The Executive & Legislative Process

PERKULIAHAN KE IV ke V 31 OKTOBER & 7 NOVEMBER 2008
THE EXECUTIVE PROCESS
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
MUDA PRAJA KELAS F5 DAN D1
PENGANTAR ILMU POLITIK
NURLIAH NURDIN,S.SOS, MA

RINGKASAN:
Miriam Budiardjo (Bab 8 & 9 ):

Austin Ranney ; Governing An Introduction to Political Science (chapter 12)



• Executive is the star (core) of the government
• Executive : head of non legislative and non judicial agencies who are elected or appointed for limited terms to supervise the making and execution of government policies.
• Executive in modern governments: the presidents, prime ministers, monarchs, dictator, juntas
• Two fundamental executive functions: 1) chief of state = the official who acts as the government formal head and spokesperson. 2) head of government = the official who leads and supervises the officers and agencies that initiate and enforce the government’s policies.
• Executive as Chief of State:
1. Hereditary Monarchs= person who inherit their positions as chiefs of state. Direct:British, Belgian, Scandinavian, Japanese emperor. Indirect: British Commonwealth, Australia Canada, New Zeland
2. Elected Monarchs=leaving the monarchs only ceremonial functions of a chief of state. Austria, Germany, Iceland, India, Italy,Turkey
3. Directly Elected Heads of Government=directly elected the chief of executive as well as head of government, such as; USA,Argentina,Brazil, Colombia,Costa Rica, Cyprus,Ecuador, Finland, France, Venezuela
4. Collegial Executive: Swiss= seven member federal council, selected every four years by the two houses of national parliament meeting in joint session

• Executive as Head of Government (President)
1. President and Prime Ministers
US Presidential roles: chief executive (diplomat, commander, emergency leader, party leader, legislator) and Chief of State
2. Prim e minister ( ministry, cabinet)

• Politics involves conflict: some form of struggle among people trying to achieve different goals & satisfy opposing interests
• Conflicts is an essential and inescapable consequence of the fact that people live together in societies and not in isolation from another
• Political interest: something of value to an person or group to be gained or lost y what government does or does not to do
• Politics is conflict among individuals and groups over the formation of public policy
• Tactics of political action: a)lobbying= direct efforts by representatives of pressure groups to influence public officials to act as the group wish—hearing—techniques of persuasion; b) working on political parties; c) mass propaganda; d) litigation; e) demonstration (protest groups by picketing, mass marching, chanting slogans, blocking road, occupying public buildings); f) strikes & boycott (collective work stoppage by industrial workers for economic goals & refusal by group to deal with another private group/public agency to achieve economic/political goals); g) nonviolent civil disobedience; h) violence
• Characteristics of political conflict: a) multiplicity (economic class, occupation, gender, ethnicity, religion, morality, ideology, quality of life); b) opposition (seeking conflicting goals); c) overlapping membership; d) imperfect mobilization


Rob Hague, et.all : Comparative Government and Politics (chapter 1= meeting 1st)

• Definition of politics: a process whereby a group of people whos opinions interest are initially divergent, reach collective decisions which are generally accepted as a binding on the group and enforces as a common policy
a. collective activity, involving people
b. diversity of views, goals, means
c. reconciling such differences by discussion &persuasion
d. authoratitative policies
• Government is institutionalized politics = consists of institutions responsible for making collective decision for society
• State is a political community formed by a territorially- defined population which is subject to one government
• Sovereignty: ultimate source of authority in society. Internal = refers to law making power within a territory; external= international recognition of the sovereign’s jurisdiction over its territory
• A nation is a people inhabiting a defined territory which seeks political expression of its share identity usually a claim to statehood. Nationalism= the key ideology self determination
• Power is a currency of politics; is the capacity to produce intended effects
• Authority is the right to rule, right to act : a legitimate is based on authority
• Comparison:
A. Democratic vs authoritarian states
Authoritarian regimes: political system with limited, not responsible, political pluralism, without elaborate and guiding ideology…..a leader/ a small group exercises power within formally ill –defined limits
Totalitarian regimes: share the absence of pluralism, total control

B. Consolidated vs Transitional Stated
A consolidated stated provide accepted framework for political competition, governing institutions are well-developed, predictable
Transitional States: seeking to establish a new form of government

C. Develop vs Developing Worlds
Traditional developed countries =industrial societies: USA, Japan
Newly Industrial countries= manufacturing capability,higher living standars :South Korea,Mexico
OPEC Countries: Kuwait, Saudi A
Middle Income; Egypt
Least Developed: Niger
Austin Ranney: Chapter 11. The Legislative Process
• Presidential and Parliamentary democracies
• Presidential democracy: principle of division of government power among coequal legislative and judicial branches
• Parliamentary system: government organized according to the principle of fusion of power
• Separation of power in Presidential democracies: separation of personnel, check and balances
• Fusion of power in parliamentary democracies: overlap of personnel, formal supremacy of parliament
• Functions of legislatures: statute making; constitution making & amending; electoral functions; financial functions, quasi-executive functions; quasi-judicial functions; investigation functions; informational functions
• Structure and Procedures of legislatures: number of houses; handling bills;

PENGANTAR ILMU POLITIK

PERKULIAHAN KETIGA 24 OKTOBER 2008
MUDA PRAJA KELAS F5 DAN D1
INSTITUT ILMU PEMERINTAHAN
PENGANTAR ILMU POLITIK
NURLIAH NURDIN,S.SOS, MA

RINGKASAN:
Miriam Budiardjo (Bab 1 & 2)
• Memahami konsep pokok politik: Negara, kekuasaan, pengambilan keputusan, kebijaksanaan, pembagian /alokasi
• Bidang Ilmu Politik: teori politik (sejarah perkembangan ide/teori ), lembaga politik (konstitusi,pemerintah nasional &local,fungsi ekonomi social & pemerintah,perbandingan lembaga politik); partai (golongan, partisipasi, pendapat umum);hubungan internasional (politik internasional,organisai intl & hukum internasional)
• Konsep politik:
A. Filsafat POlitik:ratio, universe ,alam, politik, asal usul lahirnya norma
Teori Politik Sistematis: penerapan norma dlm kegiatan politik
Ideologi Politik: himpunan nilai,ide sbg dasar tingkah laku politiknya
• Masyarakat, nilai yang ada: kekuasaan, pendidikan, kekayaan,kesehatan,ketrampilan, kasih sayang, kejujuran, keseganan
• Negara,tugas: mengendalikan/mengatur kekuasaaan social mengorganisir kegiatan manusia ke tujuan masya.
• Sifat Negara: memaksa,monopoli, mencakup semua
• Unsur Negara: wilayah, penduduk,pemerintah, kedaulatan
• Fungsi Negara: law & order, prosperity, security, justice

Austin Ranney ; Governing An Introduction to Political Science (Chapter 1)

• Politics is the process of making government policies
• Politics involves conflict: some form of struggle among people trying to achieve different goals & satisfy opposing interests
• Conflicts is an essential and inescapable consequence of the fact that people live together in societies and not in isolation from another
• Political interest: something of value to an person or group to be gained or lost y what government does or does not to do
• Politics is conflict among individuals and groups over the formation of public policy
• Tactics of political action: a)lobbying= direct efforts by representatives of pressure groups to influence public officials to act as the group wish—hearing—techniques of persuasion; b) working on political parties; c) mass propaganda; d) litigation; e) demonstration (protest groups by picketing, mass marching, chanting slogans, blocking road, occupying public buildings); f) strikes & boycott (collective work stoppage by industrial workers for economic goals & refusal by group to deal with another private group/public agency to achieve economic/political goals); g) nonviolent civil disobedience; h) violence
• Characteristics of political conflict: a) multiplicity (economic class, occupation, gender, ethnicity, religion, morality, ideology, quality of life); b) opposition (seeking conflicting goals); c) overlapping membership; d) imperfect mobilization


