1 TUGAS
DINAMIKA POLITIK DAN PEMERINTAHAN DI AMERIKA LATIN KELAS: C
DISUSUN OLEH:
Marisi Anggelina Simangunsong (132030151)
FAKULTAS ILMU SOSIAL DAN ILMU POLITIK JURUSAN HUBUNGAN INTERNASIONAL
UNIVERSITAS PASUNDAN BANDUNG
2
BAB
1
KATA PENGANTAR
A.
Politik Selayang Pandang
Politics, in its broadest sense, refers to the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live. Politics is inextricably linked to the phenomena of conflict and cooperation. On the one hand, the existence of rival opinions, different wants, competing needs and opposing interests guarantees disagreement about the rules under which people live. On the other hand, people recognize that, in order to influence these rules or ensure their enforcement, they must work with others. However, politics is an „essentially contested‟ concept (Gallie 1955/56). It has been defined, variously, as the art of government, as public affairs generally, as the non-violent resolution of disputes, and as power and the distribution of resources (Heywood 2007). The term „global‟ has two meanings, and these have quite different implications as far as global politics is concerned. In the first, global means worldwide, having planetary (not merely regional or national) significance. The globe is, in effect, the world. Global politics, in this sense, refers to politics that is conducted at a global rather than a national or regional level. There is no doubt that the global or worldwide dimension of politics has, in recent decades, become more significant. There has been a growth of international organizations, some of which, like the United Nations (see p. 449), come close to having a universal membership. A growing number of political issues have also acquired a „global‟ character, in that they affect, actually or potentially, all parts of the world and so all people on the planet. This particularly applies in the case of the environment, often seen as the paradigm example of a „global‟ issue, because nature operates as an interconnected whole, in which everything affects everything else. The same the economy, where it is common place to refer to the „global economy‟ or „global capitalism‟, in that fewer and fewer countries now remain outside the international trading system and are unaffected by external investment and the integration of financial markets. Global politics thus takes place not just at a global level, but at and, crucially, across, all levels – worldwide, regional, national, sub national.1
3 1. Teori
Mainstream Perspectives
The key mainstream perspectives on global politics are realism and liberalism. As the discipline of international relations took shape following World War I, it drew particularly heavily on liberal ideas and theories, especially about the desirability of conducting international politics within a framework of moral and legal norms. From the late 1930s onwards, such liberal ideas were subject to increasing criticism by realist theorists, who highlighted what they saw as the inescapable realities of power politics. This established international relations as a „divided discipline‟, a battle ground between liberalism and realism, with the latter increasingly dominating the academic study of the subject from 1945 onwards. However, this so-called first „great debate‟ within IR (see p. 4) has refused to stand still. By the 1970s, new versions of realism and liberalism had appeared, and, over time, the differences between these mainstream traditions have been blurred.2
Realism
Realism (sometimes called „political realism‟) claims to offer an account of world affairs that is „realistic‟, in the sense that it is hard-headed and (as realists sees it) devoid of wishful thinking and deluded moralizing. For realists, global politics is, first and last, about power and self interest. This is why it is often portrayed as a „power politics‟ model of international politics. As Hans Morgenthau (see p. 58) put it, „Politics is a struggle for power over men, and whatever its ultimate aim may be, power is its immediate goal and the modes of acquiring, maintaining and demonstrating it determine the technique of political action‟. The theory of power politics is based on two core assumptions (Donnelly 2000):
People are essentially selfish and competitive, meaning that egoism3 is the defining characteristic of human nature.
The state-system operates in a context of international anarchy, in that there is no authority higher than the sovereign state.
The core theme of realist theory can therefore be summed up in the equation: egoism plus anarchy equals power politics. Some have suggested that this formulation betrays a
2
. Ibid., Andrew Heywood, „Global Politics’ (England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011) , p. 54.
