Electricity Act - are the base of the energy dilemma. Rising fuel prices - as part of its policy of reduction of energy subsidies - have been repeatedly enforced, even when it has risen many times over. Which is a series of policy operationalization energy sector regulation - from privatization of Pertamina, the separation of the management of the upstream and downstream oil and gas, mining investmentderegulation so as to facilitate control of transnational corporations to exploit oil and gas, and the use of the international pricing benchmark as an indicator of domestic prices, and the gradual reduction of energy subsidies - a manifestation of the liberal ethos of working in the reasoning of the decision makers. Although the Constitutional Court approved the oil and gas law and judicial review of Electricity Act so highlight the definition of \"controlled by state\" as the role of the state towards the fulfillment of 'welfare of the majority', but considering that \"the 1945 Constitution did not reject privatization\" would be another dilemma that is not less complicated. What happened next is: transformation of fuel as a strategic commodity - which is the 'welfare of the majority' is - a strategic commodity is delivered to the market mechanism. Along with the 'devolution' in fuel prices to the market mechanism, then enforce lawsuit against the fuel price component. During this time the mining sector is a sector that is very exclusive, so the balance of expenditure and income of the country and the sector is also a lot of questionable validity - some fiscal experts to counter rising prices called 'stunt budget'. The reasons for the government to raise fuel prices - for example, concerning the high cost of imports to the state budget deficit, energy subsidies are poorly targeted, so need to be transferred to another form, and so on - not just ideologically opposed to Article 33 UUD 1945 and contrary to the 2012 State Budget Law, but also unacceptable both economically, politically as well. The debate in this massive policy making fuel becomes very difficult and delayed. Various policy alternatives are offered, ranging from restrictions on the initiative - which is the separation between the eligible citizens are not entitled to subsidies and subsidies - which eventually found a dead end because it is seen to be creating new problems, involvement of other institutions to obtain the 'legitimacy', and solution in the form of compensation programs on energy subsidies; a reflection of the workings of reason along with the reason liberal communalism. Learning from experience related to the previous subsidy compensation program, the planned increase in fuel prices this time does not run smoothly because many of the view that such programs tend to improve the image of the government's politically motivated, compared to improve people's lives. Strongreaction was seen in protracted debates about who gets response rates and strong opposition in parliament - especially from the political parties reject. Government looks likely to manipulate populist issue to justify the reasoning behind liberal policies and the reduction of fuel price subsidies, such as promising channeling subsidies directly to the public. Of ideological contestation behind the public policy debate on the visible workings of the two regimes of knowledge that contested. On the one hand, the privatization of the energy sector through the instrumentation as well as interpretation of laws, efforts to integrate domestic energy prices to international prices, the reduction of energy subsidies is seen as a stunt budget, etc.; is a testament to the workings of liberal reason. Along with that, arguing the state budget savings through subsidy limitation scheme 'who-not-eligible' and 'who-is-eligible', the underlying considerations of public policy choices, as well as the involvement of political actors based on partisan, well-agency involvement community-based organizations to get the justification of increased fuel prices showed that the sense of communitarian work in public policy formulation. Debates between the parties agree that the price increases and price increases often disagree and works constituted the basis of their respective communities. It was standing-position look at policy makers. Meanwhile, outside the parliament itself, opposition from the mass organizations which have a strong basis of legitimacy in the community - among Muhammadiyah, NU, regional communities, indigenous groups particular, as well as professional organizations - for example, or, service providers, and so on - who refused to rise in fuel prices, a proof of the workings of reason communalism. So, who is a citizen? An adage states: If someone dies of hunger, then it is called the 'tragedy'; but if there are millions of people die of starvation, then it is called as 'statistics'. For policy makers, citizens are a bunch of statistics. From the description of the contradictions and contestation of liberalism and communalism - are enriched with the issue of populism - the reason policymakers energy subsidies, it appears how the model of citizenship in Indonesia. The working regime of mutual knowledge is creating contestation debate 'irreconcilable' ideologically. Discursive situation is irreconcilable character of citizenship in the end create a mutually repel contestation so. In this thesis, the model is formulated as a model of citizenship denizenship. Chapter 4 Character and manifestation denizenship models will discuss in this chapter. From the above sequence, it appears that the model of citizenship in Indonesia is denizenship whisch is a contestation between liberal and communitarianism. Series of values to the method of reasoning, it can be measured that the liberal