Rob Hague, et.all : Comparative Government and Politics (Chapter 1)

• Definition of politics: a process whereby a group of people whos opinions interest are initially divergent, reach collective decisions which are generally accepted as a binding on the group and enforces as a common policy
a. collective activity, involving people
b. diversity of views, goals, means
c. reconciling such differences by discussion &persuasion
d. authoratitative policies
• Government is an institutionalized politics = consists of institutions responsible for making collective decision for society
• State is a political community formed by a territorially- defined population which is subject to one government
• Sovereignty: ultimate source of authority in society. Internal = refers to law making power within a territory; external= international recognition of the sovereign’s jurisdiction over its territory
• A nation is a people inhabiting a defined territory which seeks political expression of its share identity usually a claim to statehood. Nationalism= the key ideology self determination
• Power is a currency of politics; is the capacity to produce intended effects
• Authority is the right to rule, right to act : a legitimate is based on authority
• Comparison:
A. Democratic vs authoritarian states
Authoritarian regimes: political system with limited, not responsible, political pluralism, without elaborate and guiding ideology…..a leader/ a small group exercises power within formally ill –defined limits
Totalitarian regimes: share the absence of pluralism, total control

B. Consolidated vs Transitional Stated
A consolidated stated provide accepted framework for political competition, governing institutions are well-developed, predictable
Transitional States: seeking to establish a new form of government

C. Develop vs Developing Worlds
Traditional developed countries =industrial societies: USA, Japan
Newly Industrial countries= manufacturing capability,higher living standars :South Korea,Mexico
OPEC Countries: Kuwait, Saudi A
Middle Income; Egypt
Least Developed: Niger

BIOPOLITICS: XENOTRANSPLANTATION

THE WAY TO PROCEED WITH EXPLORING XENOTRANSPLANTATION


INTRODUCTION

The definition of Xenotransplantion

"Xenotransplantation" is a new word that it is not even found in many nonmedical dictionaries. When writing this word on computer for example, it will be redlined as a sign of an unrecognized word. It specifically refers to the transfer of body parts from a member of one species into a member of a different species. For the purposes of this discussion, however, the term xenotransplantation generally will refer to the replacement, typically by a surgical operation, of a damaged or diseased vital organ or part (such as a liver, heart valve, or tissue) by a healthy version of the same organ from an animal (such as a baboon or a pig) into a human being.
Following to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) , xenotransplantation refers to any procedure that involves the transplantation, or infusion into a human recipient of either: (a) life cells, tissues organs from a nonhuman animal source, or (b) human body fluids, cells, tissues, or organs.
According to Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), "xenotransplantation" refers to any procedure that involves the use of live cells, tissues, or organs from a nonhuman animal source that are injected, implanted, or transplanted into a human being. (These live nonhuman cells, tissues, or organs are called xenografts). Xenograft products include combination products that contain xenografts in combination with drugs or devices, and may be derived from transgenic or nontransgenic animals. (Transgenesis is the process of introducing a gene into an animal, usually for experimental purposes.) Although it would seem that many of the same ethical and economic issues would be implicated, the DHHS definition of xenograft products specifically excludes such significant nonliving animal products as porcine heart valves (regulated by FDA as medical devices), porcine insulin (regulated as a drug) and bovine serum albumin (regulated by FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).

The distinction between organ and tissue xenotransplants

There is a clear difference between organs and tissues xenotransplantation. The break news seems to put more attention into organ xenograft rather than tissue xenograft. The extensive thoughts of organ xenograft because it involves blood transmission consequently deliver retrovirus to the recipient. Therefore, the public attention concerns more likely to the organ xenotransplants than tissue xenotransplants. Organ xenotransplants could include whole hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys or pancreas of animals. Tissue xenotransplants could include skin grafts for burn victims, corneal transplants for the visually impaired or bone transplants for limb reconstruction. The public concern has been more likely about the organ xenotransplants than tissue xenotransplants because the former delivers blood that is believed to contain retrovirus.
Even though it is not as an immense an issue as organ xenotransplant, tissue xenotransplants have shown potential benefit to human treatment’s disease. Cellular xenotransplants may be a way to treat people who have diabetes or Parkinson's disease. Ongoing “clinical trials” include the use of fetal porcine neural cells to treat intractable epilepsy (the only other therapy is a lobectomy), refractory Parkinson's disease, and Huntington's disease; various animal tissues as skin grafts for burn victims; baboon bone marrow to alleviate the effects of AIDS; bovine adrenal cells to relieve intractable chronic pain; encapsulated porcine islet cells to treat diabetes mellitus; xenogeneic hepatocyte cells as extracorporeal liver-assist devices; and porcine livers as a temporary bridge to human organ transplantation .
Being potential curing some diseases and bridging the gap of shortage organ, however, xenotransplantation exists with debatable issue between pros and cons. The pros argue that the potential benefit of xenograft can aid humans from the scarcity of organs. The cons maintain xenograft transfers the retrovirus risk and this is an ethical issue. On the other hand, the policy of proceeding with xenotransplantation is obviously the window to continue any possibilities of processes developed for xenotransplantation. Understanding the demand for more organs, the possibility of animal organs and the caution of current policy preventing the risk tempt the author to examine the policy to continue xenotransplantation. The paper question : how effective is the current policy in paving the way to proceed with exploring xenotransplantation? Especially when the scientists find the challenges with xenograft, they must also define how to obtain a means of risk assessment, risk prevention and risk management.



XENOTRANSPLANTATION DIMENSSION

The demand for more organs

Transplantation is now well known as a solution to cure patients with end-stage organ failure when medication with drug or restorative surgery is not viable. Consequently, the successful progress in organ transplants is an increasing demand for therapy and as a result, for additional human organs. Currently, this demand cannot sufficiently be met because of a donor scarcity . A lack of human organ donors has created the need to find an alternative. According to Caplan , a number of research groups explore the option of using animals as the source of transplantable organ issues.
The demand for human organs in the United States alone increased by 49 percent between 1988 and 1997, from 12,786 to 20,672, and the length of the waiting list also increased. In 1997, the number of transplant recipients represented less than half the patients on the waiting list. Similar to the USA, Western Europe has 40 000 patients are waiting for kidneys, while the number of donors has remained stable at around 5000 for the past few years.
The inequality in supply and demand has made this situation poorer by two factors. One is a decrease in the number of accidental deaths—and, thus, in the number of possible donors –resulting from, for example, mandatory use of seat belts in automobiles and crash helmets when riding a motorcycle, together with laws outlawing drinking and driving and lowering speed limits. The other factor is the relative failure of health education programs, which has led to an increase in the number of potential transplant recipients; for example smoking, alcoholism, and consumption of animal fats, together with population that steadily growing older and is thus more disease-prone. Have increased the number of individuals in need of heart or liver transplant. Because of these factors, a significant percentage of people on organ transplant waiting lists die before a donor becomes available (see table 1).
Table 1. Numbers of patients on the U.S. Waiting Lists in 1999 (a) and Receiving Organ Transplants in 1997 (b)

Organ Number of Patients on U.S. Waiting Lists as of June 2,1999 Number of the U.S.Transplants Performed During 1997 Where Organ Was obtained from a Brain-Dead Donor Number of the U.S.Transplants Performed During 1997 Where Organ (or Part of Organ) Was obtained from a Living Donor Total Number of the U.S. Transplants Performed During 1997
Kidney
Liver
Pancreas (or Pancreas + Kidney)

Heart
Lung
Heart + Lungs
Intestine
Total 42,071
13,095

2,317

4,277
3,299
238
119
63,635 7,759
4,100

1,055

2,292

911

62

65

16,244 3,669
68

6


0

17

0

2

3,762
11,428
4,168


1,061


2,292

928

62

67

20,006
Source: United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)
a) Data as of June 2,1999
b) Data from UNOS Annual Report, 1998

Every attempt has been made both to promote organ donation and to utilize those organs that becomes available. In the United States, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) synchronize organ donation throughout the country, and similar networks are present throughout Europe and elsewhere. In Europe, for example, lawmakers have introduced “presumed consent” law, whereby a potential donor can be considered to have consented to donation unless he registered an objection during his lifetime; however, a few transplant centers will take away organs from a potential donor in the face of family disagreement, even though this would be permissible in such countries, and yet donor supply more and more will be unable to meet demand. To bridge the gap between organ supply and demand, it was agreed that xenotransplantation was the only real hope.

