QUESTIONING THE VALUE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AMIDST THE POWER OF CAPITAL
Introduction
Economic development is one of the real manifestations of the government in an effort
to pay attention to the needs of the community and the progress of the nation. However, if we
reflect on what the government has done through policies in the economic field, starting from
the state-centered New Order era (state oriented) to the market-centered Reformation era
(market oriented), it is clear that the orientation of economic development only provides
maximum benefits to certain small groups of people and more miserable and even seems to
oppress most of the nation's children who actually must be cared for and protected by the
government. This is in stark contrast to the essence of the political ideals initiated by our
founding fathers, namely the creation of a just, prosperous and prosperous United States
society, as contained in the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution.
We can see the above argument clearly and firmly through certain economic policies
that oppress community groups such as farming communities, the poor in slums, the informal
sector or street vendors (PKL), laborers, fishermen and small businesses, which are socially,
economically and politically disadvantaged. Then in the agricultural sector, among others: the
policy of eliminating fertilizer subsidies, rice import policy, sugar import tariff policy until
0% in 1998 which then changed to 25% in 2000 due to public pressure, and so on (Suparjan,
et al, 2003). Not forgetting the lives of workers such as the granting of privileges to investors
or capital owners with policies such as the granting of monopoly facilities, licenses, trade
systems, cartels, tax breaks, credit priorities, and policies providing minimum wages for
workers with the simple reason that any increase in labor wages will certainly increase
production costs so that investors are lazy to open or 'reluctant' to come to United States.
Other economic policies that have indirectly contributed to the worsening of these groups
include the policy of guaranteeing the payment of the obligations of commercial banks to
domestic and foreign depositors and creditors by the government (known as BLBI
distribution), which has clearly harmed and destroyed the nation, as well as the policy of
raising fuel prices at an inappropriate time during 2000-2002.
This is the reality in our beloved country, where, according to Yustika (2003), 85% of
the population is inhabited by the communities mentioned above. A picture that shows how
the government and its bureaucracy have so far only produced economic development
policies that favor their own interests, certain groups and of course the owners of capital.
Meanwhile, the true orientation of economic development has been marginalized, so that the
majority of people have to suffer a terrible downturn, experiencing poverty and an inadequate
life as a result of unfair treatment.
Therefore, in the midst of the demands for changes in the role of government that are
currently developing, the government should make fundamental changes to the economic
development process in order to restore the essence of the objectives of economic
development to its proper path, as envisioned by the founders of this nation, namely social
justice for all United States people.
Furthermore, in order to achieve a comprehensive understanding process, this paper is
simply divided into the following steps: First, the value of social justice as the essence of
economic development will be reviewed. Then, in the second part, we will discuss some of
the issues that have caused injustice or the marginalization of the value of social justice. We
will take a snapshot of this review from the New Order period to the present. And in the third
section, the prerequisites needed for social justice as the essence of development will be put
forward.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
About Justice Social: A Value Principles The Goal Of Economic Development.
Before elaborating further on the emergence of inequality and the prerequisites for
overcoming the problem, this section will first discuss the essence of economic development.
It cannot be denied by any citizen of the United States nation and also the nations of the
world that the Unitary State of the Republic of United States stands on a foundation of
fundamental state rules (staatsfundamentalnorm), namely the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution. As a fundamental state rule, scientifically, of course, the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution has several absolute elements, namely: First, in terms of occurrence, it is
determined by the state framer and stated in a statement of birth (diijab-kabulkan) as an
embodiment of the will of the state framer who makes certain things the basis of the state he
formed; second, in terms of content, it contains the foundations of the state formed, namely
the principle of state spirituality, the principle of state politics, and the principle of state goals
or state ideals. (Wreksosuhardjo, 2001).
In relation to the principle of the purpose or ideals of the United States state, it is clearly
stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution that one of the
fundamental objectives of the establishment of the United States state is that the United States
state aims to create social justice for all United States people. Hazairin (1970, 12) states that
social justice for all United States people, which is then conceptualized as the fifth principle
of the foundation of the United States state, when viewed in terms of its function, can be said
to be a principle that serves as a goal. '...the fifth principle is not the basis of the state, but is
the most important goal, the main goal, namely realizing a social justice for all United States
people'. Such a statement is in line with the opinion of Notonagoro (1968, 136) who states 'Its
place in Pancasila as the last principle is because it is the goal of the four precepts that
precede it, the goal of our nation as a state'.
