Author: Democraticfront

The democratic backsliding Indonesia is experiencing can be seen in the context of wider global trends and cycles. Democracies tend to progress in waves: retreats follow high water marks reached when a new regime is established, and they are followed by fresh waves of democratisation.

Indonesia’s current slide is not due to any particular policy failure, but a more general decline in the quality of democracy, which is largely structural and long-term in nature. The problem lies in the nature of the country’s electoral system and the deep flaws in its constitution.

During the initial phases of Indonesia’s democratization, politicians from many different interests negotiated for years to create a system that suited their individual needs and constituencies. This process was often laborious and time consuming, as parties carefully considered the implications of each amendment and bartered support for one proposal against another. The result is a complex set of rules that has not been easy to change, even though Indonesia now finds itself at a low point in its democratization cycle.

It is not just the political class that has become increasingly disenchanted with politics in Indonesia. The vast majority of the country’s citizens still hold positive views of their government and a strong belief that democracy is the best form of governance for their country. This reflects the hard work done by the governing coalition under President Joko Widodo to build a democracy that is responsive to citizen concerns.

For example, the governing coalition has created a commission to improve the country’s parliamentary elections, and it is rewriting laws to ensure that more Indonesians can vote in presidential elections. The commission is also addressing concerns about corruption in the military, and limiting the influence of religious extremists on the state.

These are important and necessary reforms, but they will not fix the core issues of democracy in indonesia. The country’s constitution and electoral rules remain deeply flawed, and a well-entrenched elite with ties to the Suharto regime remains in power. Poverty has been sharply reduced, but inequality is rising and there are insufficient funds to provide the services the population requires. The presence of radical sectarian groups exacerbates the challenges.

While Indonesia is a functioning democracy with a well-functioning economy, the democratic deficits it faces are serious and widening. Its civil liberties are not well protected, and there is a growing sense of intolerance for dissenting voices. For instance, freedom of assembly is restricted by a broad range of statutes, and the government imposes limits on property rights by regulating who may own what land. The government also restricts the activities of foreign NGOs. Moreover, the country has an inefficient judicial system that often fails to protect human rights and punish those who commit crimes. Lastly, the government’s coercive interference with the internal affairs of Indonesian political parties has been problematic. This has contributed to the emergence of a “party state” that is less transparent and accountable than many other democracies.

A democracy is a system of government by the people through elections and universal suffrage. Democracy also means a set of values, including freedom and respect for human rights, as well as an enabling environment at the local, national, and international levels. These values are critical for democracy to work: without them, there is no way to guarantee that the democratic process of lawmaking and governance actually brings about good outcomes for all.

A successful democracy is a dynamic social entity, which depends on citizen participation that is peaceful, respectful of the law and of other people’s differences, and tolerant of the views of those who disagree with you. It requires an active citizenry that keeps informed about what is happening, either through the media or by reaching out to elected officials and groups working on specific issues. Citizens are free to speak out when they believe that decisions and actions taken by their leaders do not reflect the needs, interests, or priorities of the population, or that they violate human rights.

Whether a democracy works or not depends on how people respond to differences, including economic modernization that disrupts traditional ways of life and attachment to beliefs. This is a global challenge that requires balance and compromise, as well as the recognition that a society can be both progressive and regressive, as long as there is not open warfare between these two forces.

It also depends on the ability of people to engage in constructive debate and negotiation with their representatives, especially when the elected officials they choose do not live up to their promises. This is why it is important to hold periodic and genuine elections, where those in power are required to renew their consent for their position in a timely manner. It is crucial for election systems to be administered by an independent body, and that the process is free from violence and other abuses.

In addition, the right to freedom of assembly and association allows individuals to organize with others to share their ideas and concerns, to form interest or lobbying groups, and to participate in protests when they feel that decisions are undemocratic or against their human rights. This is a vital part of democracy, and it applies to all individuals, regardless of their citizenship status.

The lesson plans in this collection use interviews with experts in different areas, like journalism, civic participation, and law, to help students explore the diverse uses of the term democracy. Journalists Sam Fleming and Judith February discuss the importance of a free press to democracy; civic entrepreneur Eric Liu examines how young people learn about civic engagement; and scholars Roy Hellenberg and Dylan Wray talk about the concept of ubuntu and its relevance to democracy beyond a western context. By recording big ideas and having class discussions, students can arrive at a definition of democracy through consensus and post it in a visible spot for the remainder of the lesson.

