Summer Course Day 2: Trip to The Past, History of Good Governance

Day 2 of Summer Course~! Please bear with me with this and upcoming (probably) tedious posts. Today we made a trip to the past and learning the development of Good Governance from historical and theoretical aspect. If you are like me, almost know nothing about good governance, you might want to read this post since it could expand your knowledge despite not really significant. I’m trying my best to write as simple as possible, please tell me if it somehow too complicated comprehend. These academic scholars have tendency to use difficult and obscure vocabularies, I hope it does not occur in my postings though.

In the first session, Andreas Vasilache delivered the participants historical and theoretical overview of Good Governance. Since middle ages (7-14 AD), there had been concept of good governance already. Princes from governing monarchs actually given “mirror literature”, prescription books written by church that served as rule conduct.

The “mirror literature” served as morality guide, the dos and don’ts, but it still didn’t pose question about legitimacy. Middle ages, also sometimes called Dark ages, a period where church possessed overwhelming power in multidimension aspect.

Legitimacy came from God, it was considered heresy to question a monarch’s legitimacy. As you could guess already, the availability of mirror literature did not automatically guarantee a good government. Misuse of power more probable to occur during these period.

 It’s not until Renaissance period human civilization reborn. Renaissance humanism, as you probably know, is period marked by revival of Greek and Roman antiquity. This is the most important period in Europe history, simply because people finally could free from repression of church. Science began to flourish, renaissance thinkers also labeling the previous period as middle ages, to distinguish and emphasizing how awful that period had been.

 Niccolo Machievelli made important breakthrough in developing good governance, he wrote book Il Principe (“The Prince”). The book was mixture of modernity and middle ages, combining political of fear and mirror literature. The book again was morality guide, telling how princes should act but it still did not pose question about legitimacy. 

Thomas Hobbes was the first to put the question of legitimacy. He wrote book Leviathan, and arguing the source of legitimacy. As consequence, he was considered heretic during his life. Nonetheless, Hobbes’ argument was remarkable, he founded new perspective how leader should lead, how absolute liberty would lead to anarchy. To end this, Hobbes argued that man should give up their freedom, establishing social contract to the representative, and transfer the very right to sovereign power. In very simple word, Hobbesian state means no democracy. Singapore and North Korea would pose a good example, no?

Jean Jacques Rousseau in other hand, criticized Hobbes. He said that it was impossible for man to give up  their liberty entirely, it would meant to give up of being human, and it was against will of God. Rousseau was against the concept of parliament, the presence of representative was bad. This took form of Radical democracy, which is currently adopted by Switzerland.

 John Locke himself argued that there should be no taxation without representation. A policy from governing leader must be approved first and should guarantee the very right of people. Now, this is important foundation if we want to understand why US political culture is conflictuous. By conflictuous mean that a very open political culture where everyone could debate and struggle their interest as seen in their senators.  

Mr Andreas said that such political culture was not suitable for Germany, and perhaps also in Indonesia? We never know. Considering our parliament is far from mature (there was some embarrassing event where parliament member threw chairs to each other, yes, our parliament) I doubt we could implement such political culture any soon.

 Anyway, despite the radical progress and development of good governance, the change only could be enjoyed by male christian people, and middle class. Women was not included, there was still discrimination.

Karl Marx, one of the leading thinker during the modern, industrial age, criticized sharply about the poor condition of labour class. Marx argued that liberal politic was tool to make other people into subordinate, interconnection of governance and interest group caused misuse of power. In very simple word, government was lobbied by powerful bourgeois, formulating policy that benefited them and leaving the poor alone. The term bourgeois turned into negative during this period. 

Today session to be honest, nowhere boring, and again, I could not possibly write the entire summary since there are just too much materials to be posted. I only wrote and remembered the most important substance since it’s pretty tiring to listen 2 hours of historical overview.

Anyway, I also had chance to ask Mr. Andreas about the practice of good governance in Germany, mainly immigrants. As we know, Germany is currently one of Europe’s strongest economy, and attracted immigrants from region outside the country such as Turkish and probably, eastern europe. I asked that whether there had been any example of 3rd generation of non-German origins to participate in the Germany’s political life, let’s say in government. Mr Andreas said that there is no such thing occurred. Despite Germany’s good willingness to treat immigrant equally and indiscriminately, it’s still very hard for minority to participate and even getting Germany’s permanent citizenship, compared to Brittain, France, Spain, etc. Interesting isn’t it?

 Even germany, country who always encouraging the democratic value to Indonesia, still evolving its democracy. My question is probably weird, but again, I relate Turkish minority with Chinese Indonesian 3rd generation condition. Imagine if you were born with physically different attributes, you are supposedly living in different culture, but because certain circumstances, your culture were stripped.

You forgot your cultural identity, and taking other people’s cultural identity as yours, isn’t it natural if you expect to be treated indiscriminately? Imagine a Turkish who speak German as his mother language, and living far from turkish culture. One could expect he might found himself more comfortable treated as “Germans” instead of Turkish, but he faced dilemma when he physically different from the rest of other. 

Too bad, Mr. Andreas was in hurry and he must return to Germany after the session was over, I did not manage to continue the discussion and yes, I’m pretty much unsatisfied. I guess some questions must left unanswered huh?  

After this Session, Mr. Yulius Purwadi also given us new insight about patron-client theory in political party. Patron means the public figure of certain political party, client means these who support the patron, they could not possibly rise into power (yet) because they have not been known by public. A good example would be Megawati Soekarnoputri. Megawati could be as simply said as the Patron of her party, and the client is, of course, the closest people to her, her team. Why this is dangerous? Well of course because it’s closely related to Nepotism, these who get position in government could be incompetent, they are chosen because the proximity toward the patron, not because they have the capacity.

Popularity: 18% [?]

Related posts

• [Unpar] Summer Course: Day 1 (1)
• Summer Course Day 3: BIN’s Paradox and The Security Sector Reform (1)
• Good Governance in Indonesia: No Cultural Change? (12)
• [Misc] Post-Traumatic-Disorder Pasca Sidang Skripsi (10)
• Unpar: iCapeD� (4)
• Tips: Cara Efektif Menyelesaikan Skripsi (17)
• Software Culture: Proprietary vs Open Source (7)