Alien Species : Fitting In

The article concerns more on the topic most people does not take a closer look at, namely the alien species. It makes the article quite interesting since it tells what is happening towards the alien species and the controversy among scientists about its existence. The author attemps to follow up on what exactly most people consider about the alien species and how the stereotype affects what most people prefer to do towards the alien species. Thus in the end, the article is comprehensibly able to open up our eyes towards this kind of living thing in a good way, and in a scientific way as well.

As what I have revealed above, the article mainly talks about what goverment, private groups even individuals consider about the alien species. The alien species itself are generally defined as “bad” species. The term “bad” in this case means something dangerous and inappropriate to ecosystems. This belief truly leads those people to gradually eradicate them on the earth and on the other hand these actions, without question, amount to a threat to the alien species’ existence nowadays. However, conversely, many scientists seem doubtful towards the stereotype. They are questioning the assumption said that the existence of the  alien species are not acceptable in a natural ecosystem. Moreover, some scientists even reveal that its existence does not cause problem in the habitat they are living. Neither its existence nor its toxicity cause the environmental problems, according to what scientists believe. It is just the matter of how government ought to control their number, not the the matter of how to eradicate them all. Even though, when the number of the alien species is getting bigger and start to disturb the ecosystem, Derr does suggest that strong steps should be taken.

Objectively speaking, what Derr attemps to reveal through his writing is that the stereotype among people sometimes leads to wrong decision. Derr, through his writing, prioritize the debate and stance of both people’s point of view and scientific analysis. Derr seemingly understands that the best way to justify the stereotype is by giving deeper scientific analysis and its supported evidence. It can be seen through one analytical example of the eradication of non-native water buffalo in Australia from Dr. Rosenzweig in his writing. In fact, it is said that the eradication of non-native water buffalo causes the explosive growth of a little-noticed plant in return, which is more destructive than the non-native water buffalo itself. Through this analytical example, Derr attemps to indirectly reveal that banishing the alien species is not the best way to deal with. In pursuit of the conclusion, Derr then comes to what Dr. Rosenzweig stated, “Ecologist should focus on managing the environments that include exotic immigrants,” Therefore, what exactly Derr want to conclude is that those problems has been caused by alien species is not simply because its existence, yet it is more to the matter of the method we need to hold to control its number. Even if most of environmental problems are caused by the alien species, yet as what most scientists believe, any other species which is not belong to the alien species also could cause the same problem.

Objectively speaking, the article is quite comprehensive in looking inside the problem. Derr is able to pose both people’s thought and scientific analysis. Both stances strengthen and emphasize the theme Derr take a closer look at, which is the debate on the existence of alien species. It, by then, helps the reader to rationally analyse the problem completely and comprehensively. This style of writing is really good to let the reader to think and decide by their own self which side is better way in pursuit of the solution of the problem. In respect of the article, the reviewer tend to believe in what scientists said, that the centres of gravity of this problem is around the method of controlling the number of alien species, not the existence of alien species. What the goverment ought to do is all about the maintenance of the ecosystem itself since the eradication of the alien species does not produce any solution to the environment, even the risk will get higher if the eradication of the alien species is still continued.

Reviewed by :

Duwi Riyadi Putra

International Realtions

Universitas Indonesia

Source : The article (Alien Species) is written by Mark Derr

Exploring Regional Domains : A Comparative History of Regionalism

           This article expounds and exemplifies both the purport and significance of regionalism in the relations between countries in the world. The emergence of regionalism as the political ideology becomes prominently important in Cold War era. The establishment of both NATO and Warsaw Pact as well as the birth of term “South and North” cores, in turn, denote how regionalism is deep-seated in the study of  international relations. Even hitherto, regionalism proliferates, without question, in a number nobody could expect. That is why, taking a closer look at regionalism becomes extremely considerable in understanding how international relations works, today.

            As what the reviewer has stated above, the article focuses on the purport and significance of regionalism in the international affairs. Fawcett embarks the explanation on the discrepancy of three main terms in regionalism, namely region, regionalism itself, and regionalization. Both regionalism and regionalization, almost always, are used interchangeably, albeit the meaning of each term is dissimilar. In sum, in the words of Fawcett, regionalism amounts to the political ideology relating to or restricted to a particular regional space, while the term regionalization amounts to the whole proccess on how the actors of regionalism converge and incorporate in certain groups in particular regional space. Fawcett, at the same time, comprehensibly expounds who can be classified as the actors in regionalism, the historical backdrop of regionalism, the development of regionalism in post-Cold War era, and even the questions and expectancy that regionalism is facing in the world today, consecutively.