Democracy is the most popular political system in the world. It has brought many countries to economic prosperity and ushered in globalization and human rights. But the democratic experiment is not without flaws that have been exploited by dictators and authoritarian regimes. In the current political climate, the US must conduct soul-searching about its democracy and consider how it can become more inclusive and resilient to long-term, structural threats.

For Tocqueville, the key to understanding democracy lay in what he called civil society. Civil association in democratic societies is the wellspring of a shared sense of contingency, he believed. It interrupts certainties, impels people to question what they think they know, and gives them a glimpse of a world in which things could be other than they are presently.

Tocqueville saw that in democratic America civil associations did not just counter political despotism by placing a limit, in the name of equality, upon the power of government itself. They also spread a passion for the equalization of power, property and status among citizens, and taught them that these inequalities are not inevitable or God-given.

It is this radical sensitivity to contingency that enables democracy to prevent its own slide into tyranny by encouraging suspicion of the prevailing order of power, he believed. It teaches the privileged classes that they are not immune from pervasive distrust because a world in which power relations change constantly forces them to keep an eye on their own actions and those of their representatives.

Sadly, today’s democracy in the US is severely weakened by long-term problems like money politics, identity politics and wrangling between political parties. They have eroded the social norms that are normally used to curb antidemocratic behavior and weakened the legal net beneath.

If these long-term problems are not addressed, the acute threats to democracy will metastasize. To do that, we must build visions for the future lived experience of Americans in ways that diffuse hardened polarization with ideas that elevate shared desires while diminishing the influence of extremist communities supporting violence.

It is especially crucial to understand how the authoritarian movement cultivates a story that puts men, Christians and white people at the top of a status hierarchy. Writing off those at the bottom of this hierarchy simply pushes them together, and we must reach out to those in those communities who are more open to democratic values. This is why it is so important to encourage deliberative democracy exercises and support organizations that are trusted by marginalized groups who are willing to speak in favor of inclusion and against violence. It will take a lot of work and courage, but the reward will be a stronger, more robust democracy that can better resist long-term structural threats.

Freedom is an essential part of any society. It allows us to pursue our aspirations and makes it possible for people to live without fear. However, there are several different definitions of freedom and how we think about it changes the way we use it. For example, some people think that freedom only means a lack of restrictions while others believe that it is more than just a lack of restrictions. In fact, many people believe that freedom has to do with the way a person uses their freedom and how they treat other people.

The idea of freedom is a fundamental one and is found in all cultures throughout the world. It is used in the political realm in terms of democracy versus dictatorship, and it is also seen in the context of civil rights and the notion that people of all races, religions, genders, social classes and ideologies should be free. Freedom is also seen in the economic realm, and it refers to free markets, owning private property and being able to move around the country as one chooses.

In the philosophical realm, philosophers such as Immanuel Kant have made it a point to differentiate the concept of freedom and how it is defined. The idea of freedom has multiple meanings ranging from the transcendental notion of freedom as being the natural right of every human being to the concept of freedom that is based on moral law (Einheitliches Recht).

Kant also notes how the definition of freedom can change according to one’s perspective. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant points out that the meaning of freedom is relative. For instance, a man can think of himself as being free from jealousy or being free from an attachment to dogma, but these types of freedoms do not actually exist. The real freedom exists in the ability to see something new and not cling to the old.

The most common perception of freedom is that it is a state in which a person can do whatever they want without restraint or restriction. This can be a physical state such as when a person is not tethered to an object or the ground or it can be a psychological state of not having any ties or expectations to someone else.

In reality, no one can be completely free from something as there is always a constraint that exists. Whether this constraint is moral, legal, psychological or physically imposed depends on how an individual deals with it. Therefore, the true definition of freedom is how an individual tries to discipline themselves to not be swayed by these constraints and use their own free will. Using their own free will, they try to achieve their aspirations in an honest and responsible manner. This also includes protecting the freedom of other people, as those who do not understand this concept will impose on the rights and freedoms of others. This is why it is so important to teach students what freedom really means.