3. Egoism: Concern for one‟s own interest or wellbeing, or selfishness; the belief that one‟s own interests are
4
basic theoretical fault line within realism, dividing it into two distinct schools of thought. One of these – classical realism4 – explains power politics in terms of egoism, while the other – neorealism,5 or structural realism – explains it in terms of anarchy. However, these alternative approaches reflect more a difference of emphasis within realism rather than a division into rival „schools‟, as the central assumptions of realism are common to most realist theorists, even though they may disagree about which factors are ultimately the most important.
The key themes within realism are as follows:
State egoism and conflict.
Statecraft and the national interest.
International anarchy and its implications.
Polarity, stability and the balance of power.6 State Egoism and Conflict
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) He was despatched on diplomatic missions to France, Germany and throughout Italy. After a brief period of imprisonment and the restoration of Medici rule, Machiavelli retired into private life and embarked on a literary career. His major work The Prince, written in 1513 but not published until 1531 and seen as the classic realist analysis of power politics, drew heavily on his first-hand observations of the statecraft of Cesare Borgia. The Disourses, written over a twenty-year period, nevertheless portray him as a republican. The adjective „Machiavellian‟ (fairly or unfairly) subsequently came to mean „cunning and duplicitous‟. Machiavelli‟s theory of politics was based on a darkly negative model of a changeless human nature. In his view, humans are „insatiable, arrogant, crafty and shifting, and above all malignant, iniquitous, violent and savage‟. On this basis, Machiavelli argued that political life is always characterized by inevitable strife, encouraging political leaders to rule through the use of cunning, cruelty and manipulation. Hobbes‟s thinking was also based on a pessimistic view of human nature. He argued that humans are driven by non-rational appetites: aversions, fears, hopes and desires, the strongest of which is the desire for „power after power‟. As no single person or group is strong enough to establish dominance, and therefore a system of orderly
4. Classical realism: A form of realism that explains power politics largely in terms of human selfishness or
egoism.
5
. Neorealism: A perspective on international politics that modifies the power politics model by highlighting the
structural constraints of the international system; sometimes called „new‟ or structural realism.
5
rule, over society –a condition that Hobbes referred to as a „state of nature‟7– an ongoing civil war developed between all members of society. Life in this „state of nature‟ would thus be „solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short‟. According to Hobbes, the only way of escaping from the barbarity of such a society would be through the establishment of a sovereign and unchallengeable power, that is, by the creation of a state. Machiavelli and Hobbes were primarily concerned to explain the conduct of individuals or social groups, realist international theorists have been concerned, above all, with the behaviour of states. Realists view states as coherent and cohesive „units‟, and regard them as the most important actors on the world stage. Realists‟ theories of international politics are thus firmly state-centric.
Crucially, the fact that states are composed of, and led by, people who are inherently selfish, greedy and powerseeking means that state behaviour cannot but exhibit the same characteristics. Human egoism therefore determines state egoism; or, as Morgenthau (1962) put it, „the social world [is] but a projection of human nature onto the collective plane‟. Just as human egoism leads to unending conflict amongst individuals and groups, state egoism means that international politics is marked by inevitable competition and rivalry. As essentially self-interested actors, the ultimate concern of each state is for survival, which thereby becomes the first priority of its leaders. As all states pursue security through the use of military or strategic means, and where possible seek to gain advantage at the expense of other states, international politics is characterized by an irresistible tendency towards conflict.
Statecraft and The National Interest
Morgenthau Politics Among Nations (1948) was highly influential in the development of international relations theory. He set out to develop a science of „power politics‟, based on the belief, clearly echoing Machiavellian Hobbes, that what he called „political man‟ is an innately selfish creature with an insatiable urge to dominate others. Rejecting „moralistic‟ approaches to international politics similarly placed an emphasis on the „art of statecraft‟, arguing that the practical conduct of politics should nevertheless be informed by the „six principles of political realism‟, spelled out as follows:
Politics is governed by objective laws which have their root in human nature.
The key to understanding international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power.