            What Fawcett attempts to reveal through the article is, perhaps, he is trying to give a comprehensive understanding in respect of the significance of regionalism. It can be seen through his in-order explanation regarding regionalism. Fawcett starts the article by giving an all-important concept, which is the defnition of three main terms in regionalism. It, therefore, becomes really significant since these concepts, almost always, are used in a wrong way. Moreover, in my opinion, Fawcett is trying to consider the concept of regionalism through different point of view and in the end, it indirectly influences the reader to look at regionalism through different perspective. His different approach can be seen best at last two subsections, namely the “problems and prospects” and “conclusions”. Through both subsections, Fawcett attempts to criticize the concept of regionalism by posing three major elements, which in turn, are adversative to regionalism. Those consecutive three elements are capacity, sovereignity, and hegemony. Firstly, Fawcett is questioning on how regionalism could run well if the capacity of regional groups in different regional space is dissimilar, for instance, ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) and EU (European Union). Unlike EU which consists of developed countries, ASEAN, on the other hands, is a regional group of developing ones. Secondly, Fawcett comes up with the idea of sovereignty — the term referred to the freedom of any country to govern themselves without other country’s intervention. Up to this concept, Fawcett is questioning how the sovereignty could deal with regional groups, considering regional groups are supposed to have the ability to govern its members to be in order, to follow the rules of it, which sometimes against its member’s national rules. Thirdly, Fawcett attempts to criticize the concept of regionalism with the concept of hegemon — the term referred to a phenomenon which a country being too dominant in one regional group. In the end, it shall make any particular regional group become the instrument of powerful country on behalf of her interest. Fawcett, then, is questioning on how regionalism can work well if it is haunted by the concept of hegemon, which jeopardized its aim to bring a better economics, politics, and social condition between countries in a particular regional space.

            With all due respect, Fawcett succeeds to deliver his ideas and analytical approaches to the readers well. In many references in regard to regionalism, a lot of writers simply does not take a closer look at the right definition of any term used in regionalism, in the end, it certainly brings the readers in what so-called missconception. Unlike other writers, Fawcett proposes a better way to understand regionalism deeply. However, the reviewer tends to say that Fawcett looks a bit pessimistic in his overview regarding regionalism. The article, hence, in my opinion, is being one-sided. The article focuses more on the questions and challenges of regionalism, while giving a few of positive sides of regionalism itself. At the end of the day, Fawcett’s writing is a good reading for international relations studies.

Duwi Riyadi Putra
International Relations

Universitas Indonesia

Source : Fawcett, Louise. (2011). Exploring Regional Domains : A Comparative History of Regionalism. International Affairs, 80(3), 429-446

London Olympics 2012 : The moment when Indonesia “Gold Medal Tradition” is at stake?

London Olympics Games, the biggest international sport festival this year will be held on July 27- August 12 2012. The moment is getting closer, but I do not know what to expect (for my motherland, Indonesia) from one day to the next. Untill I wrote this writing, I had not realized we only have 126 days to go. What does this amount to? Getting back to the underlying-and-quite-simple question stating on the tittle of this writing, we’d better to ask ourselves, “is Indonesia “Gold Medal Tradition” at stake?”

To answer this question, we got to take a closer look at our national sport achievement in the world. Regrettably, we have no many options to take a closer look at. The soft option remained is the sport called badminton. This sport indefatigably contributed gold medals for Indonesia from day one this country for the first time took part in the olympics games in 1992. With all due respect, I do not intend to look down on any other sports, on the first place. Nonetheless, something we can not deny, as yet, is that badminton contributes more, on the games, than any other sport could do. Regardless the poor news these days regarding to our badminton players’ achievement in many tournaments, still, we do stand a chance of achieving the gold medal this year. No matter how small the chance we are going to have, since what we got to do now is taking our chances and hope the result is in the way we wish, which is gold medal! Since as far as I know, you can bank on nothing in sport. Nothing is impossible, even though players’ skill does matter. Keep in mind, sport is not like math formula. It does not even follow any certainty, hence anything possibly can happen on the court.

For many years, Indonesia is best remembered as the country who gave birth to a lot of great badminton players, world class ones. Even Indonesia does make a breakthrough in many tournaments. In the first instance, Indonesia shows her sturdiness by making history through Rudy Hartono, the eight times All England men’s single winner, even seven times consecutively (1968-1974). Hartono handed the championship in 1968, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1976. His eye-watering achievement is pretty tough  to be challenged by any player in his generation and even till now. He was impossibly beaten at his triumph. Hartono is not the one and only skillful badminton player Indonesia has. A lot of names worth pausing to consider to be in line with Hartono, like Tan Joe Hok, Liem Swie King, Ardy Wiranata, Haryanto Arby, Ivana Lie, Susi Susanti, Christian Hadinata, Alan Budikusuma, Ade Chandra, Tjun Tjun, Johan Wahyudi, Kartono, Heryanto, Rudy Gunawan, Bambang Supriyanto, Rexy Mainaky, Ricky Subagja, Tony Gunawan, Chandra Wijaya, Halim Heryanto, Sigit Budiarto, Minarni Sudaryanto, Retno Kustijah, Verawati Fajrin, Minarti Timur, Imelda Wiguna, Mia Audina, Taufik Hidayat, Lilyana Natsir, Markis Kido, Hendra Setiawan, Nova Widyanto, and many others. These people handed a lot of championships from any international tournament, and these people without question deserve to be awarded as the national hero. Since on my opinion, the concept of hero has changed over to more sensible. You are surely not going to find the masked-man with a white horse protecting poor people from bad people like in a movie to be called as hero nowadays!