Based on this thought, it is very clear that since the beginning of the establishment of
the United States nation, the state formers have placed the value of justice for the community
as the ultimate goal of the process of building an independent and sovereign United States
nation. Or with another interpretation, the value of social justice has been chosen by the state
formers as the most important value and is the ultimate goal of the development process to fill
the independence of the United States nation.
Talking about the importance of the value of justice for society as one of the
fundamental goals for the United States nation, if we want to look far back to trace its
existence, then it has actually become a topic of discussion or a topic of serious and in-depth
discussion since the ancient Greek era. One of the important figures who explored this clearly
was Plato. In his book entitled 'Republic', Plato suggests that there are four main virtues that
must be practiced in the life of a state, namely: discipline, courage, wisdom, and justice. And
according to his assessment that of the four virtues justice is the highest virtue in organizing
the life of a good state 'the supreme virtue of the good state'. Furthermore, he emphasizes that
the duty of the state is to maintain social harmony, strive for all virtues, and goodness. And
the ideal state is a state filled with virtue and goodness, namely a state based on justice
(Rapar; 1988).
This view, although at a very broad level, is not specific to the scope of economic
development, at least enough to underline that the value of justice for the community has
become an important and main value and must be pursued by the state for the sake of the
coveted ideals of social harmony and welfare or society.
Ernest Barker (1951, in Pasha et al, 1988) in his book 'Principles of social and political
theory' also states something in line with this argument. For him, social justice is a proper
organization of a national society, which It aims to foster and encourage the development of
the highest possible capacities of the personalities of all members of society. Likewise, John
Rawls in his book entitled 'The Theory of Justice' states that justice is the most important
social value that is not only adhered to by social policy, but by society in general.
Furthermore, he analyzes that society as social cooperation can only grow and develop
properly if the basic rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected by the state through a
fair constitution. In this case, justice is the key to developing a good society, and is also the
virtue of social institutions. The principles of justice put forward by Rawls emphasize: First,
everyone should have the same right to the broadest basic freedoms, as broad as the same
freedoms for everyone; second, social and economic inequalities should be organized in such
a way that (a) they benefit everyone by prioritizing those who are most disadvantaged, and (b)
all offices and positions are open to everyone (Jamasy, 2004).
Moving on from some of the thoughts of the figures above, it can be concluded that
social justice is the most important thing in order to achieve a prosperous and just society. So
for the United States people who are civilized and place the value of social justice in the
fundamental principles of the state and the basis of the state as discussed in the article.
Therefore, it is imperative that all economic development strategies and policies chosen
should lead to these ideals. The state is obliged to create common good. This is the essence of
economic development which should be the stand point for the government and its
bureaucracy in an effort to produce policies in economic development.
Economic Development United States: A Portrait Justice Marginalized By The Power
Of Capital
If we trace the value of social justice in the process of economic development of the
United States nation, then it has clearly or actually only begun to be considered since the New
Order regime came to power, where it is illustrated in the trilogy of development, namely in
the point of equity. Unfortunately, this value was only a mere verbal statement for the New
Order rulers. Practice shows that the orientation of economic development is only focused on
economic growth, while equity is far from the attention of the government and its
bureaucracy, even though equity is expected to occur through something that is mission
impossible, namely through the efforts of the 'invisible hand' or another term used is 'tickle
down effect'.
The rapid economic growth that occurred in practice did not lead to an effective 'trickle-
down effect', which occurred on the contrary, the emergence of widespread problems of
socio-economic inequality (injustice). Such as the inequality between rural and urban
communities as well as between regions (Java and outside Java). These inequalities can be
seen in terms of the percentage of poor people, per capita income, and investment inequality.
For example, in 2002, according to Bappenas data, the number of poor people was 49.5
million (24.13%), with 17.6 million in urban areas and 31.9 million in rural areas.
