Tuesday, 28 October 2014

Politisi ‘Playboy’: Analisis Skizofrenia Politik Atas Manuver Politisi Kutu Loncat

Abstrak: penelitian ini membahas manuver politik para politisi yang dikenal sebagai politisi kutu loncat (berpindah-pindah partai politik) menjelang pemilihan umum 2014. Fenomena ini dilihat tidak semata-mata sebagai strategi meraih kekuasaan secara pragmatis. Lebih dari itu, ia adalah gejala kecenderungan nomadisme politik dan skizofrenik politik, yaitu kecenderungan aktor politik konsisten untuk tidak konsisten. Alasannya ialah inkonsistensi dianggap sebagai proses pembebasan diri (self emancipation) dari kungkungan dan dominasi sistem politik, serta pada saat yang sama juga sebagai bentuk ejekan terhadap diri (mocking himself) dari pilihan politik yang diambil. Jenis penelitian ini ialah kualitatif interpretatif, mencermati fenomena politisi kutu loncat kemudian menginterpretasikannya dengan dibantu kerangka pikir skizofrenia politik ala Deleuze dan Guattari.

Kata Kunci: skizofrenia politik, skizoanalisis, Hary Tanoe, kutu loncat

Pendahuluan
Tidak berlebihan jika dalam politik dikenal adagium bahwa politik selalu tampil dengan wajah ganda: wajah bijaksana sekaligus licik; wajah jujur sekaligus penuh tipu daya; dan wajah moralis sekaligus amoralis. Dua wajah ini ditentukan oleh aktor yang membangun politik. Aktor yang buruk, berpikiran kotor dengan hasrat tak terbendung berserakan pada partai-partai politik. Begitu juga, aktor yang punya kerendahan hati, ketulusan moral, dan kesederhanaan hidup bukan tidak ada dalam politik Tanah Air. Hanya saja, menyimak praktik politik akhir-akhir ini kita kerap disuguhi atau bertatap muka langsung dengan aktor politik yang cenderung tampak horor dan rakus. Lebih-lebih menjelang pemilihan umum, baik pemilihan legislatif maupun pemilihan presiden, kerakusan ini dirayakan tepat di depan hidung kita. Tak kaget lagi, proses pembusukan politik pun terjadi dimana-mana.

Menjelang pemilihan umum, kita menyaksikan partai politik dan aktor politik melakukan berbagai upaya, langkah, dan manuver dalam rangka meraih kemenangan politik. Demi kemenangan ini berbagai cara pun boleh dipakai (anything goes) oleh partai politik dan aktor politik di dalamnya. Tidak hanya menjamurnya partai politik baru dengan ideologi yang diusung nyaris seragam. Akan tetapi, kita juga menyaksikan ada ratusan ribu aktor politik baru yang berlaga ‘mengadu nasib’ dalam pemilihan legislatif April 2014 lalu. Tantangan besar pun hadir, yakni persaingan semakin ketat dalam memperebutkan kursi kekuasaan di parlemen. Beragam cara pun dilakukan oleh aktor dan calon aktor demokrasi. Mulai dari cara-cara terpuji hingga cara-cara yang tidak senonoh untuk bersaing dan memenangkan hati rakyat.

Dari beragamnya cara yang dipakai untuk meraih kemenangan itu, fenomena atau manuver aktor demokrasi yang berpindah partai politik menjadi jamak disaksikan. Orang-orang menyebut fenomena ini sebagai politisi kutu loncat, yakni politisi atau aktor demokrasi yang kerap berganti ‘baju’ partai politik. Konon, tujuannya menyalurkan hasrat untuk meraih kekuasaan dengan cara pragmatis. Fenomena politisi kutu loncat akhir-akhir ini semakin kerap kita saksikan. Biasanya, menjelang pemilihan umum aktor demokrasi semakin ‘berani’ memperlihatkan ‘belang’ mereka kepada publik. Dengan memanfaatkan segala sumber daya dan jaringan, melompat dari ‘dahan’ satu menuju ‘dahan’ yang lain pun menjadi biasa dan wajar. Tak lagi peduli ideologi serta platform partai politik tujuan. Dimana ‘dahan’ yang nyaman untuk bergantung, bisa dikatakan, di sanalah tujuannya –untuk sementara.