6
The forms and nature of state power will vary in time, place and context but the concept of interest remains consistent.
Universal moral principles do not guide state behaviour, although this does not rule out an awareness of the moral significance of political action.
Moral aspirations are specific to a particular nation; there is no universally agreed set of moral principles.
The political sphere is autonomous, meaning that the key question in international politics is „How does this policy affect the power of the nation?‟
Realist tradition is a concern about the national interest.8 This concern highlights the realist stance on political morality. Realism is commonly portrayed as essentially amoral, both because of its image of humans as lustful and power-seeking creatures and because of its insistence that ethical considerations should be strictly excluded from foreign policy decision-making. A normative emphasis also operates within realist analysis, in that the requirement that state policy should be guided by a hardheaded pursuit of the national interest suggests, ultimately, that the state should be guided by the well being of its citizens. What realists reject, therefore, is not nationally-based conceptions of political morality, but universal moral principles that supposedly apply to all states in all circumstances. Indeed, from a realist perspective, one of the problems with the latter is that they commonly get in the way of the pursuit of the former. Calculations about the national interest, moreover, offer the surest basis for deciding when, where and why wars should be fought. Although realism is commonly associated with the idea of endless war, realists have often opposed war and aggressive foreign policy. In their view, wars should only ever be fought if vital national interests are at stake, the decision to wage war being based on something like a cost–benefit analysis of its outcomes in terms of strategic interests. Such thinking, for example, led Morgenthau and most US realists (except for Henry Kissinger, who was the National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford, 1969–77) to oppose the Vietnam War. Realists have also been amongst the most trenchant critics of the „war on terror‟ (see p. 223), thirty-four leading US realist scholars having co-signed an advert in the New York Times opposing war against Iraq as the US military build-up was happening in the autumn of 2002.
Polarity, Stability and The Balance Of Power
7
Rather, neorealists, in common with classical realists, believe that conflict can be contained by the balance of power (see p. 256), a key concept for all realist theorists. However, while classical realists treat the balance of power as a product of prudent statecraft, neorealists see it as a consequence of the structural dynamics of the international system, and specifically, of the distribution of power (or capacities) between and among states. In short, the principal factor affecting the likelihood of a balance of power, and therefore the prospect of war or peace, are the number of great powers (see p. 7) operating within the international system. Although neorealists believe that there is a general bias in the international system in favour of balance rather than imbalance (see to balance or to bandwagon? p. 236), world order is determined by the changing fate of great powers. This is reflected in an emphasis on polarity.9
Neorealists have generally associated bipolar systems with stability and a reduced likelihood of war, while multipolar systems have been associated with instability and a greater likelihood of war (see p. 63). This inclined neorealists to view Cold War bipolarity (see p. 216) in broadly positive terms, as a „long peace‟, but to warn about the implications of rising multipolarity (see p. 230) in the post-Cold War era (discussed in more detail in Chapter 9). Realists, nevertheless, disagree about the relationship between structural instability and the likelihood of war. For so-called offensive realists,10 as the primary motivation of states is the acquisition of power, if the balance of power breaks down (as it tends to in conditions of multipolarity), there is a very real likelihood that war will break out (Mearsheimer 2001). Defensive realists,11 on the other hand, argue that states tend to prioritize security over power, in which case states will generally be reluctant to go to war, regardless of the dynamics of the international system (Mastanduno 1991) (see Offensive or defensive realism? p. 234).12
Kenneth Waltz (born 1924) US international relations theorist. Waltz‟s initial contribution to international relations, outlined in Man, the State, and War (1959), adopted a conventional realist approach and remains the basic starting point for the analysis of war. His Theory of International Politics (1979) was the most influential book of international relations theory of its generation, establishing Waltz as the successor to Morgenthau in the
9
. Polarity: The existence within a system of one or more significant actors, or „poles‟, which affect the behaviour of other actors and shape the contour of the system itself, determining its structural dynamics.