The prospect and case of xenotransplantation
Xenotransplantation – the transplantation of viable organs from one animal species to another was first practiced in the early 20 century, with kidney xenografts from rabbits, pigs, goats, lambs and nonhuman primate donors (e.g. macaques, chimpanzees, marmosets, baboons). The earliest attempt at transplantation of an animal kidney was probably in 1902 by Emerich Ullman in Vienna, who transplanted a pig kidney into a blood vessel in the arm of a woman . The transplantation of an animal heart happened in 1964 from a chimpanzee heart transplant by James Hardy. In 1997, Barnard used chimpanzee and baboon hearts to prolong the survival of patients who had just undergone unsuccessful transplants for four days, after the first transplanted heart was rejected.
On October 26, 1984, in California, most people first became aware of xenotransplantation. Dr. Leonard Bailey of the Loma Linda University Medical Center transplanted the living heart of a seven-month-old female baboon into the chest cavity of a newborn human infant whom the press dubbed "Baby Fae." Baby Fae suffered from a congenital birth defect known as hypoplastic left heart syndrome and would have died immediately without a transplant; with a transplant, she survived twenty days. The last attempt of xenograft in Poland 1992, and a man survived for almost 24 hours after he had a pig heart transplanted and in India 1996.
Experimental xenotransplantation was not attempted seriously until the 1960s, and the twenty American xenotransplantation recipients rarely have survived such operations for even a month. A number of possible organ xenograft has been applied to human shows in Table 2, that was recorded since 1906. The first recorded was pig’ kidney which was only survived for three days in human body in 1906. The shortest survival time was less than 24 hours from baboon’s heart transplanted in 1968 and in 1992 baboon’s liver. The longest survival time was chimpanzee’s heart for nine months stay in human body in 1963. Among twenty-one organ transplantations, kidney was the most frequently to be transplanted. Examining the year of transplantation and the amount of time survival, however, showing is no significant line that the recent experiment will result the longer survival time of recipient.
However, political and scientific sensibilities today clearly differ from those of the 1960s, and so the critical assessment of xenotransplantation must be more rigorous than the previous discussion. The socio-legal and ethical issues beg not to continue proceeding with xenotransplantation. For instance, it should be banned for both reasons: the ethical issues and the safety risk over possible transfer of animal viruses into human.
Table 2. Animal organs transplanted into human, 1906 – 1995
Donors Organ Transplants Survival time Author Year
Pig
Goat
Macaque
Sheep
Baboon
Macaque
Chimpanzee
Baboon
Chimpanzee
Chimpanzee
Chimpanzee
Baboon
Chimpanzee
Chimpanzee
Pig
Baboon
Baboon
Pig
Baboon
Baboon
Baboon
Kidney
Kidney
Kidney
Kidney
Kidney
Kidney
Kidney
Kidney
Kidney
Kidney
Kidney
Kidney
Kidney
Kidney
Heart
Heart
Heart
Heart
Liver
Liver
Bone marrow 1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
1
6
6
31
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 3 days
3 days
32 hours
9 days
4 days
12 days
9 months
60 days
-
1 day
one 9 mths
max 60 days
49 days
4 months
31 days
0 day
-
20 days
< 1 day
70 days
26 days
- Jaboulay
Jaboulay
Unger
Neuhof
Hitchcock
Reemtsma
Reemtsma
Starzl
Hardy
Hume
Reemtsma
Starzl
Traeger
Goldsmith
Cortesini
-
Barnard
Bailey
Starzl
Starzl
Gorman 1906
1906
1910
1923
1963
1963
1963
1963
1964
1964
1964
1964
1964
1965
1966
1968
1977
1985
1992
1993
1993
1995
Source : Mohaci, Thomson and Quine (21) in A.S. Daar “Animal-to –human organ transplants a solution or a new problem?”, The International Journal of Public Health, no.1 1999


FDA, one time, did not approve any primate xenograft, but is encouraging further research on primates to study virus transmission to humans. Other counter arguments claimed that there are safer and more humane alternatives to xenotransplantation that are not being explored by regulatory authorities. These include aggressively promoting preventive medicine and increasing human organ donation rates as many European countries have successfully done through various legislative schemes.
Possibly benefit of xenotransplantation
Despite the technical barriers and potential risks, and the unsuccessful recipient survival record so far, xenotransplantation is acknowledged to show significant promise today both as a treatment for a wide range of diseases, including chronic metabolic and neurological disorders, and as an alternative source of cells, tissues, and organs for clinical transplantation. The potential benefit for successful xenotransplantation proceeded is viable treatment to all patients who are currently waiting for organs. Up to now, the benefit of using animal tissues has cured some diseases. The high expectation is that Xenografted whole organs will reduce costly organ waiting times and return patients more quickly to productive health.
Moreover, once the technical problems with xenotransplantation have been overcome, there are several reasons why one could argue that xenotransplantation is preferable to allotransplantation . Firstly, source animals and their organs can be specifically prepared transgenically; their deaths can be planned, coordinated with the needs of the recipient and the transplant team, and scheduled appropriately just prior to the operation; none of these conditions would be considered ethical by anyone were human organ donors involved. Secondly, certain animals have proven to be resistant to some human diseases. For example, baboons and their livers are resistant to hepatitis B, so there is no reason to believe that a transplanted baboon liver would contract that disease, whereas a transplanted human organ could be destroyed by the very same virus that may have destroyed the original organ, thus rendering the entire procedure nugatory.
For these reasons, academic and commercial sponsors are pursuing actively the development of xenograft products and their clinical application. Drug and biotechnology companies already have poured well over $ 100,000,000 into xenotransplant research. Recent improvements in immunosuppressants and surgical techniques work toward a future certainty that xenotransplantation will be successful in the long term. It is therefore, an appropriate time to thoroughly explore the extra-clinical aspects of xenotransplantation, and particularly the ethics of xenotransplantation.