There is other evidence that is sufficient to question the government and its bureaucracy
about siding with the value of justice when the government and its accomplices repeatedly
continue to evict small economic actors and replace them with centers of economic activity
that only support five percent of the population. The state is also challenged on its rationality
when, with full confidence, it is willing to provide for a handful of people to open large and
technology-intensive industrial centers by cutting subsidies for the economy. Finally, the
state's ethical stance is also in doubt when it utilizes the wide-open democratic space in the
last five years to accommodate the lust of the community elite in spending money to sell
state-owned enterprises, bail out banks and companies that have gone bankrupt, and create
political parties. In a situation that negates common sense, of course, the cries of the need for
the state to protect the marginalized have become increasingly muted (Yustika, 2003).
Thus, economic development centered on economic growth has marginalized the value
of justice for the poor and powerless. What is even more painful is that the government and its
bureaucracy have given tremendous opportunities to the owners of capital (elite-businessmen)
to control the nation's economic assets. As a result, economic development, which should
prioritize the poor and powerless, instead treats capital owners as prima donnas who are
flooded with facilities and conveniences. We can see this phenomenon from the time the New
Order regime came to power until today, where the power of capital even 'dictates' the
government to act unfairly to the poor community. Capital has finally become an "institution"
that sneaks in between the state and society. Capital with its power of influence, so agile to
step over what is called the livelihood of the people and the authority of the state. This has
repeatedly happened in various events, where the state is subjected when capital can buy
every policy, without having to submit a bid price to the public. An example is the case of
Bali Nirwana Resort, where farming communities in Tabanan, Bali, had to reluctantly give up
their farmland to investors who wanted to build a hotel and golf course (Santoso and
Saskarayasa, 2002).
The power of capital does not stop at the domination of capital ownership and asset
control by domestic conglomerates (business elites) alone, but also by foreign capitalists. At
this point, in recent developments, it has an increasingly dominant role due to
neoliberalization and globalization. These two phenomena have 'forced' the strengthening of
the role of capital/private economic actors (corporations and business agents) in influencing
other aspects of life, with the market as the sole instrument that regulates the operation of
economic activity, which is marked, among others, by the prohibition of direct state
intervention in the economy such as subsidies, trade systems, monopolies, licenses to all
forms of protection Other. Such characteristics will further aggravate the poor, who generally
have very weak competitive capabilities and are therefore unable to respond as quickly as
possible to the social changes around them and are ultimately marginalized in the process of
unfair economic development.
Not to mention, in general, United States is still far from the situation of developed
countries that initiated neoliberalization and globalization, where the level of competitiveness
is still so weak in all fields. Of course, United States will face enormous threats, especially
regarding trade relations between countries. The domestic market will be less competitive.
And in such a situation, there is a relationship of dependence between United States and
developed countries, so that certain cooperation occurs. As stated by Andre Gunder Frank
(Budiman, 1995) that in an effort to maximize capital the bourgeoisie in metropolis countries
(developed) cooperate with government officials in satellite countries (developing) and the
dominant bourgeoisie there. As a result of this cooperation, government policies emerge that
favor foreign capital plus the local bourgeoisie at the expense of the interests or sense of
justice of many people.
The power of foreign capital was even more pronounced when the crisis hit United
States in 1997. The conditions led the government to ask the IMF for large financial
assistance in resolving the economic problems that occurred in the country. The "magic letter"
known as the letter of intent (LoI) which is a prerequisite for the disbursement of funds has
forced the government to comply with the prescriptions offered by the IMF. The prescriptions
that were assembled into the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which included
deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, were essentially a door for the entry of foreign
capital-owning actors such as transnational and multinational companies, the IMF, the World
Bank, and the WTO in expanding production, markets, and investment without any obstacles.