Law is a set of rules imposed by social or governmental institutions to govern behavior and shape politics, economics, history and society in different ways. The precise definition of “law” is a subject of debate but it generally covers a broad range of legal principles and guidelines. It is enforceable by government agencies and courts, and is designed to ensure fairness and safety. It has four main functions: establishing standards, maintaining order, resolving disputes and protecting liberties and rights.

The first function of law is to establish a standard of acceptable behaviour in a society. For example, it is a crime to injure another person without justification, as society has determined that this behaviour is not acceptable. The second function is to maintain some semblance of order in society. This is important because a society cannot function without some degree of stability. This is achieved through the laws that impose sanctions on people who break the rules and provide mechanisms for dealing with these violations.

Resolving Disputes

In a society made up of persons with diverse needs, views, values and beliefs, disputes are unavoidable. Law provides a formal way to resolve them by providing a court system that judges must follow. This can prevent violence from occurring and allow justice to be served.

Some scholars argue that the purpose of law is to protect society’s shared values or social norms. They believe that a well functioning society requires a shared set of values or norms that people must agree on in order to live together peacefully. However, this view is controversial because it implies that there is a definitive list of values and norms that constitute the common law and no room for individual interpretation.

Other scholars argue that the law should be left to a judge’s discretion because it is best able to adapt to social change and new circumstances by way of judicial interpretation and creative jurisprudence. This can be seen in the common law system of the United States where judges follow precedent based on previous case law. This differs from other countries that use a civil law system in which judges follow predetermined codes of conduct. This can cause significant differences in the law that is enforced, for instance adultery is a criminal offence in India under section 497 of IPC but not in America where it is not. This is because of the cultural and religious influences that influence how a country’s laws are interpreted.

The next big test for Indonesia’s democracy is an enormous one: On 17 April, 193 million people will enter hundreds of thousands of polling stations across the vast archipelago to elect a new national parliament, provincial and district legislatures, and local governments. It is the world’s largest single-day election.

Twenty-two years after the fall of Suharto’s dictatorship, the country’s democratic institutions have largely proven to be durable. The most important pillars of this infrastructure are the nation’s free, fair elections and its independent judiciary. But the democratic system has also been strengthened by the growth of civic activism and an array of nongovernmental organizations focused on democracy and human rights.

These civic groups have made their presence felt both inside and outside the ballot box, with citizens willing to protest when politicians fail to uphold economic development, social pluralism or democracy’s survival. And they have pushed the government to embrace deeper democracy through public consultations. Unfortunately, these civic groups have not always been respected, with journalists and publishers routinely subjected to extrajudicial threats or intimidation and NGOs relegated to a marginal role.

Another pillar is the country’s independent judiciary, which has proven to be a formidable force in combating corruption. The Indonesian Supreme Court and the Corruption Eradication Commission are two of the most robust and active bodies in the world. Yet this system has been under pressure, with prosecutors increasingly under the control of entrenched interests like business and religion and police frequently implicated in violence and intimidation.

Then there’s the political class: Indonesia’s established parties, Golkar and Megawati, have adapted to democracy. Their most important reform was the abolition of Suharto’s presidential veto, which paved the way for Habibie’s election in 1999 and later, Abdurrahman Wahid’s, as well as the subsequent transitions to civilian rule. Moreover, no Indonesian president has sought to reverse the democratic experiment and restore military rule, as has happened in neighboring Thailand and Burma.

For all its flaws and weaknesses, Indonesian democracy is a global model worth defending. It is a model that can inspire confidence in weak democracies and help those struggling to break out of autocracy that they are not at the point where everything is lost. It makes little sense for aspiring democracies to seek out some shining democratic city atop a hill: Rather, they should take lessons from loose analogues that can teach them how to make their own way up the mountain.

It is time for the Indonesian government to start acting on its normative plans for a more consolidated democracy, particularly those that entail expanding the democratic space beyond elections. Indonesia’s citizens deserve a government that is committed to democracy’s survival and that genuinely welcomes the challenge of governing under its conditions. It is up to Indonesian voters to hold the country’s politicians accountable, no matter how much they talk about embracing a deeper democracy. If they don’t, their days in office could be numbered. Fadhilah Fitri Primandari is an independent researcher and a senior research assistant at the CoronaNet Research Project.