10. Offensive realism: A form of structural realism that portrays states as „power maximizers‟, as there is no
limit to their desire to control the international environment.
11
. Defensive realism: A form of structural realism that views states as „security maximizers‟, placing the desire to avoid attack above a bid for world power.
8
discipline. Ignoring human nature and the ethics of statecraft, Waltz used systems theory to explain how international anarchy effectively determines the actions of states, with change in the international system occurring through changes in the distribution of capabilities between and amongst states. Waltz‟s analysis was closely associated with the Cold War and the belief that bipolarity is more stable and provides a better guarantee of peace and security than does multipolarity.
Anarchy and its Implications
From the 1970s onwards, new thinking within the realist tradition started to emerge, which was critical of „early‟ or „traditional‟ realism. The key text in this process was Kenneth Waltz‟s The Theory of International Politics (1979). For Waltz (see p. 60), theories about international politics could be developed on „three levels of analysis – the human individual, the state and the international system‟. In this light, the defect of classical realism was that it could not explain behaviour at a level above the state, which is a limitation of any endogenous, or „inside-out‟, theory (one which explains behaviour in terms of „the inside‟, the intentions or inclinations of key actors) (see Structure or agency? p. 72). Using systems theory,13 neorealism, or, more specifically, „structural realism‟ explains the behaviour of states in terms of the structure of the international system. As such, neorealism is an exogenous, or „outside-in‟, theory (one in which the behaviour of actors is explained in terms of „the outside‟, the context or structure in which they operate) of global politics. In shifting attention from the state to the international system, it places an emphasis on the implications of anarchy.
Neorealists argue that international anarchy necessarily tends towards tension, conflict and the unavoidable possibility of war for three main reasons. In the first place, as states are separate, autonomous and formally equal political units, they must ultimately rely on their own resources to realise their interests. International anarchy therefore results in a system of „self-help‟,14 because states cannot count on anyone else to „take care of them‟. Second, relationships between and amongst states are always characterized by uncertainty and suspicion. This is best explained through the security dilemma15 (Booth and Wheeler 2008). Although self-help forces states to ensure security and survival by building up sufficient military capacity to deter other states from attacking them, such
13. Systems theory: An approach to study that focuses on works of „systems‟, explaining their operation and
development in terms of reciprocal interactions amongst component parts.
14. Self-help: A state‟s reliance on its own capacities and resources, rather than external support, to ensure
security and survival.
15. Security dilemma: The dilemma that arises from the fact that a build-up of military capacity for defensive
9
actions are always liable to be interpreted as hostile or aggressive. Uncertainty about motives therefore forces states to treat all other states as enemies, meaning that permanent insecurity is the inescapable consequence of living in conditions of anarchy. Third, conflict is also encouraged by the fact that states are primarily concerned about maintaining or improving their position relative to other states; that is, with making relative gains.16 Apart from anything else, this discourages cooperation and reduces the effectiveness of international organizations (see p. 433), because, although all states may benefit from a particular action or policy, each state is actually more worried about whether other states benefit more that it does. Although such neorealist thinking had a profound impact both within and beyond the realist tradition, since the 1990s realist theories have often attempted to fuse systems analysis with a unit-level approach,giving rise to what has been called „neoclassical realism‟ or „post-neorealism‟ (Wohlforth 1993; Zakaria 1998).17
2. Konsep Great Power
A great power is a state deemed to rank amongst the most powerful in a hierarchical state-system. The criteria that define a great power are subject to dispute, but four are often identified. (1) Great powers are in the first rank of military prowess, having the capacity to maintain their own security and, potentially, to influence other powers. (2) They are economically powerful states, although (as Japan shows) this is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for great power status. (3) They have global, and not merely regional, spheres of interests. (4) They adopt a „forward‟ foreign policy and have actual, and not merely potential, impact on international affairs (during its isolationist phase, the USA was thus not a great power).