POLICY ON XENOTRANSPLANTATION
The caution of current policy preventing the risk
It is not different to any new medical technology, xenotransplantation comes with massive promise and some unknowns. The main discussion of xenotransplantation however has changed from concern about rights and welfare of potential non-human source animals to concern about the risk of xenozoonoses. The risk of transferring microorganism from an animal to a patient is a major distress when performing pig-to-human transplants, for instance. In a standard risk assessment scheme, two main factors need to be addressed: firstly, the possibility of contagious incident and viral contamination; Fishman makes distinctions with transplants using different cells or tissues, “...different stains of donor animals, different genetic or immunological manipulations of the donor or different immunological conditioning regimes (for host and donor) are not equivalent in terms of infectious risk and must be evaluated individually… “ (Fishman,NYAS `98). Secondly, the judgment of transferable virus may spread to the general public.
The fear of Xenotransplantation is clear about zoonotic infection. The risk identified was zoonotic contagion resulting from a virus or other pathogen that crosses the species barrier and infects the human host. The remote chance of an infection that causes disease only in the new host would not necessarily create any ethical concern, since the recipient was deriving benefit from the transplant. The ethical issue is mainly the possibility that the zoonotic disease could be spread to other humans who did not receive the same benefit as the recipient. This is what Fishman said previously that the general public could be put into risk.
In the United States, the Public Health Service (PHS) of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) drew up draft guidelines in 1996 that likely will have to be followed by most planning to use animal cells or organs. Most of the regulations in xenotransplantation relate to the risk of transmitting infectious diseases . In response to the caution of the risk, some scientists, including a number of virologists, pointed out the real danger of infection from non-human primates.
Essentially, some effort has been used to minimize the infectious risk by federal government as well as health companies, yet the worries remain as mainly rejection from immune activation of recipient after transplantation. To some extent, when an organ is transplanted, no matter how closely it is matched, rejection at some level will occur. This is because the body's immune system is extremely effective at recognizing foreign surface proteins, which will be present in the tissue from the donor. The only exception occurs in donations from one identical twin to another.
Furthermore, to promote the success of the transplant, the recipient ingests drugs to suppress the immune system, which also makes the recipient more susceptible to ordinary diseases. Therefore, the strength of “immunosuppressive drugs” must be increased to accommodate the body's more virulent rejection. The other is infectious cell migration from graft to the host; or the genetic recombination such mutation that can disguise the infection. Therefore, medical research interest has centered on overcoming the body's natural immune system mechanisms that lead to organ rejection.
To minimize the potential transferable virus, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed new rules that would require researchers doing human trials of “gene therapies” and providing safety information about the treatment such as untoward effects seen in animal studies, and the side-effects and adverse reactions that occur once a trial begins. In considering public health policy, the gene therapy can be utilized.
However, the FDA acted to restore public confidence in gene therapy and
xenotransplantation research after a series of scandals involving gene therapy
in human beings broke last year. The revelations began after Jesse Gelsinger, an
Arizona teenager who had volunteered to participate in a gene-therapy trial,
died of a side-effect that critics charge should have been anticipated given
findings from animal studies and side-effects that had been seen in other
volunteers (see Lancet 2000; 355: 384). Gelsinger‘s death prompted a national
review of gene-therapy trials in the USA, which found that many trials seem to
have been sloppily done. The findings led to the closure of some trials and the
suspension of others.
Another concern for caution of xenotransplantation is the industry involvement. It has been spot news where industry invests resources and biotechnology companies’ work together with academic centers. The market study by Peter Laing (1996) reported a significant potential for profit, which attracts private investment. The market estimation is 100 000 patients a year.

Scientist views on xenotransplantation


In June 1996, doctors and professors met to study about public policy in xenotransplantation, organized by The Institute of Medicine (IOM). The are five recommendation for human trial that state for caution of proceeding xenografty :
First, to screen animal from the existence of infectious virus; sustained observation throughout patients’ lifelong and regular examination of their contact—families, health care workers, others, for the indication of transferable disease; the system of tissue banks enable to collect the to tissue samples and blood from source animals and patients; and the national and local system to register patients who are receiving xenotransplants. Such effort should be systematized with international registries and databases.
Second, the board required all the scientists and the association to carry out xenotransplantation trials in humans. They are recommended for sustained observation of infectious risk and follow the national instructions. Xenotransplant patients are monitored throughout their lifetimes and physicians periodically monitor persons with whom they come into contact (families, health care workers) for evidence of infectious disease.
Third, the board mentions additional research into the special ethical issues that are elevated by xenotransplantation, mainly those linked to “informed consent” as the condition for lifetime observation of patients and those connected to equality and fairness in distributing organs, besides study about the psychological and social effect of getting animal organs on recipients, their families, and members of the society as a whole.
Fourth, the board requires the instrument within the Department of Health and Human Services to guarantee necessary harmonization of the federal agencies and other component concerned in enhancement, failure, and assessment of established procedure.
Fifth, the board requires that if the science stand for particular types of xenotransplants is considered adequate and the accurate protections are prepared, well-chosen human xenotransplantation trials using animal cells, tissues, and organs would be justified and should proceed.
From the regulatory point of view in the United States, the freewheeling days when any surgeon could transplant an organ from an animal with the permission only of the Local Institutional Review Board were over. All such experiments now required a specific Initial Notification of Drug application to the US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) . The field was new, and so the FDA set up a panel to review the applications. Arguments in favor of proceeding were that this was a valid experiment, that the scientific justification was adequate, and that if the experiment were not done in the United States it would be done elsewhere, and the United States would lose out.

The International Concern on Xenotransplantation
Having a vigorous impact on human life, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and The New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) sponsored the International Workshop on Xenotransplantation which brought together researchers, clinicians, regulators, ethicists, advocates, legal experts, and economists to achieve a common understanding of the benefits and risks associated with xenotransplantation.
A number of professors in the meeting uttered about the benefit from of non-human primates, especially baboons and monkeys, as organ donors, as well as the fact that the recipient would be heavily immunosuppressed. Public should have known that xenotransplantation contains the combination in its risk and benefit. Meaning, xenotransplantation reflects a whole spectrum of activity, ranging from pig islets without immunosuppression at the safest end of the spectrum, to baboon heart transplants with immunosuppression at the riskiest end of the spectrum. The difference between those two extremes of xenotransplantation is greater than the difference between xenotransplantation and allotransplantation. To regulate and practice these extremes as if they shared the same risk/benefit profile would waste an inimitable opportunity to safely deliver provable benefit from xenografts in the near term.
Therefore, the scientists pictured the risk profile that explicitly demonstrates the different of tissue and organ xenograft. Table 3 shows the obvious comparison of both. The scientist purposes’ are to make sure the guidelines and policy will meet with the reality. Diabetes has been identified as a safest end of xenotransplantation, while kidney failure diagnosed as midrange of xenograft, however heart failure positioned as the riskiest end of xenograft spectrum. Islet xenografts were the logical first choice for proceeding with xenotransplantation. Since islets are free tissue not connected directly to the recipient’s vascular system. Although whole organ xenografts will provide tremendous life-saving potential, they represent a greater challenge and more unknowns that islet xenografts. By demonstrating success and safety in the least challenging end of the xenotransplantation spectrum, both governments and the public will be more friendly to the promise of whole organ xenografts.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a global framework for emerging infectious diseases. Three of the systems are obligated to observe infectious diseases: global monitoring and alert, global control, global information access, and national surveillance and control. The goal of these network system is to prevent the spread of the potential risk, the virus transmitted from one place to another place.

Table 3. Comparison of Potential Xenograft
Safest End of
Xenotransplantation
Spectrum Midrange of
Xenotransplantation
Spectrum Riskiest End of
Xenotransplantation
Spectrum
Disease Treated Diabetes Kidney Failure Heart Failure
Organ Transplanted Pancreatic Islets Kidney Heart
Donor Animal SPF pig SPF transgenic pig Baboon
Immunosuppression None (Immunobarriers) Systemic (Lifelong) Systemic (Lifelong)
Graft Failure Return to insulin injections Dialysis Death
Source : Robert E. Michler, Director of Heart Transplant ServiceDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery Columbia-Presbyterian MedicalCenter, New York, NY, USA, the topic was discussed in OECD meeting.

Global monitoring and alert have a certain international unity awareness. The objective of this system is to strengthen WHO information networks on infectious and zoonotic diseases as to ensure early detection of global threats to public health. The following are among the currently available disease networks: arboviruses and haemorrhagic( headed by Rockefeller Foundation); the WHO influenza network(laboratory in the Netherlands); the WHO neuroscience networks.
The global monitoring and alert networks also report antimicrobial resistance events. In this area, the gonococcal antimicrobial sensitivity programme is most advanced and links 45 national laboratories and WHO Collaborating Centers, which provide training and external quality assurance. Notification of infectious disease is regulated by the WHO International Health Regulations (IHR), which was first drafted in 1969. In 1981, they were modified to mandate the reporting of three diseases: plague, yellow fever and cholera. The regulations also set out standards and norms to prevent the spread of infectious diseases at port of entry. The WHO-IHR are currently being revised to provide broader coverage of infectious diseases and to improve global reporting.
Global information access tends to provide international lively information about the transmission of disease. Furthermore, the WHO has built-up a pilot Website on disease epidemic, which is nourished by the confirmation system by official country reports and by non-governmental organizations. The site is to provide more information and larger geographic coverage ble, fast surveillance in each WHO member country. Positively, through its regional and country offices, the WHO has managed an advanced programme on national observation and control which enable WHO to confirm priority disease observation, anticipation and monitor.