However, in fact, badminton was just officially recognized as one of the olympics sport in 1992, twenty years ago. In other words, a lot of great names above regrettably were not able to compete in olympics, since most of them were stunning during 70s and 80s. Both decades are then well-known as the golden era of Indonesian badminton in world history. It makes sense when a fact of life we got to face in olympics is not as bright as in all england or badminton world cup. Since 1992, our olympics contingent did not returned home in absolute triumph. We used to and are used to ‘steal’ only one or two gold medals in every olympics since 1992. Their names are as follows :

1992 (Barcelona Olympics)	Susi Susanti (women singles) Alan Budikusuma (men singles)
1996 (Atlanta Olympics)	Rexy Mainaky and Ricky Subagja (Men Doubles)
2000 (Sidney Olympics)	Tony Gunawan and Chandra Wijaya (Men Doubles)
2004 (Athens Olympics)	Taufik Hidayat (Men Singles)
2008 (Beijing Olympics)	Markis Kido and Hendra Setiawan (Men Doubles)

 

What is on my mind so far is ‘what is happening?’ I do not attempt to underestimate how hard the olympics is or how much pressure the athletes would have during the olympics, yet if it is all the matter of the competitiveness, I am pretty sure the All England and badminton world cup in 70s-80s must have the same level of difficulties and challenges. Remembering, both major tournaments are well-considered as a must for any player in order to be acknowledged as the ‘true’ winner in badminton world. The question remained is that how does Indonesian badminton decreased in numbers on the pretext of this olympics. The change in world competition, I am pretty sure,  should not make a big difference to the player.

However, before going too far on this olympics thingy, let me jog our memory by looking at our gold medalists’ heroic moment on their olympics.

1. Susi Susanti and Alan Budikusuma, The Bride of Olympics And The Birth of Gold Tradition

            This couple called the bride of olympics since both handed the gold medal in 1992, the year when they were still in a relationship. Susanti deserves to be called the queen of world badminton in the early 90s till 1994.  She was unbeatable during those years. Some tittles from all england and numerous superseries tittles had been remarkably grabbed by her in her triumph. She was the playmaker of the Uber Cup 1994 and 1996. More to the point, she is the reason why Ye Zhao Ying, chinese number 1 women single during 1994-1998, could never reach the highest podium in any olympics. Moreover, Susanti is the biggest obstacle Korea had in order to grabbed the Uber cup 1996, which ended up with Korea lost from Indonesia in semifinal. Keeping up korean history of having never handed the uber cup in badminton history. In the final round of women single in Barcelona Olympics, the game matched Susanti against Bang So Hyun, one of susanti’s biggest rival in 90s. After struggling tirelessly through rubber game, Susanti won the game and without question became the first women singles gold medalist in badminton history. Something we could proud of from Susanti. Four years later, uniquely, in Atlanta Olympics, Bang won over Susanti in semifinal, taking her revenge for her defeat in 1992. Budikusuma, meanwhile, had lesser pressure on the court since rarely-happened phenomenon named “all indonesian final” happened in Barcelona Olympics. Ardy B. Wiranata, another stunning Indonesian player, took the final spot and directly save Indonesia for gold medal in men singles. In Barcelona Olympics 1992, Indonesia medalled at other categories as well. Rudy Gunawan and Eddy Hartono win silver medal for men doubles, after they lost the game from korean-sweetheart men doubles, Kim Moon-soo and Park Joo-bong. Indonesia also gain more medal from men singles through Hermawan Susanto, another Indonesian legendary men single.

2. Rexy Mainaky-Ricky Subagja, Two Indonesian Dashing Gold Medalists, And The Rising Star of “Anak Ajaib”, Mia Audina

            1996 was the second year of badminton in summer olympics, and the olympics at that year took place in Atlanta, Georgia, The United States. Mainaky and Subagja ‘steal’ the spotlight and won the gold medal in men doubles category. Both handed the gold medal after battling in a tight match over the Malaysian legendary men doubles, Cheah Soon Kit-Yap Kim Hock. Both men doubles show their best and it can be seen through the score in rubber game, 5-15, 15-13, and 15-12 for Mainaky-Subagja. Regardless I am not the ‘eyewitness’ of their triumph, yet I do believe the match is really burning-nationalism moment. Mainaky-Subagja was then recognized by the official olympics games website as the most successful men doubles badminton player in 90s. Meanwhile, both are in the domestic and international spotlight of their handsomeness.

