Human Rights Perspective Of Democracy In Indonesia

               Man was created by God Almighty with a set of rights that guarantees rank as a man. The rights is then referred to human rights, the rights acquired since birth as a human being is a gift of the Creator. Since every man is created equal position with the same rights, then the principle of equality and equality is the main thing in social interaction. But the reality indicates that humans have always lived in a social community to be able to maintain the degree of humanity and achieve its objectives. This may not be done individually.  



As a result, emerging social structure. It takes power to run a social organization.The relationship of democracy and human rights has been expressed in many agreements such as the Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, Solidarity Rights and various conventions on human rights.Democracy can be realized if there are human rights, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and because the rights and political freedom was only at the stage of potential, because in practice is not necessarily all be using it, the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights will also be important to realize democracy.Indeed the two types of human rights is a prerequisite for its form of democracy. But this human rights so that everything can be enforced so on, then the political pluralism and the rule of law it becomes a strategic instrument to promote human rights. Human rights can not be enforced if the Rule of Law can not be enforced, because it is democracy, rights and political freedom could be guaranteed if the two types of human rights were guaranteed, because of this aspect of human rights is a prerequisite for democracy.
 Based on the search history, basic concepts of human rights began to develop in the political discourse in Western Europe in the middle ages in line with the development of national understanding which later inspired the formation of nation states are modern and secular.When the nation-state that grows and develops is strongly influenced by the pattern of the centralized in the hands of a single master who worked in absolute terms the original conception of legitimacy based on theocracy.This situation of course provoke the emergence of various conflicts between the rulers and citizens or between power and freedom.The power of the kings of venturing into a country and all its people and the only power over certain territories and in worldly affairs only. This then raises the question of the legitimacy of the power of a king.In question is from where the king has power over territory and worldly affairs. The issue did not arise when the theory of the divine in the discourse of sovereignty is still valid because the theory of the divine king ruling is considered to have legitimacy as a representative of God or the executive power of God.Some even claimed he was the Lord's. However, after the reign of kings and emperors were limited to worldly affairs or secularized, so that kings and emperors no longer has power over the spiritual affairs of the people that are universal and trans-territorial and nationality, began to question arises about the basic legitimacy of a king .Secularization of power generated by the kings of jurisdiction conflict between the king and the church (the Pope) who came to power in the 13th century and 14th. On the one hand the king with the symbol to expand its national power to expand his control over other regions of the same race and all its inhabitants, while the Pope tried to uphold the church's political power over all beings who are Christians without distinction of nationality and territory are inhabited.The seeds of secularization of the royal power was actually started from the statement of Pope Gregory VII, who in 1075 issued a Dictatus Papae. Very different from the Augustinian view that developed before that, it turns out Dictatus Papae gives recognition of the power of emperors and kings to rule a certain limited territory in worldly matters although it is said that the position of the king was under the Pope and clergy.From here, the basic legitimacy of royal power which was originally attributed to God can be no more, because the affairs of the command of God or the spiritual development of society made by the Pope and the priests or churches.The king has no power in the name of God because of the ruling in the name of God is the Pope, priests, and churches, but powerful because of human society through an agreement or agreements (social contract).Inside this rationalization is mentioned that the king came to power because there are agreements that give people the king's temporal power to set the different interests that often clashed when man was still in a state naturalist. With this theory the residents who had been absolutely dominated by the king to dare to declare their status as citizens through a social contract gave constitutional and legal mandate to govern to those who can be trusted to organize and manage the lives of the citizens of that country.With this rationalization also became clear that the source of power (legitimate) king or the government it is the people with sovereignty. This is the root of the theory of popular sovereignty that came to be called democracy. With this theory, the basic power of the state was no longer a vox Dei (God's voice), but the vox populi (the voice of the people), though often both are synchronized or that the one attributed