EVALUATION OF POLICY

Simply says the conclusion of these debatable issues of continue or stop proceeding xenotransplantation is that there seems to be little enthusiasm for a blanket ban on xenotransplantation procedures. The current policy is effectual recommendations in paving the way to proceed with exploring xenotransplantation The recommendations are signed to the caution purpose, in order the further research and experiment of xenograft be obligated and be alert to any potential risk implication both to the recipient and to the public.
Plenty scientific indication designates that the risks of xenotransplantation are real and unquestionable respectively; there is also a real shortage of human organs available for transplantation. Herein lies the dilemma. Each year, real people, not just statistical figures on table as waiting list recipients, die because of an inability to find a compatible organ; the pleas by these people and their families are well documented and difficult to ignore. The option is xenotransplantation that scientists still struggled to combat the risk. For this reason, if for no other, it seems likely that xenotransplantation trials will eventually begin.
The existing policy shows the conscious regulation to proceed with xenotransplantation. Regarding the potential risk and benefit, however, the policy has lifted to proceed towards xenotransplantation. For example, the draft Public Health Service guideline was prepared to help minimize public health risks associated with xenotransplantation while not restricting access to promising therapies for individuals with life-threatening and chronic debilitating illnesses. The guideline applies to all types of xenotransplants, including cells, tissues and solid organs.
The policy also encourages for further research. Meanwhile, the whole organ xenograft have been able have been able to support human life for an extended period. It is this fact that investigators wish to exploit in clinical bridging studies. By providing temporary heart, kidney, or liver support as a bridge-to-transplantation, these biological devices may allow patients to recover end organ function and await allograft transplantation in a more stable clinical state, thus improving their chances of survival.
The International concern put consideration on the network information to proceed with xenograft. In the International meeting held by OECD, the scientists agree that clinical trials of xenotransplantation will be allowed to proceed in most countries under guidelines that assure adequate record keeping, reporting of adverse events, archiving of donor and recipient biologic samples, safe and humane animal management, long-term monitoring of recipients, and other procedures intended to reduce or eliminate risks. A moratorium with xenograft seems also be elevated in most countries of the world.
Within and outside of the United States generally recognized that the benefits of xenotransplantation are enormous, and the risks manageable. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration stated very clearly that it would not impose a moratorium, as such a move is unnecessary and would only drive people seeking treatment to countries where the practice was not banned.

V. Conclusion

The success of Allotransplantation, the grafting of organs from human donors, has been a source of dilemmatic problem. The transplanting of organs such as kidneys, hearts, livers, lungs, pancreases, and lungs has saved so many lives that the demand for human organs is outstripping the supply by an accelerating margin. The organ donation systems have been implemented in some countries to cope with the demand for more organ. Nonetheless, more people are dying each year while waiting for a suitable organ donor.
Xenotransplantation is the one of possible and real way out to bridge the gap between organ supply and demand. Scientists have made a great effort to reduce the retrovirus risk. Debatable issues however have led to the policy that allowed xenotransplantaion to proceed. Under certain guideline, either the USA or international community (represent by WHO) considers the benefit over the risk of xenograft that convinces them to endorse the policy as wisely as alarm action to the human lives.
In sum, the way to proceed with exploring xenotransplantation is not stagnant or go-slow. In contrast, the policy to proceed with xenograft is moving fast as much thought of controlling the risk of transmitted virus from donors to recipients. At least, for now, xenograft has been able to be a bridge organ need until the recipients get the allotransplantation.

