GOVERNING POWER AND SOVEREIGNTY
Introduction
Power and sovereignty are actually a package in the study of government science. It is
said to be a package, because the study of government science emphasizes the pattern of
relations between the powerful and the controlled. Between those who govern and those who
are governed. Between the leader and the led. The pattern of relations between the
government and the people is bound by power. As Roger Scruton (2013) says, power may
be based on 'coercion' or 'consent' in managing the government. This short sentence is
interesting when associated with political systems. In an authoritarian political system, the
power to govern is based on coercion. Leaders in operationalizing power do not require
consent from the people (Dhakidae, 1999). In contrast, in a democratic political system,
power requires the consent of the people because it is based on the understanding that all
governing power comes from the people (Beetham and Boyle, 2000). Bung Hatta (2003)
calls it a form of popular sovereignty. Meanwhile, John Locke (2002) termed power belongs
to the people.
The view that power belongs to the people and therefore requires the consent of the
people is central to the idea of democracy. The meaning of democracy is from the people
and for the people. Elections as an instrument of democracy outline how candidates compete
for the people's votes to become political leaders. In fact, democracy not only regulates how
power is contested - maintained - enlarged - distributed, and limited (Scruton, 2013), but can
also force leaders in power to be responsible for exercising their power (Mujani et al., 2011).
Furthermore, powerful leaders also need to be controlled so as not to be arbitrary (Budiarjo,
1998) in exercising power. Power tends to be abused by the government, so democracy
requires the active involvement of the community in governance.
The active involvement of the community, both in selecting leaders, providing input,
controlling power, and criticizing the government is a form of political awareness in
exercising their rights as citizens. Arief Budiman (1996) calls it a community effort to
control government power. The government does function to regulate society, but its great
power needs to be controlled and limited. The government should not deprive its people of
their human rights. Limitation of power aims to prevent the government from being arbitrary
in using its power because it can violate the principle of popular sovereignty (Pabottingi,
1999) on the one hand. On the other hand, the limitation of government power aims to create
political balance. The sovereignty of governing and exercising power is not absolute because
the government in carrying out its role and authority always adheres to the principle that
power is divided and dispersed in various political entities (Scruton, 2013). By prioritizing
this principle, the power and sovereignty of governing can be better. Therefore, power is no
longer concentrated in the government. Referring to Surbakti (2002), the mechanism of
checks and balances in managing the power of a democratic government. The power and
sovereignty of governing will create a government that is democratic a good person and a
good society.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
Understanding Power
The understanding of power in political science literature is always actual to be
discussed. Power is one of the most popular vocabularies, both at the level of thought and at
the operational level. Power at the operational level is always contested by many actors.
Because power is always mesmerizing (Haryatmoko, 2016) and limited in number. The
question is what is power? Power has many definitions and is very broad in its meaning. For
example, Plano, et al (1982) say that power is closely related to influence and the influenced.
This is corroborated by Russell (1988) who wrote that power is the result of desired
influence. In line with this, Budiarjo (1984) also emphasizes power as influence. This idea
can actually be traced from Dahl's (1957; 1963) ideas in an article entitled The Concept of
Power.
Power and politics cannot be separated from the works of Plato and Aristotle, both
philosophers greatly influenced the development of the philosophy of Political Science and
Government. Plato spoke of the ideal form of power, which must be regulated by
philosophers within the framework of the state form of aristocracy. While Aristotle spoke of
the constitution as the basis for his realist thinking to become an ideal state. Aristotle's
theory of the origin of the state cannot be separated from the concept of power as understood
by Enlightenment politicians. Aristotle said that humans are political beings (zoon politicon)
which means that because political beings need relationships between one another, a state
can be formed. The formation of the state starts from a small family, then becomes a group,
then becomes a community, and becomes a city state (polis). The government, which is the
holder of power, is very decisive in its presence (good will) for the common good by
adhering to the constitution.
Another view of power was expressed by Soemardi (1984) who said that power is a
form of coercive domination. Therefore, what is put forward is the ability of the leader to
impose the will on other parties (Haryatmoko, 2016) or the led party. Usually, authoritarian
leaders use repressive methods in managing their power. Not only that, authoritarian leaders
also use violence in building legitimacy (Huntington, 1997).
