By: Endang Sari
Political Science Lecturer of FISIP Unhas
The Shiro Copr - The views of Max Weber on the legitimacy of power should be a common reflection in recent times.
According to Weber, power will only be obeyed if it is considered legitimate by those who are governed.
Modern democracy lives on this legal-rational legitimacy, that is, a form of power that is legitimate because it arises through procedures that have been jointly agreed upon, namely, elections.
After the Constitutional Court (MK) decision to separate national and regional elections, it has resulted in changes to the schedule for the inauguration of DPRD members elected in the 2024 election, making them non-synchronized with the national inauguration.
This marks a critical point in Indonesia's democratic journey. The consequences are not light.
The decision has direct implications for the extension of the term of office of regional legislative members by two and a half years longer than originally scheduled, without re-election or renewal of mandate.
This long break is not merely an administrative matter, but a fundamental test of the basic principles of democracy: whether a representative who has served too long still carries legitimate representation?
Hanna Fenichel Pitkin, in her classic study on the concept of representation, emphasizes that representation is not only about the existence of a representative in an institution, but about the quality of the relationship between the representative and the represented.
Substantive representation occurs when representatives genuinely act to realize the public interest, not merely occupying a formal position.
In the long transition period, when society is not given the opportunity to replace or renew their choices, substantive representation is at risk of thinning.
The representative may continue his duties in a procedural manner, but the quality of the relationship with the constituents gradually declines.
Moreover, in democracy, the people's aspirations are not static entities. They move, grow, follow events, experiences, and crises.
Political configurations in 2024 may not be relevant in 2030. While members of the DPRD elected in 2024 will still hold office until 2031, there is a risk that they may no longer reflect the current interests, issues, and vision of the public.
In other words, they become the holders of past legitimacy for a changed era.
Regarding legitimacy, Max Weber, as explained at the beginning of this article, provides an important theoretical basis for understanding it.
For Weber, legitimacy is the key to the realization of stability and continuity of a political social system.
If the legitimate procedure, namely the election, is not carried out, then even if the regulations allow for the extension of the term, the social acceptance of the representative of the people may weaken.
The community can question whether their representative is truly still a "representative" or merely an administrative figure who continues to hold office due to the system.
The issue becomes complex when we view the legislative power as a political actor performing strategic functions: compiling the budget, enacting regional regulations, and overseeing the administration.
When these important functions are carried out by individuals or groups whose mandate has not been renewed, the decisions made risk being seen as not representing the will of the current society.
Democracy then lost its vital element: renewal.
Indeed, legality provides the basis for extending the term until a successor is inaugurated.
However, in democracy, legality is not the final point.
It must be aligned with social and moral legitimacy. We are not only asking "Is it permissible?" but also "Is it appropriate?"
In the context of representatives, it is appropriate to actively represent, not to represent because there is no other choice.
The way out is not merely to accelerate the election or shorten the term.
What is much more important is designing a substantially democratic transition mechanism.
The people must continue to be given a participatory space to speak, participate, and supervise.
Transitional representatives should be more open, limit long-term strategic decisions, and actively report their performance to the public.
In this transitional period, the communication space between the people and their representatives becomes crucial for maintaining legitimacy.
Community forums, digital channels, and mass media must be empowered so that the voice of the people is not cut off.
Because, according to Pitkin's theory, representation only lives if there is a continuous relationship between the represented and the representative.
If this relationship is broken due to time, procedure, or indifference, then democracy is heading towards a loss of meaning.
The two-and-a-half-year transition period is a time that must be prepared for.
This era can be made more effective and become a reflective space where the people's mandate should not become frozen.
On the contrary, it must continue to be kept alive through participation and transparency.
If the election is delayed, the representational space must be expanded so that the people's voice remains present in every political decision.
Legitimacy is not only about regulation, but about the relationship between power and the people.
Do we still uphold the principle that power is only legitimate if it is elected? Or are we slowly accepting that procedures are sufficient, even if participation is delayed?
If we still agree that the people's voice is the highest sovereignty, then the transition period is not an administrative break, but a test of democracy.
The time must be a contemplative space where political representation is not frozen, and legitimacy does not arise solely from procedures, but from the continuous revitalization of public engagement.
Comments
Post a Comment