            Indonesia also posed her srikandi in women singles through Susanti and Mia Audina. Regrettably, Susanti lost the game in semifinal. It, then, killed Indonesia’s hope to have ‘all indonesian final’ in women singles. Audina, the youngest women single who have ever been in Uber Cup team in age of 14, booked the final spot after winning over Kim Ji-Hyun, her korean rival in rubber game, 11-6, 9-11, and 11-1. The final round matched the Indonesian-korean rivalry between Mia Audina and Bang So-Hyun. Even though, Bang won over Audina handily on the court, it makes sense since Audina was just 16 at that time. This atlanta olympics highlighted the important point that it had been born the next-Susanti through Audina.

            Indonesia also gain more medals through another men doubles by the name of Antonius Ariantho and Denny Kantono. This indonesian men double semifinalist won over malaysia in bronze medal match, and at the same time became the last medal Indonesia had in Atlanta olympics. At the end of this olympics, Indonesia got 1 gold medal, 1 silver medal, and 2 bronze medals.

3. Tony Gunawan-Chandra Wijaya (The Indonesian Fabulous Duet), The Maintenance Of Gold Medal Tradition, and The Switched-On Nationality of Mia Audina

           

            Tony Gunawan-Chandra Wijaya advanced to the gold medalist in Sidney Olympics 2000. Gunawan-Wijaya handed the gold medal after battling in a tight rubber game, 15-10, 9-15, and 15-7, over the south-korean legendary men double, Lee Dong-Soo-Yoo Yong-Sun. Sadly, Gunawan now is representing The United States in many tournaments. This men double, who is considered to be the greatest men double in 21st century have ever born, grabbed a lot of tittles in many prestigious tournament, such All England 1999 and Indonesia Open 2000 and 2006. In this summer olympics, another Indonesian men single, Hendrawan, handed the silver medal for men singles after loosing from the gold medalist Ji Xinpeng from China. In mixed doubles, Indonesia got one more silver medal by the name of Tri Kusharyanto and Minarti Timur. Overall, Indonesia got 1 gold medal and 2 silver medals from badminton.

            One thing worth pausing to consider from this summer olympics is the nationality written in Audina’s shirt, Netherlands. Audina moved to netherlands months after her marriage with her netherlander husband. This oye-opener fact lies at the root of her decline in many tournaments since Atlanta Olympics in 1996. What is on my mind as yet is how could Indonesian goverment letting her to go. It is normal to have  ‘up and down’ achievement in sports, and Indonesian goverment really has no justification to justify her decision with Audina. In this writing, I would like to re-write what my uncle said toward this. He is a big fan of badminton, and one day when we were watching final round of Athens Olympics in 2004, which showed the rematch of Uber Cup 1994 third single final between Audina and Zhang Ning, he said,”When I listen to the news telling that she (read, Audina) moved to netherlands, I sometimes wonder what the world is coming to. She is the jewel we throw handily.”

4. Indonesian Sweetheart, Taufik Hidayat And The Rise of Indonesian-Netherland Srikandi, Mia Audina

           

            Athens Olympics 2004 actually is the moment when Indonesian badminton reported a decline in many tournaments since Sidney Olimpics 2000. Indonesian hero in Athens Olympics fell on Taufik Hidayat. He won over Shon Seung-mo, korean rising star, handily only in two set. A year after the olympics, in 2005, Hidayat handed the World Championship after winning over Chinese number one men single, Lin Dan. He was also best remembered as the six times Indonesia Open winner, namely in 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006. Indonesia also gain two more bronze medals by the name of Sony Dwi Kuncoro (men singles) and Flandy Limpele-Ang Hian (men doubles).

            One gripping point I consider most from this summer olympics is the rise of Audina in her olympics career. After being dumped by her ex-country, Indonesia, Audina was trying so hard to prove her point, that she was still able to be the champion in olympics. After defeating chinese star ,Gong Ruina, in semifinal round with absolute victory, Audina advanced to the final spot. In final round, the history repeats itself. The final round matched Audina and her biggest rival ever in history, Zhang Ning. At the same time, it jog our memory of the final match of Uber Cup 1994, which match both players ten years before the olympics. 14 year old Audina won over Zhang, who was older 10 years or more, at that time, and she (read, Audina) was then called “bocah ajaib” by Indonesian mass media because of her achievement in Uber Cup 1994. Regrettably, Audina could not make the same victory in Athens Olympics 2004. She played so well, yet she got to gave up on Zhang in rubber game. However, Audina did it. She makes her history. I personally called her “Einstein in Badminton Court”.