The Social Contract

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT




Nurliah Nurdin

Kontrak Sosial
Rosseau mengajukan suatu masyarakat yang bertanggungjawab melalui suatu tatanan masyarakat. Agak berbeda dengan pandangan state of nature dari Hobbes, Rousseau tidak meneruskan mendorong tiap individu untuk terikat dalam suatu kontrak sosial. Hobbes sendiri menyatakan State of nature ibaratnya situasi yang tidak diinginkan, karena dalam kondisi ini tidak ada properti yang dimiliki, properti dapat diambil dari orang lain atau karena tidak ada lagi yang menginginkannya. Aturan kekuatan tidak dalam hukum legitimasi tetapi melalui kekuatan juga. Seseorang hanya bisa menjadi bebas sesuai dengan kekuatannya, tidak ada perlindungan bahkan juga tidak ada otoritas moral.
Dukungan Rosseau pada setiap individu yang merdeka untuk terikat dalam suatu kontrak terlihat dalam salah satu pernyataan Rousseau yang sering dikutip adalah Man was born free, but he is everywhere in chains. Maksudnya adalah untuk menyempurnakan kehidupan seorang laki-laki dan menghindarkannya dari the state of nature,yang bersifat negatif dan egois serta merampas hak orang lain, maka seseorang harus membuat suatu a Social Contract atau kontrak sosial dengan yang lain. Dalam kontrak sosial ini, setiap orang akan bebas karena sejumlah pengorbanan akan setimpal dengan kebebasan dan memaksakan kewajiban untuk semua. Bahwa tidak masuk akal jika seorang menyerahkan kebebasannya untuk suatu perbudakan. Oleh karena itu,keikutsertaan ini seharusnya suatu kebebasan. Orang masuk dalam suatu kontrak sosial untuk memberdayakan diri mereka sendiri sehingga bisa mendapatkan hal-hal lain, tentu dengan bantuan orang lain. Legitimasi dari suatu kepemimpinan dan kebebasan termasuk otoritas moral merupakan poin penting.
Pernyataan bahwa manusia dilahirkan merdeka tetapi juga terkait dimana pun adalah suatu justifikasi Rousseu akan perlunya konvensi sosial. Sehingga kebebasan yang dimiliki hanya akan berarti dalam suatu mayoritas masyarakat. Diskusi tentang kontrak sosial dan hak-hak sipil tidak memberikan suatu penyelesaian yang tuntas. Kontrak ini hanya mempunyai legitimasi ketika memenuhi kepentingan umum. Sehingga, bila terjadi kegagalan dalam kontrak ini, perlu dilakukan negosiasi untuk merubahnya, melalui berbagai cara seperti pemilihan atau di legislatif.
The Social Contract selanjutnya disebut Kontrak sosial menggambarkan bagaimana kebebasan seseorang dalam suatu civil society. Dalam state of nature orang menikmati kebebasan fisik tanpa kendali dari kebiasaan diri. Memasuki suatu kontrak sosial, kita menempatkan batasan terhadap kebiasaan kita, ini yang membuat suatu kehidupan dalam tatanan masyarakat. Dengan memberikan kebebasan fisik, orang akan mendapatkan kebebasan masyarakat untuk bisa berfikir rasioanal. Seseorang juga dapat mengkaji ulang gerakan emosional dan keinginan sehingga dapat berfikir lebih bersifat moral. Menurut Rousseau,kata “moral” mempunyai siknifikansi dalam civil society.
Tidak hanya kebebasan, tetapi rasionalitas dan moralitas hanya mungkin terjadi dalam suatu masyarakat sipil—dan masyarakat sipil hanya mungkin terbentuk jika orang-orang setuju dengan kontrak sosial. Sehingga kita tidak hanya berterimakasih kepada proteksi timbal balik dan perdamaian yang ditimbulkan tetapi juga kepada rasionalitas dan moralitas dalam masyarakat sipil. Dengan kata singkat, seseorang belumlah dianggap manusia utuh jika belum berpartisipasi dalam masyarakat.
Pernyataan terakhir dari Rosseau mengadopsi persfektif communitarian. Jika seseorang hanya bisa menjadi manusia utuh dibawah perlindungan dari kontrak sosial, maka kontrak itu tampak lebih penting dari individu. Sehingga semua individu hanya bernilai karena mereka setuju dengan kontrak sosial. Kontrak ini tidak ditegaskan oleh individu-individu secara terpisah tetapi ditegaskan oleh kelompok kolektifitas. Kedaulatan dan keinginan publik lebih penting dari pokok persoalan dan keinginan yang berbeda. Rousseau dengan jelas berbicara tentang kedaulatan yang berbeda dengan individu.
Dalam pernyataaan ini, tampak kecenderungan pemikiran Rousseau untuk mendorong totalirisme. Suatu pemikiran yang tidak menerima perbedaan siapakah individu ini dalam publik dan siapa individu ini dalam hubungan pribadi. Jika zaman Rosseau dibawa ke zaman saat ini, maka banyak pertentangan yang akan terjadi terutama mengenai hak-hak individu. Hak individu penting dan menjadi pemikiran terbalik ketika individu tidak berarti dalam suatu komunitas. Kebebasan yang didengungkan oleh Rousseau menjadi suatu kontra terhadap kebebasan itu sendiri.
Keinginan-Keinginan (Wills)
Salah satu pemisahan penting dari risalat Rousseau adalah keinginan rakyat atau wills of people yang disebut juga kedaulatan dipisahkan dengan pemerintah yang dia sebut prince. Bagi rakyat, ada tiga kategori keinginan, keinginan umum atau general will, keinginan personal dan keinginan semua. Pertama adalah apa yang terbaik untuk masyarakat keseluruhan, kedua adalah apa yang terbaik untuk individu dan ketiga adalah gabungan dari semua keinginan personal. Pada pemerintah juga terdapat tiga ketegori, keinginan untuk semua, keinginaan koorperasi dan keinginan personal. Pertama sama dengan yang terdapat pada keinginan seluruh rakyat (karana jumlah populasi tercatat menentukan kelangsungan pemerintahan, kedua kooperasi keinginan adalah kelangsungan pemerintahan dan ketiga juga sama yaitu apa yang diinginkan masyarakat.
Perwakilan Langsung
Sistem hukum yang baik adalah sistem yang menerapkan dua aspek penting yaitu kebebasan dan persamaan; kebebasan karena setiap ketergantungan individu berarti sejumlah kekuatan yang tercabut dari dirinya dan persamaan karena kebebasan tidak dapat bertahan tanpa persamaan. Rosseau menjelaskan kebebasan sipil adalah untuk persamaan, kalimat ini tidak boleh diartikan bahwa derajat kekuasaaan dan kekayaan seseorang harus sama dengan absolut melainkan bahwa tidak ada seorang warga pun dengan kekayaannya membeli orang lain dan tidak ada seorang miskin yang dipaksa untuk menjual dirinya. Hal ini akan melanggar perjanjian dasar dari kontrak sosial yang dibangun atas dasar sifat dasar manusia yang ingin selalu menguasai. Dalam suatu negara yang bebas murni, warga melakukan segalanya, melakukan bisnis tanpa perkecualian. Sementara Rosseau percaya pelayanan dasar berbeda dengan kebebasan. Semakin baik suatu/ x kin banyak urusan bisnis yang dikelolah daripada privat. Karena kebahagiaan publik juga berarti kebahagiaan individu sehingga tidak perlu lagi mencari kebahagiaan sendiri. Milik negara adalah milik individu juga.
Fondasi pemikiran filosofis Rousseau adalah bahwa kedaulatan tidak bisa diwakilkan, dengan alasan yang sama juga tidak bisa dihilangkan; hal ini adalah inti dari suatu general will . Oleh karena itu, perwakilan rakyat tidak dapat menjadi perwakilan; mereka hanya perantara, mereka tidak bisa memutuskan sesuatu.Setiap undang-undang yang dibuat tanpa persetujuan rakyat secara langsung adalah tidak sah.
Pemerintah & Demokrasi
Dalam suatu administrasi publik dengan bentuk pemerintahan apapun , Rosseau menekankan keharusan akan hadirnya dua hal, pertama adalah Kedaulatan. Dalam pandangannya, kedaulatan ini dapat berarti semua penduduk dengan keinginan mayoritas, kedaulatan ini mewakili general will dalam suatu kekuasaan legislatif dalam negara. Kedua, adalah pemerintah, yang harus dipisahkan dengan badan kedaulatan, karena kedaulatan tidak dapat berjalan dengan beberapa persoalan.
Territorial pemerintah menurut Rousseu terkait dengan sifat alamiah pemerintah. Sebuah pemerintah sangat tergantung dengan kekuatan rakyatnya, semakin luas teritori semakin kuat negara yang juga berarti kekuatan yang mampu untuk menguasai rakyatnya. Dalam hal ini, bentuk pemerintahan monarki yang paling memiliki kekuasaan atas rakyatnya karena harus mengorbankan sedikit kekuasaannya, sementara bentuk demokrasi yang paling minim kekuasaannya. Umumnya, semakin besar birokrasi akan semakin besar kekuasaan yang diperlukan untuk mendisiplinkan pemerintahan. Hubungan ini biasanya dapat terjadi pada sistem aristokrasi atau monarki. Tampak kecenderungan pemihakan Rosseau pada kebaikan sistem Tirani, meskipun tidak tampak jelas.
Setiap tindakan bebas berakibat pada dua sebab, pertama adalah moral—yang menyebabkan suatu tindakan, kedua adalah fisik—kekuatan yang menggerakkannya. Dalam lembaga politik pun terdapat dua motif kekuasaan yang dapat dibedakan antara keinginan dan kekuatan, pertama adalah kekuasaan legislatif dan kedua adalah kekuasaan eksekutif .
Intisari dari bentuk kontrak sosial semestinya adalah demokrasi, tetapi Rosseau menyatakan bahwa demokrasi murni tidak mungkin hadir, oleh karena itu negara harus memilih antara aristokrasi atau monarki atau gabungan dari keduanya. Tugas utama dari suatu kedaulatan adalah perwujudan dari keinginan publik/umum dan jika keinganan publik ini gagal menerapkan hukum dalam masyarakat, kedaulatan ini dinyatakan gagal. Untuk menghindari kegagalan ini, maka setiap orang harus aktif dalam pemerintahan untuk menilih orang yang duduk dalam perwakilan. Tetapi, dalam pengambilan keputusan akhir, rakyat harus tetap dilibatkan. Dalam hal ini Rousseau mencontohkan kota Roma yang bebentuk monarki dengan tiga badan yang disebut comitia .Melalui ketiga badan ini,rakyat diwakili. Tetapi untuk diskusi dan pengambilan keputusan, harus melalui suara rakyat lansung. Jika eksekutif bertentangan dengan keinginan publik maka hal tersebut dianggap merusak kontrak sosial dan harus dihentikan.


Agama

Ide yang paling mendasar dari bagian ini adalah pemisahan gereja dari agama. Menurut Rousseau, bila gereja menjadi pemerintah , maka kedaulatan tidak lagi dipertahankan. Konsekuensi langsungnya adalah ketidaktoleranan. Oleh karena itu, tidak boleh ada agama nasional, tetapi semua kepercayaan harus dirangkul. Kecuali dogma agama yang mengarahkan masyarakat menjadi buruk, harus dihentikan.

Sebagai catatan, teori Rousseau dalam kontrak sosial ini telah mempengaruhi Revolusi Perancis pada tahun 1789 dan formasi lanjut dari gerakan sosialis.

Sumber Bacaan:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Author, The Social Contract
Maurice Cranston - Translator ISBN 9780140442014. 30 Jun 1968 . Penguin

Note: Fall 2007, Democratic Problemes

The Democratic Civilization

Review
The Democratic Civilization
Leslie Lipson
Page 13-40



Masalah-Masalah Demokrasi
Nurliah Nurdin

TRADISI KLASIK

Definisi demokrasi haruslah didasari oleh kriteria –kriteria standar yang bersifat plural bukan tunggal karena kompleksitas demokrasi tidak bisa disandarkan pada satu prinsip saja. Bab ini terutama ingin menjelaskan esensi domokrasi melalui penelitian pada masyarakat yang menyatakan diri mereka menerapkan demokrasi. Eksistensi demokrasi akan terlihat dalam praktek yang tertulis dalam catatan sejarah.