The concept of power in various theoretical views is how someone called A wants B to
do what A wants (Dahl, 1969). There are several ways to will such as influence,
persuasiveness, coerciveness, reward, force, and explicative. Influence is the influence of
someone who is able to influence other people or the general public with their privileges, for
example, a handsome or beautiful person, a person who has charisma and a leader who is
favored by the people because he has a special trait. Persuasive means a person who is able
to convince others to do what the person wants. Convincing means that there is an effort to
persuade or seduce and promise something so that people want to do it. The concept of
marketing is understood as a way to convince someone either in the business world or
electoral studies. Electoral studies often use the concept of marketing for convincing
constituents through political marketing such as introducing person, place, promotion, and
product.
Power can also be seen in the coercive relationship between one individual and
another. Coercive or pressure can be seen in the efforts of someone wanting something and
pressuring others and even threatening them. In addition, power relations can occur because
there is a reason for rewarding (rewarding) so that someone wants to do what he wants.
Rewards in this case take many forms, such as giving positions or promotions, gifts, praise,
appreciation for hard work and so on. Various ways of exercising power such as violence
(Force) both carried out by state institutions and by the general public. Physical violence can
be seen in terms of the impact that occurs, namely someone getting what they want through
means of physical harm to others. Up to the act of exploitation, which is a situation that
utilizes arbitrarily for its own benefit without thinking about a sense of propriety and justice.
Exploitation can happen to nature as well as humans, such as slavery and other inhumane
acts.
Dahl's view of power is interpreted differently by Lukes (1975, 2005), where power is
understood as the product of conflict between actors to determine who wins and who loses.
In relatively open systems where there is an established decision-making arena. If certain
voices are not debated or non-participation is interpreted as apathy or ineffectiveness among
actors themselves, not as a process of exclusion from the political process. In this case, there
are differences between Dahl and Lukes in understanding the concept of power, where
Lukes understands power more as a product of conflict between actors while Dahl
understands the relationship between A and B.
Another concept of power comes from Michel Foucault (1977, 1979) in the dimension
of power, knowledge or expertise can be understood as a resource to be mobilized to
influence public opinion. Practically with this view, knowledge is an approach to influence a
policy. Knowledge and action are largely related to expertise versus other expertise. The
assumption is that the better (objective, rational, highly credible) the knowledge, the more
influence it will have. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both of
which speak for something else, rather than speaking from experience of life's problems but
claiming to be objective. Little attention is paid in this view to whose voice knowledge
represents in the decision-making process, or to how forms of power influence the ways in
which problems come to be framed and addressed.
Power also cannot be separated from the dominance of power by someone who comes
from the concept of the power pyramid. The highest power is in the hands of a king
(monarchy) who then under him are nobles of various levels (including those who regulate)
or oligarchs, then below are high-ranking officials from both civil and military, then there
are merchants or entrepreneurs and the lowest are farmers and laborers. Understanding the
oligarchic power pyramid is As a practical and historical matter, there is a great deal of
domination and often forgetting the responsibility of being in power.
Historical accounts of power explain that the highest authority in the state organization
(kingdom) is the king. The king formally has the right to exercise supreme power, if
necessary by force, and the state (kingdom) in this case divides the lower powers to the
ruling class. However, in the development of a more democratic state under the rule of the
government, the history of understanding power cannot be forgotten, because the ruler still
positions himself as a king. Power is sometimes very persuasively used in governing or
simply seen as a product of actor competition. However, it does not rule out the possibility
that leaders use their power as a form of domination over those they lead. Both, power as
influence and power as domination are used for political purposes only. One of the goals is
the leader's right to rule, and the people's obligation to obey him (Huntington, 1997).
In this study, the standing position explains that the concept of power that has long
been in the hands of the king or ruler has received a very significant breakthrough into
power in the hands of the people or popular sovereignty. However, in its journey, power in
the hands of the people has not been fully seen clearly, it is only limited to concepts and
theories so that there needs to be an operationalization that can be captured and explained
easily, namely sovereignty in the hands of the government and sovereignty in the hands of
the people.
Research Methods
This paper is closer to the description method, which describes the relationship
between power and sovereignty. Meaningfully, the description method is the search for data
with precise interpretation (Nazir, 2008). In searching for data, this paper relies more on
literature review. By critically reading a number of documents and literature, the
understanding of power and sovereignty is systematically described. As said by Nazir
(2008), the purpose of the description method is to describe or illustrate systematically and
accurately the data and relationships between the phenomena being investigated.