5. Beijing Olympics 2008 : The Most Unpredictable Olympics Ever Happened in Indonesian Badminton History

            Beijing Olympics 2008 would be the most unforgettable moment for Indonesia. In Beijing Olympics, Indonesia astonishingly could maintain the gold medal tradition through Markis Kido-Hendra Setiawan. It is out of plan, since Indonesian badminton faced a great decline since Athens Olympics 2004. Kido-Setiawan unpedictably beat chinese number 1 mens double, Cai Yun-Fu Haifeng in a tight rubber game. Unfortunately, one of the best Indonesian mixed double Nova Widianto-Lilyana Natsir failed to hand the gold medal after loosing the final game from Lee Yong-dae-Lee Hyo-jung in final round.

            The second astounding moment is when Maria Kristin Yulianti could defeat a lot of great names in round of 64 until quarter finals round. She was almost not eligible to participate in Beijing Olympics since she did not make any better move in her career in that year. During the olympics, Yulianti had defeated several great names, such as Juliane Schenk, Tine Rasmussen, and Saina Nehwal. Regardless her defeat in semifinal round from Zhang Ning, Yulianti showed her best in bronze medal match and finally defeat another chinese star named Lu Lan. The moment I remember most is when I saw Lu Lan burst into tears at the end of the match and, of course,  big smile on Yulianti’s face! In the end, Indonesia got 1 gold medal, 1 silver medal, and 1 bronze medal from badminton in Beijing Olympics 2008.

            Now, we have less than 4 months before facing the London Olympics 2012. Along with other indonesian, I am still waiting for the winds of change in Pelatnas. Recently, a good news come from new-bounded mixed double, Tantowi Ahmad-Lilyana Natsir. It is reported they successfully hand the gold medal in both All England Superseries 2012 and Swedish Open  2012. It is good, yet it is not enough to guarantee Indonesia gold medal tradition could be maintained. Here is my prediction for London Olympics 2012 :

Category	Players and bwf rank (who potentially win the gold medal in my opinion)	The Chance For Indonesia
Men Singles	·         Lin Dan (2) (China) ·         Lee Cong Wei (1) (Malaysia) ·         Chen Long (3) (China)	0% Do not expect too much. Even if Simon Santoso (10) or Taufik Hidayat (11) could defeat one of them, bronze medal would be the most rational possibility.
Women Singles	·         Wang Yihan (1) (China) ·         Wang Xin (2) (China) ·         Wang Shixian (3) (China) ·         Saina Nehwal (5) (India)	0% Impossible. *waiting for the next susi susanti
Men Doubles	·         Chai Yun-Fu Haifeng (1) ·         Jung Jae Sung- Lee Yong dae (2) ·         Ko Sung Hyun-Yoo Yeon Seong (4)	20% Only if Bona-Ahsan could defeat one of them in the olympics.
Women Doubles	·         Wang Xiaoli-Yu Yang (1) ·         Tian Qing-Zhao Yun Lei (2) ·         Ha Jung Eun-Kim Min Jung (3)	5% Only if Greysia Polii-Meiliana Jauhari (8) could defeat one of them. If not, the chance would be 0%
Mixed Doubles	·         Zhang Nan- Zhao Yunlei (1) ·         Xu Cen-Ma Jin (2) ·         Tantowi Ahmad-Lilyana Natsir (3)	65% But, the chance could change. It depends on those three mixed doubles’ performance in recent world tournament.

So far, Indonesian Athletes who passed the qualification for London Olympics (untill March 23) are:

1. Tantowi Ahmad-Lilyana Natsir (3) mixed double;

2. Muhammad Rijal-Debby Susanto (13) mixed double.

3. Bona-Ahsan (6) men double;

4. Alvent Yulianto Chandra-Hendra Aprida Gunawan (11) men doubles*;

5. Markis Kido-Hendra Setiawan (12) men doubles*;

6. Greysia Polii-Meiliana Jauhari (8) women double;

7. Vita Marissa-Nadya Melati (13) women double;

8. Simon Santoso (10) men single;

9. Taufik Hidayat (11) men single;

*note :

The committee of London Olympics officially stated that one country could send two representatives, only if both players/teams are in the big 16 rank made by bwf. In this case, both yulianto-aprida and kido-setiawan are in the big 16 and the range of their rank is really close. So, in several world tournaments along these four months before the London Olympics 2012, the rank between them could suddenly change if one of them could hand at least one gold medal in superseries. So, at the end of these month, either yulianto-aprida or kido-setiawan could compete in London Olympics 2012.