agenda continues to experience the reality of communal contestation. Manifestation of a model that can be categorized denizenship in three aspects, namely instrumentation legitimacy, equality and polemic dilemma obsession with exclusion. Thus the character of the denizenship model as oppositional contestation of liberal-communitarian comes from the regime of knowledge which continuous contested and repels each other (denying). In practice in Indonesia, then to adjust in the context of a very diverse categorization creates 'new' that cuts all the different communities, namely the economic degrees increments. Increments are then consequences the gradation relation between state and citizen, namely the transformation of the right to be charitable, citizens become consumers, the obligation to be voluntary, the distortion of participation, a strong fragmentation and the occurrence of exclusion. Manifestations denizenship models: (1) instrumentation of legitimacy, through instrumentation communitarian institutions, legal institutions, formal instrumentation, instrumentation and instrumentation regional sentiment popular issues, (2) engaged in a polemic with the exclusion, and (3) obsessed with equality. Meanwhile, the operationalization of the denizenship model through (a) the transformation of the rights to charity, (b) the transformation of citizens into consumers, (c) transformation into a voluntary obligation, (d) distortion of participation, and (e) the operation of the fragmentation and exclusion. Thus, it can be concluded that the model of citizenship in Indonesia is opposition contestation between the values of liberal and communitarian method, so accurately called a denizenship model. Theoretically, contestation between the regimes of knowledge – liberal regime and communitarianism regime – is then embodied in the power relations between state and citizen practically. This is an extract denizenship models at once abstract polemical citizenship and state-worship in Indonesia in a discursive situation irreconcilable. Finally, it is created a model denizenship, the citizenship of people who are rejected. Chapter 5. Conclusion Because Indonesia contests liberal paradigm and communitarian paradigm - which is actually both work with the logic of each other - the friction, the pros and cons become unavoidable. With the workings of the denizenship model - that is hired and employed by contestation by the regimes of knowledge - it is obvious as causa of various polemics and dilemmas in the power relations between states and citizens in Indonesia. Based on the description in the previous chapters, it traces the construction and formulation of models of citizenship in Indonesia are as follows: Traces of citizenship construction in Indonesia, especially in the political arena of energy subsidies, shows that citizenship in Indonesia is strongly influenced by the agenda of liberalism and practices of public policy where there is a tendency to minimize the role of citizens as well as integrate citizens to the global market. The arguments that forms the basis of reduction of subsidies and rising energy prices, showing the orientation of the reason the framers of liberal policies. At the same time, policymakers also used as an argument of reason communitarianism subsidy restrictions, as well as formulate a 'solution' of the energy subsidy compensation program. Meanwhile, a counter-response to rising energy prices, using the vehicle in conveying the rejection of the liberal policy of rising prices - for example in parliamentary debate and public debate - as well as use as a basis for legitimacy claims communitarianism. Populism paradigm also graced the discursive situation between the two regimes of knowledge that continues to contesting it. Both paradigms are 'irreconcilable' are working together in a logical policy makers. Thus, models of citizenship within reason policy-maker is denizenship, citizenship is an ongoing discursive situation. Liberal agenda with the typical way it works it works in the context of a communal society. Whereas the paradigm of liberalism and communitarianism is the paradigm of the two paradigms are mutually contestation, either theoretically or in practice - repel each other (denying). Indonesia citizenship model construction that brings the concept of liberal and communitarian context that gave birth to oppositional citizenship, so that the true model of citizenship in Indonesia is denizenship. There are several things that can be recommended from the results of this study, namely: Model Citizenship in Indonesia is an abstraction of citizenship-inpractice, not just textual but also contextual, so it can be used as models in understanding the political practices of citizenship in a wider scale. Model of citizenship-in-practice in this study are specific to the arena and the politicization of energy subsidies around each arena is, however, can be used as a reference in the test in a different political arena. Model Citizenship in Indonesia is a combination of reading by using the arguments of liberal and communitarian arguments, so it is very possible - and advisable - to make the formulation of models of citizenship with the approach or a different perspective. In this denizenship models, it is clear that oppositional contestation - as in citizenship in Indonesia are based on liberal values, but working with the communitarian method - this is what causes the various dilemmas and polemics in the state and citizen relations. Departing from this denizenship models, may be continued on further study - both on an academic level and at the level of praxis - to more carefully examine the configuration of state-citizen relations contests two regimes of knowledge that each contestation

Kata Kunci :