Interdependence
Interdependence refers to a relationship between two parties in which each is affected by decisions that are taken by the other. Interdependence implies mutual influence, even a rough equality between the parties in question, usually arising from a sense of mutual vulnerability. Interdependence, then, is usually associated with a trend towards cooperation and integration in world affairs. Interdependence is by no means always associated with trends towards peace, cooperation and integration. Interdependence
16
. Relative gains: The position of states in relation to one another, reflected in the distribution of benefits and capabilities between and amongst them (see p. 436).
10
may be asymmetrical rather than symmetrical, in which case it can lead to domination nd conflict rather than peace and harmony.18 Keohane and Nye (1977) advanced the idea of „complex interdependence‟ as an alternative to the realist model of international politics. This highlighted the extent to which (1) states have ceased to be autonomous international actors; (2) economic and other issues have become more prominent in world affairs; and (3) military force has become a less reliable and less important policy option.
Globalization
Globalization is the emergence of a complex web of interconnectedness that means that our lives are increasingly shaped by events that occur, and decisions that are made, at a great distance from us. The central feature of globalization is therefore that geographical distance is of declining relevance and that territorial borders, such as those between nationstates, are becoming less significant. By no means, however, does globalization imply that „the local‟ and „the national‟ are subordinated to „the global‟. Rather, it highlights the deepening as well as the broadening of the political process, in the sense that local, national and global events (or perhaps local, regional, national, international and global events) constantly interact.19 For example In 1991, the signing of the Treaty of Asuncion led to the formation of Mercusor, which links Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay and, with Venezuela‟s application for full membership awaiting final ratification and Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia as associate members, constitutes Latin America‟s largest trade bloc. The most important trading bloc in South America is Mercosur, which expanded through an agreement in 1994 to link the economies of Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Paraguay and Uruguay as full members, with Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia as associate members. The main aims of Mercosur are to liberalize trade amongst its members, establishing a customs union (in which the associate members do not participate) and helping to coordinate economic policies within the region. From the outset, it embraced „open regionalism‟ and engaged in market -orientated strategies, as advised by the WTO and other bodies. The Mercosur countries enjoyed dramatic growth in intra-regional trade as well as in their trade with the rest of the world during 1991–96.However, since then, trade levels have grown much more slowly, affected, in part, by financial crises in Brazil and Argentina. A deeper long-term problem within Mercosur is the tensions that derive from the fact that Brazil, with 79 per cent of
11
the organization‟s total population and 71 per cent of its GDP, dwarfs other members, including Argentina.20
B. Sejarah Bolivia
Berdasarkan sejarah Bolivia merupakan bagian dari wilayah kolonial Spanyol. Melemahnya kekuatan Spanyol pada masa perang melawan Napoleon yang mendorong dideklarasikannya kemerdekaan Bolivia pada tahun 1809, yang kemudian diikuti oleh 16 tahun perjuangan dan diakhiri oleh pembentukan Republik Bolivia pada 6 Agustus 1825.21 Sejak kemerdekaan pada tahun 1825, Bolivia didominasi oleh keturunan Eropa yang berbahasa Spanyol, yang kemudian mengontrol kekuatan politik dan Ekonomi di Bolivia. Bangsa mestizo (campuran bangsa Eropa dan pribumi menempati kelas menengah bawah, yaitu suatu posisi intermediet dibawah elit Eropa dan diatas penduduk pribumi Bolivia. Dengan sistem dominasi oleh bangsa mayoritas (penjajah) yang memiliki kekuatan politik yang didasarkan oleh kekuatan yang represif. Evolusi politik dari negara ini sendiri didominasi oleh usaha-usaha yang secara perlahan-lahan mengalami penurunan pada akhir abad ke-19. Institusi elit negara yang berkuasa pada saat itu menerima suatu hantaman keras akibat perang Chaco (1932-1935), yang kemudian menyebabkan Bolivia kehilangan bagian substansial.