ATHENA
Kata dan dasar-dasar demokrasi dimulai di Yunani abad 6-4 Sebelum Masehi. Apa yang terjadi selama dua setengah abad demokrasi di Athena sudah cukup untuk menyelenggarakan pemerintahan demokrasi dibanding yang terjadi pada negara dan kota sebelum abad 17 masehi. Prinsip-prinsip dari masyarakat yang baik adalah hasil diskusi dari berbagai kelompok masyarakat.

ANALISIS DEMOKRASI DI ATHENA
Pemikiran demokrasi Plato dan Aristoteles didahului oleh observasi yang dilakukan oleh Herodotus dan Thucydides yang didasari oleh pertanyaan siapa yang memegang kekuasaan tertinggi? Dalam diskusi tentang demokrasi terdapat tiga prinsip yang dikemukakan yaitu kesamaan dalam hukum,partisipasi masyarakat dalam membuat peraturan dan hukum, persamaan hak dalam mengeluarkan pikiran. Heroditus adalah intelektual Yunani yang lebih menyoroti bentuk pemerintahan yang demokratis. Thucydides adalah ahli sejarah Perang Pelonnesia yang mengutif pidato Pericles tentang demokrasi yaitu sebuah pemerintahan yang dipimpin oleh banyak bukan sedikit orang. Perang antara Athena dan Sparta yang menimbulkan kekalahan Athena telah menyebabkan kesalahan dilemparkan kepada si kambing hitam. Plato,yang menyatakan prinsip-prinsip demokrasi tidak akan menyatukan, karena kebebasan berarti semua tipe personality akan berkembang, perbedaan, variasi dan divisi adalah fakta politik.
Sejarah demokrasi Athena melalui pemberontakan melawan kapitalis dan oligarki, tapi yang terjadi justru melalui tirani bukan pengenalan terhadap demokrasi. Plato menerima konsep Heroditus yang membagi pemerintahan kepada sistem Monarki, Aristokrasi dan Demokrasi. Tetapi, Aristotoles (murid Plato) lebih rinci menyebutkan 6 klasifikasi sistem politik dan deviasinya. Monarki,Aristokrasi dan Polity atau pemerintahan yang menegakkan konstitusi. Tirani dan Oligarki adalah deviasi dari Monarki dan Aristokrasi.Demokrasi adalah versi keliru dari Polity karena pada kenyataannya minoritas tidak mendapatkan tempat dari majoritas yang mengeksploitasi mereka.
Demokrasi ideal menurut Aristole adalah kekuasaan oleh rakyat. Rakyat yang dimaksudkan adalah yang miskin yang mencari persamaan, kebebasan dan kepemimpinan mayoritas. Demokrasi menghadapi tiga permasalahan yaitu dalam konteks sosial dimana aturan oleh yang miskin, eksploitasi terhadap yang kaya, pengurangan hutang para budak dan kepemilikan properti untuk tujuan politis dan kesempatan kepada yang mampu tanpa memperhitungkan status keluarga dan kekayaan; kedua adalah sistem pemerintahan dimana pertimbangan publik dan keputusan semua penduduk menghasilkan ‘majority rule’ serta ketiga adalah dan ide-ide philosofis dimana persamaan dan kebebasan yang disalahartikan sebagai dominasi dan ketidakberaturan.


DEMOKRASI OLEH HOBBES DAN ROUSSEAU
Konsep demokrasi yang sempit berubah pada abad 17 dan 18 oleh Thomas Hobbes seorang philosof Inggris dan Jean Jacques Rosseau seorang philosof Perancis. Pikiran Hobbes adalah tujuan setiap lelaki adalah keamanan diri sehingga masyarakat harus dipimpin agar tidak terjadi pelanggaran. Perlu ada konsentrasi kekuasaan pada satu tempat yang disebut kedaulatan. Inilah yang disebut supremasi dari pemegang aturan yang bisa juga berarti konsentrasi kekuasaan pada dewan atau parlemen. Pada sejarah Yunani juga terdapat pembagian kekuasaan dimana kedaulatan itu diletakkan. Bisa saja pada sebagian masyarakat atau semua penduduk dan model ini dianggap demokrasi yang lemah dan kurang efektif. John Lock dan Charles Montesquieu adalah dua orang pemikir yang mendukung pemikiran Hobbes.
Sementara Rousseau membagi tiga dasar model pemerintahan dengan definisi demokrasi sebagai sebuah situasi dimana pemerintah adalah hasil langsung dari rakyat, bukan melalui suatu perwakilan. Menurutnya tidak ada demokrasi murni yang pernah terjadi karena akan bertentangan dengan gejala alam dimana jumlah besar akan memimpin jumlah yang kecil.

MODERNITAS LAHIR KEMBALI

OTORITAS INDIVIDU
Filsuf Yunani membedakan antara masyarakat dan individu karena individu adalah bagian dari masyarakat karena itu tidak dapat bertentangan dengan masyarakat. Plato dan Aristole menganggap masyarakat adalah sebuah unit yang bukan terdiri dari individu tetapi penduduk.
Tiga kekuatan besar kemudian melanjutkan tradisi yang lebih menitikberatkan kepada masyarakat bukan individu yaitu terbentuknya Kerajaan Romawi, Kemenangan Gereja Kristen dan penyebaran feodalisme. Selanjutnya beberapa deviasi demokrasi terjadi misal tidak diakuinya hak individu pada partisipasi politik.

INDIVIDU DALAM TEORI HOBBES DAN ROUSSEAU
Interpretasi lama demokrasi berubah pada saat revolusi Perancis dan Amerika. Teori Hobbes tentang perlunya hadir pemerintah yang mengontrol penduduk berakhir dengan kekuasaaan rakyat untuk mengadili pemerintahan yang tidak layak. Roussou mengajukan dua preposisi yang mengundang intrepretasi yang berbeda,pertama tentang hubungan individu terhadap masyarakat, kedua tentang hubungan individu terhadap pemerintah. Penafikan individual dari kelompok akan melahirkan badan perkumpulan dengan karakteristik persatuan, sebuah personalitas yang sama, dalam hidup dan cita-cita. Badan ini disebut kedaulatan yang membatasi individu karena keinginan individu telah menjadi sebuah keinginan umum. Berbeda dengan definisi keinginan dari semua, yaitu dengan menggabungkan semua keinginan individu bersama dan keinginan majoritas akan menentukan kebijakan.
Pemikiran modernis berubah ke suatu tindakan dimana kriteria perwakilan diterima berdasarkan prinsip dasar persamaan, setiap individu mempunyai hak yang tidak bisa diambil oleh pemerintah, dan pemerintah menerima kekuasaannya atas konsen individu yang bebas,penghindatan sentralisasi kekuasaan pemerintah dan keharusan untuk memperhatikan kepentingan umum sebagai keinginan yang populer. USA dan Inggris mempraktekan prinsip ini misal pada koorperasi dan perdagangan atau serikat buruh yang dibentuk oleh para pekerja untuk kepentingan bersama.