            To be honest, London Olympics 2012 would the toughest olympics for Indonesia in badminton. Ahmad-Natsir is the most rational hope for gold medal in this olympics. However, their chance is still at stake. Their victory in All England Superseries 2012 and Swedish Open 2012 can not guarantee them success in London Olympics, remembering how unstable their performance is. For instance, they won the tittle of Singapore Open Superseries 2011 but a week later lost the final round in Indonesia Open Superseries 2011. This fact shows that their performance is not stable enough, and it amounts to we can not hold on them too much in this olympics. But at the end of the day, Ahmad Natsir and other Indonesian badminton palyers, who will be competing in London Olympics 2012 on July this year , must have an ambition to win. Well, ambition to win (almost always) works!

            Getting back to underlying question stating on the tittle of this writing, to be honest, yes, the tradition is at stake, our chance is not big. This fact must open up our eyes to see what is happening to our badminton. The winds of change must be created in Pelatnas and other badminton organizations in Indonesia. The issue of regeneration among athletes should be followed up by goverment. It is (of course) a big deal, yet late is better than never. We have no other option, we have to changed! Not only PSSI that need a revolution, but also Pelatnas and PBSI. We still have the chance, and we choose what to do. If not, gold medal in The Rio De Janeiro Olympics 2016 would be just a dream!

Oligarchy : The Silhouette of Indonesian Oligarchy In Western Perspective

      Konsep oligarki pada awalnya didiperkenalkan oleh Aristoteles dan Plato berabad-abad lampau sebelum Winters menulis buku ini. Oligarki dalam pengertian dasarnya disimpulkan sebagai sistem pemerintahan oleh sekelompok kecil kaum elit politik. Jeffrey A. Winters, seorang ahli ekonomi-politik dari Universitas Northwestern, Amerika Serikat, pada tahun 2011 hadir dengan buku berjudul Oligarchy sebagai penjabaran lebih lanjut mengenai  konsep oligarki ini. Dalam bukunya, Winters berpijak pada kasus-kasus historis maupun kontemporer, yakni mulai dari Sparta, Roma, Eropa abad pertengahan, Amerika, hingga negara-negara di kawasan Asia Tenggara. Lebih jauh lagi, berdasarkan analisis kasus-kasus tersebut, Winters datang pada kesimpulan berupa pengklasifikasian oligarki, antara lain warring oligarchies, ruling oligarchies, sultanistic oligarchies, dan civil oligarchies.

Dengan demikian, tampak jelas bahwa kerangka berpikir yang digunakan Winters dalam menjabarkan pemikirannya adalah kerangka berpikir induktif. Sebuah kerangka pemikiran yang berawal dari analisis data yang dikumpulkan dan diakhiri dengan generalisasi — dalam hal ini, analisis kasus yang diaktualisasikan dengan klasifikasi konsep oligarki menurut Winters. Namun, yang terpenting, centre of gravity Winters dalam menganalisis konsep oligarki ini adalah apa yang disebutnya sebagai “wealth defense”. Hal ini tertuang dalam pemikirannya mengenai konsep oligarki itu sendiri bahwa oligarki merupakan, “the politics of wealth defense by materially endowed actors.”[1]. Sedangkan, kaum oligarch diartikan sebagai, “Actors who command and control massive concentration of material resources that can be deployed to defend or enhance their personal wealth and exclusive social position”[2] Dalam penulisan ini, penulis akan memulai pembahasan dari klasifikasi konsep oligarki menurut Winters dan penjelasannya, konsep sultanistic oligarchies dalam kaitannya dengan Indonesia pada masa rezim orde baru, serta diakhiri dengan kesimpulan dari penulis mengenai karya Winters ini.

            Winters mengklasifikasikan konsep oligarki menjadi empat kategori, yakni oligarki militer (warring oligarchies), oligarki pemerintahan (ruling oligarchies), oligarki kesultanan (sultanistic oligarchies), dan oligarki sipil (civil oligarchies). Konsep warring oligarchies dititikberatkan pada penggunaan kekerasan fisik. Winters mengatakan, “In a warring oligarchy, wealth defense is accomplished directly by armed oligarchs who separately rule their own domain.”[3] Warring oligarchies merupakan bentuk oligarki yang sangat ekstrim dan dipenuhi konflik antarsesama elit dalam pemerintahannya. Kekuatan para elit (oligarch) terfragmentasi dan perbedaan yang terjadi antara satu kekuatan dan kekuatan lainnya sangat tajam sehingga kekerasan fisik dan paksaan merupakan dua hal yang tidak dapat dihindari dalam pemeritahan warring oligarchies. Beberapa negara Afrika disebutkan Winters sebagai salah satu contoh dari sistem warring oligarchies ini. Klasifikasi kedua oleh Winters adalah ruling oligarchies atau oligarki pemerintahan. Dalam buku “Oligarchy” dikatakan bahwa, “In a ruling oligarchy, the arrangement is collective and requires at least partial disarmament for the system to be stable.”[4] Oligarki jenis ini ditandai dengan jaringan sosial dan institusi negara. Dalam ruling oligarchies, para elit (oligarch) memiliki kekuasaan yang dapat memaksa pemegang otoritas resmi demi keuntugan pribadi mereka. Dalam hal ini, Winters mengajukan kekaisaran roma sebagai contohnya.