Faisal (1995) says the description method simply describes the problem being written
about, in this case power and sovereignty. However, what is equally important is the ability
to interpret the data to make it more meaningful. Meanwhile, Hammersley (2004) states the
need for accuracy in analyzing documents and texts related to power and sovereignty.
Results and Discussion
Power And The People
Power derived from the people is found in the practice of democracy. Procedural
democracy uses elections as an instrument for the regular selection of political leaders.
Referring to the opinion of SP. Huntington (1997) that the main procedure of democracy is
the competitive election of political leaders by the people they lead. Explanation Huntington
has a double meaning. First, the people have the power to choose political leaders. In more
political language, the people have the power to determine who is powerful and who is not.
The people appoint and remove political leaders through democratic elections (Mujani et al.,
2011). In other words, elections are a trial for the people to their leaders.
Second, the elected leader will be given a mandate to govern. In traditional political
theory, it is the people who give power to other parties to govern (Budiarjo, 1998). When the
people give a mandate, the leader must submit and obey the wishes of the led. The logic of
the mandate places the people in a higher position than the leader. Submitting and obeying
the wishes of the people is something natural because the government is intended for the
people. In addition, leaders are also required to serve and provide protection to their people.
Therefore, the power attached to the leader is oriented towards the will of the people and the
common good.
The will of the people and the common good are evidence of the ruler's partiality to his
people. Budiarjo (1998) calls it a form of responsibility of the ruler to his people.
Meanwhile, M. Hatta (2003) said that whoever gets the power, then he is the one who is
responsible. The form of accountability of power is to maintain the safety and provide the
welfare of its people. Safety and welfare are regulated in the constitution and the
constitution gives authority to the leader to realize it. Arief Budiman (1996) adds that power
is actually to educate its citizens with rational moral values.
This explanation shows that power is for the people. The people are not only the
source of power, but also the mouth of power itself. Power for the people means that leaders
have the skills and capacity to govern (Hatta, 2003). The skills and capacity of the
government need to be strengthened in order to optimize the government's power for the
people. Referring to Fukuyama (2005), government power needs to be directed to activities
aimed at serving the people through pro-people political decisions. This is because power
often requires noble efforts to create a good and fairer social order (Budiarjo, 1998) in
managing the government. A fairer social order refers to the following points:
A power that is able to implement and enforce the law;
Power needs to guarantee the welfare of society in a fair and equitable manner;
Ensure checks and balances between the organizers of state power;
For ensure stability and capability leader, then power is exercised by following a
democratic government;
Gain power from the people through competitive and fair elections;
Acts with the consent of the people's representative body;
Exercise power in accordance with the constitution and the law;
Accountable politically to the people's representatives and legally to an independent
judiciary;
Using political authority according to public morality (Surbakti, 1998).
People's power, which can be understood as the sovereignty of the people in its
journey in democratic countries, cannot be separated from the concept of participation.
Referring to Michel Foucault's theory of power and knowledge, speaking of the relationship
between power and knowledge, participation is present and develops because of the
knowledge that continues to grow by the people. Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) spoke of the
literature on participatory, found various theories and approaches that to some degree are
based on the claim that democratic participation in knowledge production can enable
marginalized people to exercise greater voice and choice rights, and work to change social
relations and power processes. This means that with knowledge, the level of participation
will be high and will be an ammunition for citizens to become a force of checks and
balances for the government.
Two Models of Sovereignty
The power and sovereignty of governing can actually be traced through the ideas of
David Held and Arief Budiman. These two thinkers sort out two forms of sovereignty in
governing, namely the sovereignty of the government and the sovereignty of the people.
Government sovereignty is built on the idea that the government rules over the people.
The whole always determines the parts. So, here the people are not seen as individual human
beings, but as citizens of a state (Budiman, 1996).
With great power, all the needs and interests of its citizens can be realized (Budiman,
1996). Because it is the leader who determines both in organizing government, development
and controlling politics. The leader becomes the sole ruler in all areas of life (Surbakti,
1998). It is at this point that the phrase of Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of
Singapore becomes relevant: no one has the right to shake my power (Huntington, 1996).