The prescription turned out to have negative implications for society rather than
improving people's welfare, because that is where the government was 'dictated' by the power
of foreign capital to produce policies that were detrimental to the average citizen. These
negative impacts include: first, deregulation. The implication of the deregulation policy is the
marginalization of local farmers and craftsmen due to the inability of the produced goods to
compete with foreign produced goods. The death of the industrial climate This will have
implications for the increasing number of unemployed people in the country. The end result of
all this is the process of impoverishment and social inequality in society; Second,
Privatization. Privatization policies that are merely interpreted as an effort to close the fiscal
deficit, in the end, will only cause privatization to be closer to the steps of concentrating
ownership into the hands of individuals, a group of money capitalists. In the structural
inequality that still plagues United States, privatization will lead to a widening poverty gap
between groups of people (the haves and the have nots). This gap clearly contradicts the
aspect of social justice in society, which is one of the core of sustainable development; Third,
Liberalization. The existence of trade liberalization eventually led to the marginalization of
the community in the development process. In addition, the reduction of subsidies to the
budget for the people's basic needs will lead to an increasingly heavy economic burden on the
people. Many people are then unable to fulfill their needs, so the number of poor people
increases. This poverty issue ultimately makes it difficult to realize social justice in society
(Supardjan, et al, 2003, 174).
Starting from these conditions, transnational and multinational companies, which are
business agents of developed countries, are increasingly aggressively expanding and
exploiting our natural resources such as forests, seas, mines, and others. This actually started
several years ago before the multidimensional crisis took place. As a result of this existence,
there are various negative externalities for the community around the place where the
cooperation is located, both in the form of forced land acquisition, environmental destruction
and environmental pollution, all of which have an impact on material losses and the interests
of many people. For example, in the recent Buyat case, the fishing community in the area
suffered both material and mental losses due to the actions of a cooperative called Newmont
Mining whose headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado, United States. Supposedly,
under these conditions, the people should be saved from such a large authority or capital
power. However, the government, which is supposed to be a medium to control economic
development activities carried out by investors, in practice walks in love with investors
instead of the community. The government, through the elite or officials authorized in their
fields, providing political and administrative guarantees that allow the project activities to
proceed. Administrative instruments that must be fulfilled and need to be studied in depth are
simply reduced by the government for the sake of satisfying investors and of course
unscrupulous officials or government officials themselves. For example, AMDAL, which is
supposed to be a bureaucratic-scientific instrument to anticipate the negative or positive
implications of a proposed development project, is mostly passed with a guarantee or a certain
amount of financial reward from investors at the expense of a sense of justice and community
survival. At a theoretical level, this kind of phenomenon is referred to as rent seeking.
In line with the two issues above, within the government and its bureaucracy, which is
the agent of (economic) development, there is also what is referred to as "Bureaucratic
Capitalism" or "Konco Capitalism" in the administration of government and development.
There is a phenomenon that bureaucrats, political leaders, their children and relatives are
involved in business. What they seek is not only protection from foreign competition, but also
concessions, licenses, monopoly rights, and government subsidies (usually low-interest loans
from state financial institutions). The result, according to Yoshihara (1990,5), is the
proliferation of various kinds of fraud. The government with its authority implemented
policies that would benefit the accumulation of capital for themselves and their cronies.
People who are closer to power and have more capital than the average person.
Thus there is a pact of domination by the owners of capital among the bureaucratic elite
and their cronies, by suppressing / depriving the ownership of the social segments below.
Policies that favor the owners of capital emerge. As a result, an economic structure is formed
that is exploitative towards the non-capitalized groups. By Adriono (in Sulistiyani; 2004, 52),
such an economic structure is referred to as an oligarchic economic structure.
This is a situation that makes the role of government with its bureaucracy insensitive to
development values, especially the value of justice which is actually a reflection of the ethical
behavior of bureaucrats that must be upheld. Moreover, the United States nation places the
value of justice as the goal of development itself. The government and bureaucracy generally
prioritize power or the safety of their positions and wealth rather than dealing with the
problems of the poor who are "the most underprivileged".
The various problems above are increasingly uncertain and worsen the 'face' of justice
in United States with the vacuum of credible legal institutions. The absence of law makes the
exchange of interests between the state and the people or between the state and the owners of
capital not through legal channels but rely on power and capital. This situation clearly
neglects the community as an 'institution' which in many ways actually has an important role.
Such conditions are very clear that the people will always be the victims.