Mencermati lebih lanjut fenomena kutu loncat dalam wajah politik akhir-akhir ini, agaknya tak bisa dilepaskan dari manuver politik taipan media Indonesia, Hary Tanoesoedibjo alias Hary Tanoe (HT) (id.berita.yahoo.com, 10 Maret 2014). Hanya dalam kurun waktu sekitar empat tahun (2011 hingga 2014) sudah dua kali HT ‘meloncat’ dari partai politik satu ke partai politik lainnya (tempo.co, 25 Februari 2013). Bahkan, belakangan HT yang tadinya bakal calon wakil presiden berpasangan dengan bakal calon presiden Wiranto yang diusung Partai Hanura, berseberangan arah dengan Wiranto dalam mendukung pasangan calon presiden dan wakil presiden menjelang pemilihan presiden 2014 ini. Wiranto condong kepada pasangan Joko Widodo-Jusuf Kalla, sementara HT condong kepada pasangan Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa (pemilu.tempo.co, 23 Mei 2014).

Sebenarnya fenomena politisi kutu loncat ini sudah terjadi beberapa waktu sebelumnya. Tidak saja HT yang disebut-sebut sebagai pendatang baru dalam kancah politik Tanah Air (news.okezone.com, 9 November 2011) yang melakukan manuver politik kutu loncat. Beberapa aktor politik yang boleh dikenal sebagai politisi cukup senior juga melakukan hal serupa. Sebut saja, Malkan Amin, Mamat Rahayu Abdullah, dan Enggartiasto Lukita adalah tiga politisi senior dari Partai Golkar yang bergabung dengan Partai Nasional Demokrat. Selain itu, ada juga Jeffrie Geovani dari Partai Amanat Nasional melompat ke Partai Golkar serta politisi Partai Hanura Akbar Faizal pindah ‘dahan’ menuju Partai Nasional Demokrat. Lainnya, seperti politisi Partai Hanura yang cukup vokal, Fuad Bawazier, memilih mendukung pasangan calon presiden Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa dengan alasan kecewa karena Partai Hanura dan Wiranto mendukung pasangan calon presiden Joko Widodo-Jusuf Kalla (pemilu.tempo.co, 23 Mei 2014). Yang cerita petualangnya lebih seru ialah Maiyasyak Johan. Dia meninggalkan posisinya di DPR sebagai wakil rakyat dari Partai Persatuan Pembangunan. Lucunya, hanya dua minggu dia berlabuh pada Partai Nasional Demokrat. Terungkap kabar jika Maiyasyak ternyata sudah pindah lagi ke Partai Golkar (merdeka.com, 12 Februari 2013).

Manuver politik macam begini jelas bukanlah manuver politik yang mengesankan dan jauh dari beradab, entah bagi publik sebagai konstituen yang sudah, tengah, dan akan memberi mandat kepada wakil mereka, maupun bagi partai politik sebagai ‘dahan’ bergantung aktor politik (untuk tidak menyebut sebagai lapangan pekerjaan). Fenomena politisi kutu loncat dalam banyak cerita cenderung mengecewakan rakyat sebagai pemberi mandat politik. Juga, tak kalah mengecewakan dan cenderung menjadi bahan olok-olok dalam lingkup partai politik. Asumsinya, dewasa ini ada kesan bahwa kita mengalami defisit aktor politik yang mumpuni dan bertanggung jawab atas segala pilihan yang sudah dibuat sejak awal melangkah ke dalam ranah politik. Serta, nyaris benar –meski tak bermaksud menyamaratakan-, bahwa partai politik entah itu sebagai mesin politik maupun sebagai lembaga pendidikan politik mandul dalam melahirkan sistem politik yang arif bagi rakyat dan bagi demokrasi sekaligus meranggas karena tak mampu melahirkan negarawan untuk bangsa ini. Yang dilahirkan justru subjek-subjek atau aktor-aktor yang haus kekuasaan, pragmatis, dan cenderung oportunis.