Saat ini Bolivia berbentuk Republik Demokratik Dari bentuk demokrasi Republik ini terpilihnya Evo Morales yang populis sebagai presiden Bolivia yang berlatar belakang seorang Petani Kako, dengan berpegang pada konstitusi yang telah dibuat pada tahun 1994. Seperti negara demokratik pada umumnya, struktur pembagian kekuasaan dalam pemerintahan Bolivia dibagi kedalam kekuasaan eksekutif, legislatif dan yudikatif. Sebagai pemegang kekuasaan dalam badan eksekutif dimana presiden berfungsi sebagai kepala negara dan juga kepala pemerintahan yang memiliki tanggung jawab penuh terhadap aktivitas diplomatik, pembentukan kebijakan ekonomi dan pemimpin angkatan bersenjata negara. Kekuasaan legislasi oleh kongres bikameral Bolivia yang terdiri dari 27 anggota senat dan 130 anggota Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat.22 Kekuasaan legislatif pada dasarnya sangat terbatas khusus untuk memperdebatkan, menyetujui atau pun menolak legislasi yang diinisiasikan oleh eksekutif untuk kemudian berlaku menjadi suatu hukum
20. Ibid., Andrew Heywood, „Global Politics’ (England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), p. 7-9. 21
. Benjamin Kohl & Linda Farthing, Impasse in Bolivia, (London: Zedbooks, 2006) hlm. 36
22. Country Profile: Bolivia”, Library of Congres-Federal Research Divisions, diakses dari
12
yang sah. Untuk sistem judisial, Bolivia memiliki sebuah Mahkamah Agung, pengadilan distrik untuk tiap departemen, pengadilan lokal dan provinsi untuk mengatasi kasus-kasus kecil. Jaksa-jaksa pada Mahkamah Agung yang dipilih langsung oleh presiden dengan persetujuan dari kongres untuk sekali masa jabatan selama 10 tahun.
Berdasarkan kongres tahun 1989, wilayah Bolivia dibagi-bagi kedalam Sembilan departemen wilayah yaitu La Paz, Santa Crus, Cochamba, Potosi, Chuquisaca, Oruro, Tarija, Beni da Pando dengan La Paz yang dijadikan sebagai ibu kota negaranya. Selain terbagi dalam Sembilan departemen, wilayah Bolivia juga dibagi-bagi menjadi 94 provinsi dan 312 wilayah distrik. Dalam bidang politik, Bolivia memiliki sistem multi partai dengan struktur yang cenderung sangat terfragmentasi; terbukti dari banyaknya partai yang direpresentasikan dalam kongres Bolivia. Meskipun memiliki banyak partai, namun pada dasarnya hanya terdapat tiga partai yang mendominasi, yaitu Nationalist Revolutionary Movement (MNR), Nationalist Democratic Action (ADN), and Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR) pada tahun 1952.23 Dalam kekuasan tiga partai ini adalah sebagai bentuk dari revolusi pemerintah Bolivia yang membawa beberapa perubahan terhadap sistem bernegara di Bolivia, namun pada perkembangan dampak dari revolusi ini cenderung masih terbatas. Perubahan yang tersebar ini masih kurang mampu untuk mengatasi struktur masyarakat yang memiliki tingkat rasisme yang kental, hierarki sosial dan kesenjangan ekonomi yang sangat tinggi.24 Yang sangat mempengaruhi dari ketiga partai ini adalah dari tipologi dari kepemimpinan fenomenal Juan Evo Morales Ayma (46 tahun), yang pimpinannya “Gerakan menuju Sosialisme (Movimiento al Socialismo – MAS), sebagai presiden Bolivia pada 22 Januari 2006. MAS yang berdiri sejak tahun 1995, adalah gerakan petani koka di mana Morales sendiri berasal dari satu diantara empat kelompok etno-linguistik pribumi