DEMOKRASI, LIBERALISME DAN NASIONALISME
Gerakan dari paham liberalisme dan demokrasi tidaklah identik meskipun secara umum keduanya memberi perhatian pada kebebasan. Pada bidang ekonomi,regulasi bisnis oleh pemerintah, bidang politik, kesamaan hak suara bagi semua rakyat dewasa tanpa memandang kepemilikan modal.
Sosialis dan liberalis sama melihat kenyataan hubungan individu kepada masyarakat tetapi dengan konklusi yang berbeda. Pertama tentang individu dan pemikirannya akan menjadi kepentingan masyarakat sebagai hasil dari kerja individu, pandangan lain adalah masyarakat dan pemikiran individu berasal dari harmoni kesejahteraan sosial. Pandangan lain adalah peraturan pemerintah yang membatasi keserakahan pribadi dan meningkatkan kepentingan umum.
Sosialis sama dengan liberalis mempunyai pandangan sendiri tentang demokrasi.Demokrasi berarti kebebasan dan persamaan.Sosialis yang tidak sabar menunggu perubahan akan membentuk revolusi.Selanjutnya akan menjadi komunis dan yang lebih demokrat akan menjadi sosialis demokrat.
Sementara itu, nasionalisme berarti sentralisasi kekuasaan pada bangsa atau kesatuan kesetiaan individu yang juga berarti kebebasan. Kebebasan dari sebuah pemerintahan imperialis tidak berati demokrasi telah ditegakkan bila kemudian penguasa menggunakan gaya diktator.

MASYARAKAT DEMOKRASI
BATASAN DAN LUASAN DEMOKRASI

Untuk memahami demokrasi diperlukan pemahaman tentang ide-ide demokrasi dan institusinya yang berkembang sepanjang masa.

Dari Revolusi ke Evolusi
Keinginan untuk melakukan revolusi pada beberapa bangsa telah berkurang karena sistem konstitusi yang membuka peluang untuk perubahan sehingga dapat meredam kekerasan yang tidak perlu. Kemampuan demokrasi memberikan perubahan secara damai juga telah membawa pada kecenderunga perubahan dan akomodasi.
Salah satu karakteristik demokrasi adalah partisipasi massa dalam politik yang menandakan betapa sistem demokrasi baru saja dicapai yaitu pada abad 19 dan baru pada awal abad 20 perempuan baru dapat berpartisipasi.

Kerajaan Inggris Sebagai Contoh
Kerajaan Inggris berubah dari absolut kerajaan menjadi pemerintahan aristokrasi kemudian menjadi sebuah demokrasi massa. Beberapa tahap demokratisasi itu melalui 300 tahun lebih, mulai dari tahun 1761 dimana hanya beberapa gelintir laki-laki yang mempunyai hak suara, semua laki-laki sampai akhirnya semua individu dewasa mempunyai hak suara pada tahun 1928.

Demokrasi sebuah Phenomena
Eropa dan Amerika adalah contoh keberhasilan dimana demokrasi dapat bertahan hari ini yang diawali oleh revolusi yang kemudian diikuti oleh evolusi politik secara gradual. Adopsi institusi baru dan prosedurnya, penerimaan terhadap kelompok baru dan kelas-kelas dalam masyarakat hingga menjadi lingkaran istimewa yang menyelenggarakan kekuasaan, hak persamaan yang diberikan kepada semua orang akan memberikan hasil terbaik.Tentu saja ketika itu dilakukan secara perlahan dan dengan penuh pertimbangan. Perubahan mendadak akan mengakibatkan revolusi yang hanya akan berubah menjadi reaksi yang lain seperti yang terjadi pada Revolusi Perancis

DEMOKRASI HUBUNGANNYA DENGAN IMPERIALIS
Sulit untuk menghindari bahwa pada saat yang bersamaan terjadi demokratisasi internal,imperialisme eksternal pun terjadi dalam waktu yang hampir bersamaan. Imperialisme telah memaksakan teritori dan penduduknya pada satu aturan. Tentu saja hal ini adalah pertentangan langsung dengan kebebasan dan pemerintahan sendiri. Negara besar dengan demokrasi sekaligus sebagai imperialis adalah Belgium, Perancis,Inggris dan Belanda.

Survey Demokrasi pada tahun 1939
Pada tahun 1939 pemerintah yang dianggap demokratis di dunia hanya 12 negara,di Benua Amerika Utara hanya ada USA dan Kanada, di Amerika Tengah dan Selatan hanya Costa Rica, sedangkan di Eropa ada Belgium,Ireland,Perancis,Inggris, Belanda, Norwegia, Swedia dan Switzerland.Tidak terdapat satupun negara demokratis di kawasan Asia dan Afrika.

Perkiraan Sementara
Setidaknya dua hal terjadi dalam sistem politik saat ini dan 30 tahun lalu (1964), bahwa semakin banyak negara dalam kontrol partai komunis di Eropa Timur dan Asia Timur dan tidak ada pertambahan negara demokrasi. Institusi yang tidak memiliki kekuatan tradisi dan belum mencapai penerimaan sosial akan sulit untuk bertahan baik ekonomi maupun militer.

Lingkungan Sosial dari Sistem Politik
Sebuah sistem politik tidak dapat berjalan dengan baik jika dikelilingi oleh aspek-aspek sosial yang menghalangi terciptanya pemerintahan demokratis. Tiga karakteristik mewarnai setiap kelompok masyarakat yang dapat melahirkan keunikan dalam penentuan suatu sistem politik seklaigus dapat menjadi masalah demokrasi adalah:pertama; rakyat, menyangkut ras, agama, bahasa yang harus diperhitungkan,kedua;masyarakat yang terorganisasi yang menyangkut masalah geografi; ketiga situasi ekonomi menyangkut ketersediaan sumber daya alam dan teknologi

ANALISIS
Buku yang dicetak tahun 1964 ini pada bab awal dengan jelas menceritakan sejarah lahirnya demokrasi yang dimulai di Yunani. Tapi beberapa sumber lain seperti Jacob Klein dalam bukunya The Birth of Kingship: from Democracy to Monarchy in Sumer menyebutkan sejarah awal demokrasi sudah dimulai 2000 tahun sebelum Yunani di Kota Sumeria, Mesopotamia (Iraq). Sehingga perlu dokumentasi sejarah yang bersinergi antara sejarah Barat dan sejarah Timur mengenai sejarah demokrasi masing-masing wilayah.
Perjalanan panjang demokrasi dari pengertian sempit kepada pengertian yang lebih modern membutuhkan waktu yang lama. Hal ini kemungkinan besar juga terjadi pada sejarah Timur. Menarik untuk menjadi catatan bagi negara yang menerapkan prinsip-prinsip demokrasi atau memulai dan berusaha bertahan seperti Indonesia bahwa demokrasi yang stabil membutuhkan waktu yang lama. Di dalamnya terdapat akomodasi kepentingan dari yang banyak dan yang sedikit, saluran representasi yang sesuai dengan kultur bangsa dan kekuatan ekonomi yang memadai.
Pertentangan atau perlawanan dalam menerapkan sistem demokrasi yang sesuai dengan karakteristik bangsa membutuhkan ketabahan (indurance) supaya tidak perlu terjadi kekerasan seperti zaman lampau. Prinsip-prinsip kebebasan, partisipasi dan persamaan seperti yang dikemukakan oleh Plato dan Aristole mendapatkan banyak masukan dari ilmuwan sesudahnya untuk lebih mencapai kehidupan demokrasi yang stabil.
Berkembangnya teknologi dan peradaban manusia juga telah menyuburkan perkembangan demokrasi di dunia. Setiap individu menyadari akan hak-hak politik yang melekat kepadanya. Hal ini telah mempengaruhi sistem politik negara dari yang sangat kaku seperti Cina kemudian menjadi lebih terbuka. Pun pada kerajaan-kerajaan tidak lagi menjalankan pemerintahan otoriter yang mengabaikan kepentingan rakyat. Tuntutan ke arah kebebasan bahkan mendapatkan perhatian dunia melalu dukungan media dan lembaga internasional.
Permasalahan akan muncul ketika sebuah negara besar yang sebelumnya tidak mempunyai akomodasi terhadap berbagai kelompok dan kepentingannya kemudian menerapkan prinsip demokrasi yang bebas. Uni Sovyet adalah contoh carut marut glasnot dan preistorika yang tidak dibarengi dengan kekuatan sosial dan ekonomi yang mengakibatkan kehancuran negara adi daya tersebut.

Sumber Bacaan: LIPSON, LESLIE, The Democratic Civilization.New York, Oxford, 1964.F First Edition,

berbagai sumber dari website/google.