to the other through the expression of vox populi, vox Dei `voice of the people is the voice of God '. This is the basic legitimacy of the new (replacing the theory of the sovereignty of God) to the power of government.Thus, the actual democratization of state administration in Western Europe in the first place does not arise because of the rejection reaction against the centralization of state power and absolutism clan government, but a logical consequence of the secularization of power which originally was based on the theory of divinity or theocracy (for) and then given a new rationality ie popular sovereignty or democracy (Mahfud MD, 1999: 96).In the process of finding a balance between power and freedom back in the process of secularization and democratization that was born the idea of ​​constitutionalism that would guarantee human freedom in his capacity as a citizen in the face of the country. Thus, the idea of ​​constitutionalism is clearly not a function of the residual power of the state and its apparatus of government, but rather it is a function of residual constitutional freedoms and basic human rights are transferred (as the rest) to the state.That is, the size of state power will be greatly determined by the willingness of citizens to leave most of the rights and freedom to care (mandated to) state through an agreement between them.And agreement on the residual rights and freedoms to the state mandated that a further set forth in the constitution and various descriptions implementatifnya into law (Mahfud, 1999).J.J. Rousseau may be recorded as one of the great thinker who contributes to the idea like this when it said that the basis of state power is a contract between the whole community to form a government that is a class of people who are authorized to run the government with the limits prescribed by the constitution, not again based on the theory of divinity but based on popular sovereignty.The idea to limit the power of the state that guarantees freedom and fundamental rights of citizens in the beginning was made by thinkers and politicians who tend to represent the interests of the aristocrats and bourgeois elite (such as the Magna Charta in 1215 or 1689 Habeas Corpus in the UK).However, since the 18th century became increasingly aware that populist constitutionalism so - no longer confined to the aristocratic and bourgeois elites, but with more emphasis on all citizens.On American Independence Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution in 1789 seemed very strong populist nature of the struggle for constitutionalism which also requires the construction of nation-states based on law (rechtsstaat and the rule of law).The concept outlined rechtstaat characteristics: (1) the protection of human rights, (2) The existence of separation and division of state power to ensure the protection of human rights, (3) Government under the rules, and (4) The existence of judicial administration.While the characteristics in the rule of law are: (1) The existence of the supremacy of the rule of law, (2) The existence of equality before the law, and (3) The guarantee of human rights protection.Actual experience of American history that many gave inspiration to a demand to provide human rights pangakuan for American audiences because history itself is never known aristocratic class. French bourgeois revolution in 1789 which later transformed into a revolution of the people who are well known as the Glorious Revolution was actually inspired by the revolution in America 1776 was a very populist.Given the importance of the position of human rights, which turned out to have a close relationship with the basic structure and is central to the democratic system related to human dignity, presumably not too much if human rights is called: a moral point of democracy, (Koentjoro Purbopranoto , 1975: 88).After World War II, emerging nation states in Asia and Africa are modeled their nation-states that had developed earlier in Europe. That fact can be understood as a consequence of the fact that the clan pioneer nationalist independence in Asia and Africa the figures are experiencing education from European colonial educators.They do not totally replicate the European model but make modifications in accordance with the demands of socio-cultural conditions without leaving the basic concept. Although they can understand all the cognitive substance of the nation state as in Europe, in fact, not easy to simply appreciate the constitutional traditions of Europe with all its basic values.There is a tendency on the nationalist bumiputera to be formalistic in matters of constitutional and political issues. Therefore, despite the nationalist countries of Asia and Africa, it's pretty good at preparing the constitution as it developed in Europe, they do not really think much about it or intend to refer to the fundamentals of constitutionalism that underlie the various state constitutions in European countries. This is caused by the influence of their cultural roots.According to Ignas Kleden, as quoted by Rhoda E. Howard asserts that the contextualization of democracy is understood differently in particular that occurred in Asia. In the name of "Asian values" into the reasons and excuses to justify violations of the principles of democracy and political rights violations because of good community economic development (in the version of Lee Kuan Yew), as well as political development (in the version of Suharto) be executed by the State (Rhoda E. Howard, 2000).