            Sultanistic oligarchies menempati urutan ketiga dalam klasifikasi Winters. Oligarki kesultanan sedikit berbeda dengan kedua jenis oligarki di atas. Winters berpendapat bahwa dalam sultanistic oligrachies, “Oligarchs are fully disarmed or coercively overwhelmed, tend not to rule directly, and yet enjoy protection from single powerful oligarch against potentially devastating lateral and vertical threat.”[5] Oligarki jenis ini menggabungkan antara kekuatan koersif dan kekuataan ekonomi dalam mengendalikan para oligarch agar tetap tunduk pada oligarch utama. Oligarch utama ini sangat dominan dalam mengatur banyak aspek kehidupan negaranya. Indonesia pada masa pemerintahan Soeharto dan Filipina dengan pemimpin nasionalnya Ferdinand Marcos disebut Winters sebagai contoh yang paling representatif. Terakhir, civil oligarchies didefinisikan sebagai oligarki dengan pembagian dan kerjasama antarkaum elit (oligarch) tanpa adanya monopoli oleh salah satunya. Namun secara ekonomi, para oligarch tersebut memiliki kekuasaan yang besar dalam wealth defense-nya sebab mereka memiliki dominasi kekuatan finansial dan kekayaan aset yang melimpah di negaranya, misalnya Amerika.

            Berkaitan dengan sultanistic oligarchies, terdapat tiga elemen penting yang diajukan Winters dalam memahami konsep ini, antara lain:

1. Pemimpin sultanistic utama tersebut (the top of the top oligarch) memerintah secara personal dan

    memiliki kekuasaan yang besar dalam seluruh signifikansi ekonomi-politik negara.;

2. Para oligarch menerapkan kontrol yang ketat terhadap kekayaan dan menempatkan sumber-sumber

    material sebagai kekuatan utamanya;

3. Para oligarch memiliki kebebasan yang sangat luas dalam menjalankan tindakan koersif yang dilakukan

    untuk menjaga kekuasaannya. Kekuasaan atas pengerahan kekuatan bersenjata, intelijen, polisi, aparatur

    kehakiman bahkan hingga penggunaan kekuatan nonmiliter merupakan kekuasaan yang lazim digunakan

    para oligarch yang berkuasa.[6]

Dalam kaitannya dengan sistem pemerintahan pada masa orde baru, Winters mengemukakan perspektif yang cukup menarik di kalangan para pengamat barat lainnya. Winters menyebutkan bahwa sultanistic oligarchies pada masa Soeharto ditumpukan pada kemampuan Soeharto untuk mengahalangi pembangunan institusional dan mengubah direksi politik tersebut agar sesuai dengan kepentingannya, yakni dengan memonopoli sumber-sumber kekayaan negara. Terhadap sultanistic oligarchies ala Soeharto, Winters mengatakan,”They enhance their power and discretion by blocking rather than building independent institution. Such laws and institution are subordinated to the prerogatives of the ruler.”[7] Dalam menjalankan misi politiknya tersebut, menurut Winters, Soeharto menjalin kerjasama yang mutualis dengan para wiraswasta kapital yang tumbuh subur pada era 80-90-an. Sehingga, kulminasi kesuksesan sultanistic oligarchies Soeharto merupakan hasil dari gabungan antara kekuatan koersif dan kekuatan ekonomi yang mengakar kuat di Indonesia. Terlepas dari semua itu, Winters berpendapat bahwa simbiosis tersebut juga pada waktu yang bersamaan menghasilkan sisi negatif bagi pemerintahan Soeharto, misalnya persentase keuntugan para oligarch yang diperoleh dari Pertamina kalah besar dari keuntungan yang didapat oleh perusahaan asing kala itu.[8]