yakni, Quechue, Aymara (Morales berasal dari kelompok etnis ini), Guarani dan Chiquitano, yang merupakan 65 persen dari total penduduk Bolivia. Dari sudut jumlah (kuantitas) pendukungnya, dan kesadaran politik, organisasi dan program mereka, ternyata semakin menguat dan solid dalam tahun-tahun terakhir ini. Masyarakat pada umumnya, khususnya masyarakat keturunan Indian, sudah banyak yang tidak buta politik lagi. Go to politics! Begitu kira-kira slogan dan arahannya. Tidak mengherankan, gerakan ini begitu mengambil peran besar dalam proses-proses politik di Bolivia, dan bahkan sebagai catatan sejak tahun 2003, mereka berhasil
23
. Klein, H., Bolivia: The Evolution of a Multi-Ethnic Society, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
24. Natalia Springer, “Bolivia: a Situation Analysisi”, A Writenet Report Commissioned by United Nations High
13
menurunkan dua presiden Bolivia, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada dan Carlos Mesa, yang dianggap tidak pro-masyarakat asli.25
C. Pemimpin Kiri Amerika Latin
Sejak tahun 1930-an sampai pertengahan 1970-an, imperialisme Amerika Serikat di Amerika Latin senantiasa ditantang oleh rezim-rezim gerakan-gerakan nasionalis, populis, dan sosialis demokratik.26 Secara umum, tantangan-tantangan ini bersifat reformis dari pada revolusioner, dimana mereka mempertanyakan elemen-elemen proyek imperialis, dan bukannya sistem secara keseluruhan. Gerakan perlawanan terhadap neoliberalisme di kawasan Amerika Latin bukan tanpa sebab. Akar sejarah ekonomi-politik negara-negara Amerika Latin yang mengalami ketergantungan terhadap penetrasi kekuatan kapitalisme global, sesungguhnya tidak berbeda jauh dengan kondisi negara dunia ketiga lainnya. Proses globalisasi yang di “back-up” proyek neoliberalisme (WashingtonConsensus) tidak hanya hadir dibeberapa negara melainkan sudah di seluruh dunia, menurut Martinez dan Garcia, neoliberalisme telah dipaksakan oleh lembaga-lembaga finansial yang memiliki kekuasaan yang besar. Sebut saja, Dana Moneter Internasional (International Monetary Fund-IMF), Bank Dunia (World Bank-WB), dan Bank Pembangunan Antar-Amerika (Inter-American Development Bank). Bahkan, dibandingkan dengan wilayah dunia lainnya, Amerika Latin sejak 1980an sudah menjadi laboratorium dari eksperimen neoliberalisme. Jenderal Augusto Pinochet, pada saat berkuasa sudah menjalankan formula yang diajukan oleh the Chicago School (ingat nama Milto Friedman, penerima hadiah Nobel, adalah arsitek ekonomi Pembangunan Nasional Cile), yang sebetulnya adalah proyek neoliberalisme. Hebatnya, ini sudah dilakukan beberapa tahun sebelum pada akhirnya menjadi bendera yang dibawa Ronald Reagan (AS) dan Margareth Thatcher (Inggris), untuk membangun dunia. Demikian juga “shock therapy” ala Jeffrey Sachs dijalankan oleh Paz Estensoro di Bolivia, sebelum diimplementasikan di bekas negara-negara blok Uni Soviet,27 dengan masuknya proyek neoliberal ini dapat melahirkan berbagai persoalan sosial-politik dan ekonomi yang semakin parah di Amerika Latin. Menjadikan masyarakat di benua itu semakin miskin, terutama kelompok indegeneous
25. Nur Iman Subono, Amerika Latin bergerak ke “Kiri?” dalam
http://indoprogress.blogspot.co.id/2007/01/amerika-latin-bergerak-ke-kiri.html diakses pada 23 Februari 2016.