Finally, the portrait of injustice in economic development described above, when
summarized, it is clear that the government: be it in the New Order era which was state-
oriented (heavy state) or in the present era which is market-oriented (minimal state) is very
vulnerable to the temptations that come from the owners of capital. Or it can be said that the
role of the government and its bureaucracy is only to protect its own interests and of course
the owners of capital, both domestic and from abroad including the 'international police' such
as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, rather than fulfilling and improving the welfare of the people
who need protection and protection equitable development efforts. The power that the
government has seems to be used to provide services to the owners of capital. Or in Wibowo's
terms (in Wahono; 2003), the state has become a 'security guard' for capital owners who are
ready to drive away anyone who tries to disturb their comfort. The role of the state as a
protector for all citizens is sidelined. In the end, society is likened to being in the mouth of a
tiger during the New Order era and in today's world being in the mouth of a crocodile. This
means that people are always in a situation full of suffering as a result of injustice caused by
irregularities on the part of the government and its bureaucracy.
The Role Of A Democratic, Moral And Empowering Government: A Prerequisite For
Socially Just Economic Development
With the lengthy elaboration above, the government should have realized what role it
should play in order to fulfill and/or guarantee the fundamental objectives of economic
development that have been granted by the founders of our nation in the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution.
Ideally, for the establishment of social justice in economic development, first of all, the
implementation of mini justice itself must be carried out fairly. For this, we need an impartial
government or a democratic and equitable government. This is very important because this is
precisely the problem that our government faces. Economic policies may be clear and good
but if there is no just government then there is no point in the brilliant concepts in these
policies. Because they will always be manipulated and used for the benefit of certain
privileged groups as explained in the previous section.
The demand that the government should be impartial does not mean that the
government should stand outside the arena. An impartial government does not mean that the
government should not intervene.
On the contrary, in order to guarantee the rights of all people or citizens, in certain
situations the government must even intervene and therefore take sides. This is the ethical
value attached to the government, which requires it to take protective measures to keep the
economically (and also socially or politically) excluded people safe. Or in other words, in
carrying out its role as an agent of builders and reformers in economic development, the
government and its bureaucracy must put ethical justification as the main basis of
consideration so that the rationality of the goal of social justice in economic development
does not get further away from the ideal.
To put the government in an impartial position, theoretically the necessary condition is
to create a balanced relationship structure among the three main players in the economic
development process. Or the current trend term is to organize and manage government and
development with a partnership approach. The position of the state, capital owners and the
people is in a balanced position, not the dominance of the state and capital owners alone, so
that there is no potential for one actor to dominate another. All three must have checks and
balances.
However, it should be underlined that this is not absolutely applicable, because
empirically it is almost impossible, because our nation is in transition from an authoritarian
situation towards a democratic situation, these players, especially the community, are actually
not at the same point, on the same star line, when the transition begins to roll. Therefore,
government protection or the ethical role of the government in the form of regulatory policies
is still needed and justified, as long as the regulation aims to protect the interests of the lives
of many people. This kind of role is theoretically referred to by Evans (in Jaffee, 1998; 131)
as a custodian role, which refers to the state's practice of protecting, supervising and
preventing the occurrence of certain economic behaviors that are considered detrimental to
society, such as anti-competitive companies, production of poor quality goods, and company
operations that damage the environment (negative externalities).
Herein lies the importance of the government or state as a regulator of the people's
interests. The government should take as little part as possible in the policy process and social
dynamics but effectively protect the most basic interests of the people society at large. The
government as a facilitator should not act repressively, but accommodatively and
participatively, including providing political learning in the economic policy-making process
to the community, empowering the community, reducing economic inequality, and regulating
social institutions and transactions between community groups. The government must also
display its ethical values or prioritize the moral dimension, which minimizes the possibility of
abuse of power, to carry out and straighten out the mission of achieving social justice for all
levels of society.
From there, it can logically be said that in certain moments the government must act to
maintain the level of life and welfare of its people. This becomes relevant, if we look at
neoliberalization and globalization that have entered and developed in the country today,
where capital or the market becomes a very powerful instrument that regulates the circulation
of common prosperity, without the state being allowed to interfere. In reality, the market will
never function properly if it is not supported by physical, social, mental, educational and
organizational infrastructure; all of which will only be realized if the government is involved
in it (Thurow (1996), in Yustika 2003).
Ultimately, the more important demand of an equitable relationship between the state,
society and capital is that the bargaining process of the interests of the actors involved in the
economic development process should place the value of justice as the basic spirit of the
activity. Justice is a virtue that will be able to accommodate cooperation, which in turn will
support the formation of an orderly and orderly society; orderly and orderly is synonymous
with a safe, just, prosperous and welfare society.