Democracy is a political system based on the free choice of the governed, with respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It provides a structure for governance at the national level that ensures people have a say in decisions and can hold decision-makers accountable. This helps to achieve sustainable development and is an integral part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

The ancient Greeks are credited with creating the first democracy. Theirs was a direct democracy – in other words, instead of relying on elected representatives to govern on their behalf, citizens themselves debated issues and created policies. The modern world has many different kinds of democracy, including those with representative and participative systems. It is important to distinguish between these different forms of democracy, and to understand how they function.

Throughout history, governments have attempted to control the public’s thoughts and beliefs in order to maintain their power. But this approach suffocates the development of new ideas, and prevents society from evolving in healthy ways. The best way to protect a democratic system is to allow individuals to express their views freely, and even to criticize those in power without fear of being punished or imprisoned.

One of the most basic requirements for a democracy is the freedom of association and assembly (UDHR, Article 20). This right allows people to form groups in which they can discuss their ideas with others, to gather together to protest against government decisions they disagree with, or to meet with friends to discuss a common interest. This is often inconvenient for governments, but it is vital if different views are to be made known and taken into account.

Another essential feature of democracy is the free and equal right to vote (UDHR, Article 21). This guarantees that all eligible persons have the right to take part in a democratic process by voting for candidates representing their views, interests and aspirations. It also guarantees that all votes will be counted, so that every person has the same opportunity to participate in the democratic system.

Finally, a democracy must provide effective and accessible remedies for complaints or grievances raised by individuals. For example, it should have independent bodies which investigate allegations of electoral fraud or malpractice and which are not subject to veto by political parties or other interested parties. This will help to maintain transparency in the political system and strengthen the confidence of citizens in it.

It is not helpful to try to measure the quality of a democracy using a single yardstick or compare different countries against each other, as this risks overlooking important differences. Instead, international organizations such as Freedom House, the Economist Intelligence Unit, and Varieties of Democracy use a variety of factors to determine the extent to which a country is democratic. Ultimately, a democracy is a system that should be judged by its own citizens, who should decide how their country is governed and in what ways they want to be involved with it.

The US is not a straight A student when it comes to democracy. The world has a discerning eye and a deep sense of pessimism about American-style democracy, especially when it comes to US hypocrisy in exporting democratic values and acts of bullying and hegemony around the globe. The gunshots, farce and squabbling on Capitol Hill have revealed that beneath the gorgeous exterior of US democracy, there lies corruption and dysfunction.

In the 16 years since Donald Trump was elected, US democracy has deteriorated at an alarming pace. A recent survey found that only 16% of Americans think their democracy is working well or extremely well. This is a sharp decline from 38% who said this in 2004. The squabbling and the infighting are not only distracting from quality governance, but they also erode people’s faith in democracy. This is because they encourage citizens to view the state as a “black box,” an unaccountable power that is always out of control. In addition, the power of the media has distorted the function of the supposedly democratic system of checks and balances that was designed to prevent the growth of despotism in America.

This is a profound crisis of democracy. The public is disillusioned with politics and pessimistic about the country’s future. Amid this climate of cynicism, the world is entering its sixteenth year of democratic recession, with authoritarian leaders rising to power as voters abandon their democracies in favor of security and economic stability.

One of the most influential books of modern times, Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, is still regarded as a landmark breakthrough in our understanding of democracy as an extraordinary political form that stirs up people’s sense of contingency and makes them aware of how much of their current way of life might change if other conditions were to prevail. Tocqueville was fascinated by the new American society of civil associations, and he saw in it the germ of what he called the new mode of self-government that he had long dreamed of.

Tocqueville’s book is remarkable for its openness to paradox and its ability to juggle opposites. It is a work of profound intuitions, but it is also a work of immense scholarship, carefully gathered by a man with an adventurous spirit and the capacity to see the beauty in the midst of chaos.