Tulisan ini ingin mengkaji fenomena aktor demokrasi yang ‘dinilai’ sebagai aktor pragmatis, oportunis, dan haus kekuasaan yang dikenal dengan sebutan politisi kutu loncat dalam pespektif skizoanalisis. Di balik menjamurnya fenomena politisi kutu loncat, yang menggelitik ialah apakah mereka benar-benar haus akan kekuasaan? Atau ada hal lain yang dikejar-kejar selain jabatan dan kuasa dengan konteks sosio-politik Indonesia kekinian? Kajian ini mencoba sedikit keluar dari kajian mainstream tentang fenomena kutu loncat dengan memakai pisau analisis skizofrenia politik dari Gilles Deleuze dan Felix Guattari dalam Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (1972/1985). Jenis penelitian ini ialah kualitatif interpretatif, mencermati fenomena politisi kutu loncat kemudian menginterpretasikannya dengan dibantu kerangka pikir skizofrenia politik ala Deleuze dan Guattari.

Saved the Nation by Spydom: Intelligence Reform to be More Inclusive in Indonesia’s Democratic

Introduction
On its journey, the concept of security including intelligence security, it could easily have been for the state, social society, communities as well as individual experiencing shifting intellectual argument around the concept of security. Keliat (2005: 64) said, it as the process of renorming (renormalization process). The process of renorming in essence rises in a proposition to desacralized sovereignty against meaning attached to state. The demand to ask for responsibility of the state to protect its citizens. Besides, there are also prosecution of sovereignty individual and obligations state to protect. In this sense, no longer allowed that intelligence security –it is a part function of state- like intelligence activities who takes down lives of citizens, over authority or borrow ‘on behalf of’ authority of the state. If this condition occurred ascertainable will happen excessive restrictions on civil liberties and woken up what is known as the state intelligence, the state of being full of spies upon its citizens.

It can be understood that clandestine activities very helpful for nation-state to endure and maintain their sovereignties of numerous threat aspects of our life. Defense nation-state could not be separated of intelligence activities. Referring to information services work for the implementation of relevant method and security interests to pursue a policy of national governments and to deal with the actual and potential adversaries than with the success and perhaps more effective (Shulsky and Schmitt, 2002: 3; Suryohadiprojo, 2005: 72). However, post World War II, intelligence activities not limited to gathering information. Intelligence also actively engage in the ruined or disrupted elements to form an opponent the power in the community. Mainly because of post Cold War, the battle of and attacks inter-countries no longer problems militery merely, problems and the non-conventional threat more through (including analysis, information judgment, and approximate) and cooperation with intelligence become more something powerful rather than only problem of ordnance (Bhakti, 2005: 1). This essay summarizes how strategy of lntelligence reform could touching civil society in their work without then threatening between with each other. Civil society who promotes human rights and civil supremation (human security) faced with intelligence activities that apt to neglect of human rights and civil supremation. The two eyes which is hate each other and othering else.

Intelligence Reform as An Undoubtedly
Along with the increasing degree of community engagement in policymaking -specially on concept of modern state with idea of nationalism, sovereignty the people, and democracy- state inevitably should reform himself if not want stamped as a weak country (weak state) because not to involve and integrate public, they called it as outhoritarian and fascists. Also on the contrary, the state of being strong (strong state): the state of being managed in a peaceful democratic with domestic political (Buzan and Little, 2000: 251). Nevertheless, was doing no do a weakening against the country. However, state with a solid role is still needed, especially for countries with new democracy concept which is seeking form. Most civil society needs presence solid state to provide rules (role of law and law enforcement) to safeguard existence of them.