Masih mengenai sultanistic oligarchies ala Soeharto, Winters tetap membedakan anta kaum kapitalis dan kaum oligarch dalam analisisnya, walaupun memang pada kenyataannya keduanya memiliki relasi yang cukup erat. Perbedaan tersebut terdapat pada cara penguasaan sumber-sumber material maupun aktor-aktor yang berada dibawahnya — dalam hal ini, baik aktor-aktor di bawah oligarch utama (Soeharto) maupun di bawah firma-firma asing dan domestik. Perbedaannya adalah kaum kapitalis menguasainya secara eknonomi, sedangkan kaum oligarch menguasainya secara politis.[9] Winters juga menggarisbawahi analisisnya mengenai situasi poliik Indonesia pascaorde baru. Bahwa gelombang demokratisasi yang melanda Indonesia pada tahun 1998 dengan turunnya Soeharto dari tahta presidennya, masih menyisakan apa yang disebut Winters sebagai “an untamed ruling oligarchy”. Sebuah keadaan dimana proses demokratisasi Indonesia masih dipenuhi oleh kerjasama dan kompetisi dari kaum oligarch. Keadaan ini, menurut Winters, mengarahkan Indonesia pada konsep oligarki kriminal, dimana dominasi keuangan kaum oligarch telah berubah menjadi tameng dalam menangkal hukum yang berlaku dalam sebuah negara.

Dalam mengupas konsep oligarki ini, Winters nampaknya kurang begitu cermat dalam mengambil centre of gravity sebagai landasan dasar analisisnya. Wealth defense yang digunakan oleh Winters sebagai satu-satunya motif para oligarch dalam memerintah tidak menunjukkan komprehensivitas analisis Winters. Sebab dengan konsep wealth defense saja, Winters tidak dapat menjelaskan sisi politis dan budaya dalam mempengaruhi kaum oligarch yang memerintah. Padahal, motif politis dan budaya merupakan salah satu motif yang cukup elementer dalam menjelaskan political will dari kaum oligarch. Terlepas dari semua itu, Winters berhasil memberikan pandangan baru dalam menelaah konsep oligarki dan memberikan perspektif alternatif dalam melihat oligarkis sebagai salah satu sistem pemerintahan yang masih tetap hidup hingga abad ke-21.

---

[1] Jeffrey A. Winters, Oligarchy (United States of America : Cambridge University Press, 2011), 7

[2] Ibid., 6

[3] Ibid., 135

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 136

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., 135

[8] Ibid., 142

[9] Ibid., 8

Best Position Paper at TKHI MUN 2011

Position Paper

Country           : Venezuela
Delegate          : Duwi Riyadi Putra (Universitas Indonesia)
Issue                : Narcoterrorism
Committe         : DISEC

For years, Venezuela is deeply concerned with the issue of narcoterrorism, a problem that is spreading around the world, especially in developing countries. With the emergence of the drug trafficking as a tool of fund-raising for terrorist activity and the increasing accessibility of international trade, physical barriers are not the only barriers withering away. The agreement concerning on arresting drug trafficking seems effortless since its syndicate run the business in a smooth way. Locating near Colombia, Venezuela understands that the issue will blow all day around us. Colombia’s blacklist on drug trafficking to the United States of America through Venezuela for its well-known terrorist organization, FARC, for instance, could be one of the reason why the issue seems so close with Venezuela. Yet, the issue never being followed by its reliable proof. Venezuela always maintains its “working cooperation” internationally in the drug fight. More than 44 tonnes of drugs had been seized so far this year. Moreover, the government had succeeded in dismantling 19 cocaine factories in Venezuela. Even in July 14th, 2010, Venezuela extradited an alleged colombian drug lord to United States. However, Venezuela realizes that it’s not an end, since we have longer road to face to fight with narcoterrorism.

“Narcoterrorism as a world threat, yet it’s absolutely not undefeated”. This view makes Venezuela recognizes that countries in the world should work and cooperate together to combat narcoterrorism. In the past year, Venezuela has done its best to combat narcoterrorism without DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) assistance. Being expelled from DEA, Venezuela makes much more drug-related arrest and drug seizures all around its territory. One of the best achievement is Carlos Alberto Renteria’s arrest. Mr Renteria had been on a US government most-wanted list since 2004, in terms of being responsible for smuggling around 500 tonnes of cocaine into the United States via Mexico during the 1990s. So far, simultaneously running drug-related raid and seizures in our territory is the effective means to combat narcoterrorism.

As narcoterrorism is being an international problem, particularly in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, the cooperation among each nations is precisely needed. Venezuela proposes some new ways to combat narcoterrorism, they are hosting technical workshops or seminars, disseminating best practices, and sharing of expertise. Venezuela would also take an international leadership role to combat terrorist financing by devoting substantial new funding to bolster our analytic, investigative, and prosecution resources. The more feasible way we are going to do are strengthening our own laws, enhancing transportation and border security, working with international allies, or combating the crime of terrorist financing, we are taking action to protect Venezuelans. We would also promote a new kind of prevention to let the terrorist growth with the effectiveness of international exchange of financial intelligence that can play an important role in the investigation and prosecution of both money laundering and terrorist activity financing. In short, Venezuela always supported innovative and effective ways of establishing cooperation within and between regional organizations. We look forward to offering its support to the eradication of narcoterrorism to the peace of the global community.