Lee has actually practiced how power and sovereignty are operationalized in Singapore. In
other words, Lee has practiced the most superior, absolute, and uncontrollable state of power
(Scruton, 2013). In contrast, in the interpretation of popular sovereignty-the power of
political leaders is limited.
The limitation of the power of political leaders and the assurance of their power shows
a shift in the sovereignty of government. In the sovereignty of the government, it is the
leader who has full power. Whereas in popular sovereignty, it is the people who are in
charge. In popular sovereignty, the authority of power is aimed at pursuing the goals of the
governed. Not only that, leaders also act to protect their citizens and uphold the public and
private rights of their citizens (Held, 2004).
Popular sovereignty, which was discussed by philosophers of the Enlightenment,
became the basis for the thinking of subsequent political scientists. The view that humans
have the right to live, own things, and act according to their conscience was coined by John
Locke, who viewed human existence as a right owned by every human being. Therefore, to
ensure that human existence is not usurped by the king's power, the king's power must be
limited so that it will no longer be arbitrary. The separation of power into three bodies,
namely the executive, legislative and federative, which Montesquieu later slightly changed
to the executive, legislative and legislative, so on what we know as the trias politica
Held reinforced the position of the people in the management of power. The power
and sovereignty of government is determined by the people. The government can only be
strong if it has the support of the people. Conversely, support from the people to the
government will flow if the leader who is given the power to govern is able to keep that
power from being abused. In addition, if the leader is able to be accountable (Budiarjo,
1998) for his/her performance while in power and devote his/her power to the interests of
the people (Budiman, 1996). Popular sovereignty, which is the hallmark of a democratic
state, is a very interesting discussion to be proven and realized by the government as the
holder of power. As Firdaus (2020) said to strengthen the government, because the
government is an important actor who can only submit to popular sovereignty, not to the
market or bureaucracy. So that by becoming a link between idealism and realism, true
popular sovereignty can be carried out.
Power and Responsibility
The question of accountability of power is also very important for the ruling leader.
Leaders who govern are required to be accountable to the people. This is because
accountability is part of democratic governance. As Geoff Mulgan (1995) says every ruler
who governs is accountable according to what they do while in power. Meanwhile, Wahyudi
Kumorotomo (2009) defines accountability as a process that involves the actions, deeds, and
decisions of leaders in relation to their citizens, so that they can receive awards and
sanctions as consequences.
Spiro Hebert (1969) explains that responsibility can be interpreted as accountability,
obligation and cause. Accountability is understood as proving the extent to which a person
who has power carries out the tasks or orders mandated to him, according to the means, tools
and the level of achievement of predetermined goals. This is regardless of whether he agrees
to the order or whether he feels forced, compelled, obliged or by choice and in that case
must accept the risk. Obligation is seen as the extent to which a person in power is able to
keep, fulfill and fulfill promises (pledge, commitment, sense of duty) born from an
agreement (to God, nature, society and himself). At some point, they are willing to fulfill the
obligations born from their status (position, position) as those who have power and the
extent to which they are willing to bear sanctions, impacts and risks. Cause is the extent to
which the level of concern mobilizes someone who has power, regardless of their status or
position.
When putting accountability as a political process from the leader to the led. Power
accountability can minimize the distance between the ruler and the people in managing the
government. This accountability can generate political support from citizens to the ruler
(Kleden, 2004). This pattern of power accountability is vertical. Meanwhile, the
accountability of power can also be done horizontally or accountability based on equality
between political actors. This is in accordance with the doctrine of trias politika (Eko,
2013).
Both vertical accountability and horizontal accountability are carried out
simultaneously. The leader is the central actor and the main actor in holding his power
accountable to the people and parliament. With this accountability mechanism, the leader
can maintain his power. In other words, the accountability of power can raise the degree of
the ruler. In the end, to borrow Pabottingi's term (1999), it creates a desire for recognition
[tymos] that the ruling leader has lived the political tatakarma [fatsoen]-politik as contained
in democratic values.
Some of the literature above explains that accountability results from the internal
process of a person in power, but accountability can also be imposed from outside the power
holder or an external process. The process can be forced by external power through political
participation. Foucault explains that power lies in a knowledge or skill to create participation
that can answer the conditions of marginalized communities. Therefore, active political
participation by the community through knowledge and skills becomes a driver and breaker
for someone in power to be accountable for his position as ruler in accordance with the will
of popular sovereignty.