The first and most important insight Tocqueville gleaned from his study of the young American republic was the centrality of a culture of civil associations. These institutions, which Tocqueville referred to as a “societe civile,” are an integral part of the democratic system and have radical social implications. The art of associating enables men to soften their customs and become more civilized, and it is through the practice of this art that democracy has been able to achieve its success. This is a powerful argument for democracy, and it is a case that has never been more relevant than today. – David Heldt, Professor of History at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Freedom is the power or right to act, speak or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. People in jail often long for freedom, as do those under a despotic government. In the United States, people have “freedom of speech,” which allows them to express their opinions without governmental interference (although this doesn’t extend to expression that defames, causes panic, incites rioting, creates fighting words, incites to sedition or is obscene). In addition to this freedom, there are many other types of freedoms, such as freedom of religion and freedom of the press.

The concept of freedom appears in Kant’s writings, including the Critique of Pure Reason, the Critique of Practical Reason and the Critique of Judgment. In all of these works, freedom is used in a varying number of different ways.

For example, in the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant sees freedom as a transcendental idea that is independent of the necessity of being a physical object, and in the Critique of Practical Reason, he uses it to define an objective moral law.

In the Critique of Judgment, he defines freedom in terms of liberation from the arbitrariness of one’s drives through sensuality and a sense of freedom that grounds a factum of moral law. Freedom is also seen as an absence of necessity and constraint in choice or action, and freedom from slavery or from the power of another.

As a result of these different uses, freedom has numerous definitions. It is most commonly defined as the ability to do what one desires without interference from others, but taken too far, this can be dangerous to society. In addition to this definition, freedom is a necessary component of self-fulfillment and the pursuit of happiness.

The word comes from the Latin frein, meaning “to love.” It is a quality that everyone should be able to enjoy, especially those in prison or under a tyrannical regime. In addition, freedom is a crucial ingredient in the success of a democracy.

For example, it is essential to the process of enfranchisement, which allows citizens to vote, run for office, and participate in a representative democracy. Freedom is a fundamental human right and should be respected by all nations and individuals.

To illustrate the concept of freedom, many teachers use a visual aid called a fence chart. It consists of a dot representing an individual and a closed line immediately around the dot to represent a limit on freedom. Each time an individual gains a new freedom, it forces the fence to back away from the dot. This adds a bulge of the new freedom to the area enclosed about the dot, and the more skills gained, the larger the bulge. For example, if someone learns to play the violin, this can cause the bulge of their freedom to expand in a violin-shaped fashion. This is a good way to show students that the more freedoms acquired, the more prosperous and happy a person will be.

Law is a set of rules created and enforceable by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior. Its precise definition is a matter of longstanding debate. Law has been variously described as a science and as the art of justice. In a nation, law can serve several purposes: (1) to keep the peace and maintain the status quo; (2) to preserve individual rights; (3) to protect minorities against majorities; (4) to promote social justice; and (5) to provide for orderly social change. The degree to which a law accomplishes these goals varies from nation to nation, and the nature of legal systems also varies. Governments range from autocratic to democratic, and the way in which they establish and enforce laws reflects their political and economic structures.

A key feature of the law is that it is a normative science, meaning that its statements about what people ought or should not do are deprived of descriptive characteristics (such as those of a physical law like the law of gravity) and are instead prescriptive in nature. However, this makes it difficult to use standard methods of empirical scientific research to test the content and effectiveness of a law.

Some scholars argue that a law can be evaluated only through its practical effects. In this view, a law’s function is to provide its citizens with certain minimum standards of human behaviour, such as not injuring other people or destroying their property. These standards are established by the legislature or by a legal institution, such as a court.

Other scholars have argued that the primary function of a law is to resolve conflicts between groups. This is the theory behind modern civil law jurisdictions, where a central legislative body sets the rules and judges interpret them. This is in contrast to common law jurisdictions, where judges create law through their decisions in a case-by-case manner.

Another important issue in law is determining the proper role of morality and values in a legal system. The philosopher Richard Posner has argued that a law can only be as valid as the values that supposedly support it. This has been called the moral impact theory of law. Some scholars argue that this theory has serious problems, and that it fails to account for the ways in which law can be abused by authoritarian governments. Others, including Salmond and Greenberg, have proposed other theories that can better account for the role of normative factors in a law’s content.