Jhon Rawls (1971, in Jamasy, 2004) asserts that moral human beings are fundamentally
characterized by two abilities, namely, first, the ability to understand and act based on a sense
of justice and thus also encouraged to seek a fairness cooperation; second, the ability to form,
revise, and rationally seek the realization of the concept of good, which encourages everyone
to seek the fulfillment of primary values and benefits for themselves. Or in short, it can be
said that a moral human being is a human being who has a sense of justice' and a sense of the
good. These two moral abilities enable every person to (read: the players in the economic
development process: the state, society and capital), to act not only in accordance with the
principles of justice, but also rationally and autonomously determine the appropriate means
and objectives for the benefit of all levels of society. Thus the essence of economic
development, which has become the political philosophy of our nation and is always echoed,
can one day be realized through economic policies that always favor a sense of justice.
In addition, to place the community in a position that is (at least) equal to the other
players in economic development, what needs to be played by the Government is empowering
the community itself. The reason is because in decades of economic development,
communities have always been positioned as recipient objects that must be intervened in
without being given the space to have an opinion or manage themselves. Because if the
community continues to be left in a powerless position, unfair treatment will continue to
occur.
For the above purposes, the government must gradually position itself as a dynamizer,
then move on by making a rational shift towards the role of catalyst and gradually become a
facilitator. That way, slowly and deliberately, the community will develop and have adequate
competence, and gradually there will be delegation of authority and the formation of control
capabilities by the community over the economic development process.
In line with the process of empowering the community, the government as an
empowering actor is also required to increase its capacity as an empowerer. Because it is
undeniable that the failure of the empowerment process is due to the lack of knowledge of the
empowerer itself. These limitations include limited intellectual abilities, limited understanding
of the philosophy of empowerment, limited material capabilities, and limitations in mental
aspects and attitudes. For this last point, for example, the main empowerment actors
(government), work because they happen to be in certain positions, such as as project leaders,
so that their alignment with the empowerment mission is nothing more than a project that
prioritizes concepts. This is said because in the implementation process, the alignment is often
reversed to themselves or certain groups outside the community or empowered group. Good
concepts, which are created, are only a symbol of administrative interests, so that all those
who read are touched, sympathetic, and provide support.
Conclusion
Today, it is time for the government to put the essence of economic development back
on track. Apart from the fact that our political system has begun to gradually change from an
authoritarian system to a democratic system, our society has begun to be bored and aware of
everything that is experienced, although this has not yet spread thoroughly to all levels of
society.
In such nuances, the process of democratization in government also needs to be pursued
or must be carried out in line with the existing political system. Unfortunately, the process in
question has not yet penetrated the soul of the government and the players in the economic
development process itself, so that various deviations always occur due to the actions of the
elite-rulers and elite-businessmen. Or in short, it can be said that the bureaucratism of thought
towards the economic development process must be changed to the democratization of
thought towards the economic development process. Because when the process of economic
development is identical to the process of government bureaucracy, the terminology of public
participation in decision-making that is widely demanded in the nuances of democratization
will be a mere figment or nonsense, because what happens is the reduction of the results of
economic policy, where what moves is the process of imposing the will and interests of the
ruling elite and the elite owners of capital rather than alignment with the aspirations and
interests of the general public.
The government's role as an official actor in the economic development process must
take into account the democratic values that develop in its environment. The government is no
longer forever as a determinant but only as a facilitator. Likewise, the alliance between the
ruling elite (government) and the elite capital owners (investors) can no longer be maintained
as the only consideration in the selection of policy options in economic development.
Although, the theoretical assumptions about the role of the state have changed along with the
development of neoliberalism and globalization, where the role of the state is getting smaller
(weaker) and the role of the state is getting smaller (weaker) market (capital) is getting
stronger. It is in this context that the challenge for the government is to save the true nature of
economic policy. No matter how small its role, the government must be in a position to truly
protect the people rather than the owners of capital.
In this realm, the moral dimension within the government (actors of development and
policy) must be put forward and become a strong basis for fencing the course of the policy
process. If not, then goodbye to social justice which is the spirit of our nation's economic
policy.