Relationship between Government Power and People Power
This reading of power and sovereignty has relevance to the ideas of Mohammad Hatta.
For Hatta, sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It is the people who give power to the
ruler to lead. Political leaders are people who are responsible and have a sense of
responsibility (Hatta, 1983). Therefore, leaders must be accountable for their power. In
another writing by Hatta (1983), it is stated that the leader who gets power is the one who is
responsible and bears all the consequences. Furthermore, Hatta said that the greatness of
political leaders depends on the wisdom of the person who holds power (Hatta, 1983).
Hatta is very concerned about the power of the leader, where a political leader is
actually able to create a fair government in implementing democracy and providing
prosperity to his people as much as possible (Hatta, 2003). If the ruling authority is able to
implement democracy and provide prosperity, then that is a political leader who works for
the people. The ruling leader should increase his influence and power through (Hatta, 1976)
real work and have a broad impact on the lives of its people. Therefore, Hatta (2003) said:
we want a state of administrators and leaders with strong character, the ability to decide,
high morale, courage, and calm under extraordinary pressure (Hatta, 1976).
Hatta's explanation is very relevant to the condition of our nation. We need leaders
who are able to take care of their citizens. Leaders who have a strong character in managing
resources for the welfare of their people. Leaders who are brave in making pro-people
decisions. Leaders who dare to divide the political and economic rights of their people. In
addition, leaders who are in power are also ready to be criticized and give freedom to their
citizens to speak, to bring down the government that they do not like (Hatta, 1983) through
democratic, honest and fair elections.
Hatta's explanation is very balanced in placing the government in power and the
source of power is the people. It is the people who appoint and remove the government.
Democratic mechanisms through elections can force the ruler to be responsible in exercising
his power (Mujani et al, 2011).
Political leaders with strong characters and the trust of the people are needed in
managing the government. This is because the trust of the people is an important part of
strengthening the leader's power. Strengthening the leader's power is important. Therefore,
this great power needs to be divided and limited. This is because the common goal of leaders
is to create the common good (Held, 2004). The government, which is the holder of power,
can carry out its function as a manager and regulator with the principle of popular
sovereignty, by being able to change the concept of the people to citizens by making citizens
a concept that mandates social justice.
Government power is an initial discussion related to the formation of the government
by the people through elections (electoral). The people give trust and power to the
government on the basis of an agreement or consensus, especially in democratic countries.
With the formation of the government (government making), the government has the
authority and legitimacy over the affairs to regulate and govern. Government power is
closely related to its sovereignty, meaning that the sovereign over power is the government
and not others, not the market or bureaucrats. Government sovereignty is the most important
part of the establishment of a state constitution so that actors who manage and regulate the
people must be able to maintain their sovereignty. The power of the government has a
relationship with the power of the people, the people who form the government means that
the people have sovereignty over their own existence. Power in the hands of the people or
the sovereignty of the people has The consequences of the people must be prioritized over
the affairs of the state. This means that the government must be able to organize and manage
the people and transform the people into citizens (citizen making). Citizens in this case are
people who are part of social justice, get welfare, a good life (good will). Therefore, the
government needs to be sovereign over its power and the people also need to be sovereign
over the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusions
The power and sovereignty of governing need to be discussed in the study of
government science. Even though the sovereignty of governing is in the hands of the leader
or ruler through popular consensus (government making)-it does not mean marginalizing the
people in the vortex of power. The sovereignty of the leader needs to be limited so that his
power is not abused. Given the power and sovereignty to rule is only needed to regulate the
affairs of the people. Protect the human rights of the people, and the ruler cannot take them
away (Budiman, 1996) for any reason and in any way. The government is formed by the
people and must then be able to transform the concept of the people into citizens, in
accordance with the concept of citizen making.
In addition, the power and sovereignty of government is also limited by the logic of
democracy, which advocates the importance of accountability to the people. In addition, it
should also be mentioned that the power of leaders needs to be controlled and criticized.
Criticism is needed as a form of improvement (Hatta, 1976) in managing the government.
Criticism and control come from the concept of political participation, where people have
power because they have knowledge and skills so that they are more active in reading the
power relations that occur. Therefore, to maintain the quality of power and sovereignty of
the government always requires the institutionalization of popular sovereignty in an effort to
control government power. At the same time, it forces leaders to be accountable for their
power.