The intelligence activities, not uncommon intelligence stamped as an institution which anti-democracy and human rights-abusing – legacies of New Order era. It is unimpossible intelligence abused for political purposes partisan considering we do not have a culture political competition of being civilized (Jemadu, 2005: 189). These were somewhat can be observed from competition of political parties that is tinged by ideological issues which could not inclusive, spatially exclusive. Hence, mastery of the intelligence services by one party or group of and that is not known by the public will cause the risk of abuse the function of being a partisan intelligence for political purposes. In addition, also pertaining to control and oversight against intelligence and their activities. In democratic countries like Indonesia, restraint, purpose oversight, and accountability from lntelligence intended to lntelligence not being ‘overlord’ on within itself (self-tasking intelligence) could have been ‘jumawa’, arrogant, and follow megalomaniac syndrome.

The position of intelligence is centrality in the development of human civilization, cannot be separated from the role of its as the blind side of decision making for the president. Intelligence also become part of a principled early warning system the emergence of self and thorough information system that can be used for the benefit of all decision-making, especially in the field of security. The oversight to intelligence then it needs to ensure the occurrence of an equilibrium between security and freedom –privacy and civil supremation- as two basic needs of modern society.

Because of, reform of the intelligence services being important and urgent. Considering the position of intelligence as justification from the presence of the state, rasion d’etre, having a new idea from of especially the intellectual, with ‘legowo’ (kind of heart) to reforming themselves. This is not purely because demands for the sake of consolidation of democracy in Indonesia more than that the intelligence services also needs to look up in global terms that they have a challenge much greater in an international scale, it could easily have been in the aspect of quality as well as a challenge intelligence performance and because of a change of strategy and the strain of the world in the era of informational devices today.

Democracy: Linking Intelligence to Civil Society
Consideration national security cannot be separated from the context of consolidation of democracy is evident in Indonesia as democratic state. To be noted that the process established of democracy in Indonesia occurring concurrently with the appearance of the threat to national security involving groups radical domestic who cooperate or has ties ideological by actors non-goverment on international level. Challenges faced by Indonesia is how to build intelleigence institutional -as the need for security- not contrary to the principles of democracy, civil supremation, and human rights had the place of honor in human civilization (Jemadu, 2005: 184; Lay, 2005: 215). Amid global terrorism threat current, professional intelligence is needed by every country which democracy is not yet establish and is still developing countries. Besides, as critized by many scholars reform of intelligence, the shadow about practices lntelligence in New Order was so strong full of suspected and not be trusted from society.

The formation of the intelligence services for the sake of national security can be understood as part of efforts to state-building so that function is the power and control the state more effective. Assume, intelligence reformist can be created within the state democratic, suppose only be able to support the process of consolidating democracy in Indonesia. One of the important elements in this is a harmonious relationship between the state and civil society in order to promote social goals purposes, especially in public administration and the security of the national security (human security). Basically, countries and civil society both have interests and engage in public spheres; both have conception about political power which often does in line: a state always stressed face coercive power and dominative, while civil society always promoting terms of political equality and control the public on power.

The ideal relations between states and civil society is complementary because by normative and moral both pursue the society as a whole. The state requires of civil society, not all problem countries can be solved by the state was otherwise. By as they needed each other, in the biggest democracies progress which one should brings positive effect for the other one. The problem of reform of intelligence is, countries tend to always make the effort to strengthen controls and oversight of a range of activities a society considered suspicious and jeopardized national security at a particular time. While civil society more strives for security which could humanism and civil supremation (human security) (Paris, 2001: 98-99). Then it seems paradoxical between one thing and another.

Nevertheless, not that reform of intelligence being contra-production with the consolidation of democracy in Indonesia. In establishing effective control mechanisms on intelligence, Indonesia could follow practices is commonly done in the countries that have dogged democracy themselves. In countries like England, United States, Australia the intelligence and supervised tightly by parliament and by civil society especially NGOs are active in human rights issues and mass media that are ready to reveal authority given to a revolt of intelligence. Indonesia already building democratic institutions, such as a political party, parliament, independent media and civil society that is no longer any barrier to the government should also establish mechanisms to control the same. Indonesia can adopt what democracy in countries advanced known to the principle of supervision quilted (multilayered oversight): any layers oversight are part of other layers that which is constituted in high-rise buildings into four layers (ethics profession, executive, parliament, and civil society). The oversight program is not stand alone but are joined each others circularly from the other. Stratified is placing intelligence surveillance countries at the center of a circle with the aim to ensure accountability, political, and improving the law, and the finance (Jemadu, 2005: 211; Lay, 2005: 261, dan Widjajanto, 2005: 289).

Conclusion: Intelligence Reform Is An Inclusiveness Project
This description is not must have the contradiction between the creation or reform the intelligence services with consolidating democracy in Indonesia that is inclusive. Most important is the function intelligence in accordance with certain terms as stand up of principle rule of law, development of civil society, and tight mechanism by parliament and by civil society. It is not easy to achieve a perfect harmony between the intelligence services who works in secret to the principle of democracy prioritising openness and accountability, especially with the will and demanding of human security is more human and giving priority liberty as well as homage or respecfull to human rights.

We needest political will from every party especially the government to does not sacrifice of democracy and human rights with argument of national security which are often deliberately made the definition is floating so as to be easily manipulated. Democracy wants to have fragmentation and distribution power balance so that existing powers shall flow with a mechanism of checks and balances. According this argument, the intelligence services not only should fragmented in various organization based on specific function, but also to be done by an agency that also of diverse specific function.

Oversight mechanism by civil society aimed to build mechanism protection residents strong and prevent efforts raising systematic who made citizens as a subject intelligence activities. Citizens, in some degree, having the immunity of intelligence activities. The immunity rights should be strengthened by state through the formation of protection residents mechanism. This mechanism could do with two ways namely empower back customary local administrative experience in the New Order, standardized and apply community policing community mechanism that allows citizens to actively consolidate social and critically emancipation. Thus, intelligence reform expected not just walk in parliamentary oversight, as political landscape, but also entrenched and interwoven with strong and along the people civil society.


Bibliography
Bhakti, Ikrar Nusa. 2005. “Intelijen dan Keamanan Negara” dalam Reformasi Intelijen Negara. Andi Widjajanto (Ed.). Pacivis and FES: Jakarta.
Buzan, Barry and Little, Richard. 2000. International System in World History, Remaking the Study of International Relations. Oxford University Press: New York.
Jemadu, Aleksius. 2005. “Reformasi Intelijen dalam Konteks Konsolidasi Demokrasi di Indonesia” dalam Reformasi Intelijen Negara. Andi Widjajanto (Ed.). Pacivis and FES: Jakarta.
Keliat, Makmur. 2005. “Negara, Globalisasi, dan Intelijen” dalam Reformasi Intelijen Negara. Andi Widjajanto (Ed.). Pacivis and FES: Jakarta.
Lay, Cornelis. 2005. “Menjaring Bayang-bayang: Dilema Masyarakat Intelijen dalam Masyarakat Demokratis” dalam Reformasi Intelijen Negara. Andi Widjajanto (Ed.). Pacivis and FES: Jakarta.
Paris, Roland. 2001. Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?. International Security, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp 87-102.
Shulsky, Abram N and Schmitt, Gary J. 2002. Silent Warfare: Understanding the World of Intelligence. Third Edition. Brasseys: Washington DC.
Suryohadiprojo, Sayidiman. 2005. Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum: Membangun Pertahanan Negara yang Modern dan Efektif. Gramedia Pustaka Utama: Jakarta.
Widjajanto, Andi. 2005. “Intel Juga Manusia; Bisa Direformasi!” dalam Reformasi Intelijen Negara. Andi Widjajanto (Ed.). Pacivis and FES: Jakarta.