26. James Petras & Henry Veltmeyer, Imperialisme Abad 21, Yogyakarta, Kreasi Wacana, 2002, hal 139.
27. Ibid., Nur Iman Subono , Amerika Latin bergerak ke “Kiri?” Dalam
14
nya. Kemudian, sejak berakhirnya perang dingin Amerika, tidak terlalu menaruh perhatian kepada wilayah Amerika Latin lagi, meski untuk waktu yang sangat lama wilayah ini disebut sebagai “backyard” (halaman belakang) Amerika Serikat. Sekarang ini, Amerika Serikat lebih berkonsentrasi di Timur Tengah, sehingga perhatiannya terhadap gerakan-gerakan sosialis dan komunis di Amerika Latin semakin ditinggalkan.
Ambruknya Uni Soviet dan Eropa Timur serta berakhirnya Perang Dingin, bukan berarti mengakhiri sebab-sebab kelahiran ideologi dan program “kiri” di Amerika Latin. Justru membantu “kiri” Amerika Latin mengubah stigma geografis yang ada sebelumnya. Pemerintahan “kiri” atau “kiri-tengah” di Amerika Latin tidak lagi harus memilih antara Amerika Serikat dan Uni Soviet. Tidak ada lagi labelling negara mana yang menjadi satelit dari negara komunis ataupun kapitalis. Ide-ide “kiri” di Amerika Latin ini juga semakin relevan dengan kondisi ketidakmerataan, kemiskinan, konsentrasi kekuasaan, keadilan, disparitas sosial yang semakin akut di wilayah Amerika Latin.28
Perubahan ke arah “kiri” yang banyak dianut di Amerika Latin sering disebut sebagai radically democracitizing democracy (mendemokratiskan demokrasi), mereka membangun kekuatan politik dan merebut kekuasaan politik melalui politik elektoral. Oleh karena itu, mereka tidak menolak demokrasi, tetapi demokrasi prosedural tidaklah cukup sehingga harus didemokratiskan. Inilah yang disebut dengan demokrasi substansial yang melibatkan masyarakat, dan untuk kepentingan publik ditujukan demokrasi tersebut. Munculnya para pemimpin “kiri” Amerika Latin sejak tahun 1990-an pada umumnya memiliki karakter “sosialis” ataupun “populis”. Namun demikian, tentu saja “kiri” dewasa ini di Amerika Latin berbeda dengan “kiri” masa lalu. Meskipun tujuan dan prioritasnya sama, tapi cara mencapai perkembangan dalam konteks globalisasi.
Jika harus lebih mengartikan apa yang disebut sebagai “kiri” Amerika Latin, maka bisa diartikan sebagai upaya pemimpin, partai dan gerakan sosial dalam mengatasi masalah kemiskinan dan ketidakadilan sosial melalui berbagai cara atau manifestasi, baik dengan mobilisasi “akar rumput” dari bawah (bottom-up), inisiatif kebijakan dari atas (top-down) yang dilakukan para pemimpn kharismatik atau populis, maupun cara legislasi oleh partai politik yang berkuasa di parlemen.29Ada 3 elemen utama dari “kiri” Amerika Latin yang bisa kita catat, yakni ; Pertama, Adanya komitmen yang kuat, baik secara ideologis maupun politis, dalam upaya untuk mempromosikan egalitarian. Kedua, adanya keinginan untuk menjadikan “negara” sebagai kekuatan penyeimbang pasar. Ketiga,
15
penekanan pada partisipasi rakyat (popular participation). Secara sederhana, perjalanan “kiri” baru di Amerika Latin bisa dibagi menjadi dua bagian besar. Yakni; Pertama, open minded reformis. Mereka bercirikan “terbuka” dan berakar dari partai komunis yang dulu
sangat berorientasi pada Uni Soviet, dan lebih banyak memilih gerakan bersenjata. Ambruknya Uni Soviet menyadarkan mereka bahwa cara-cara bersenjata sebagaimana mereka lakukan selama ini tidak dapat dilakukan lagi. Oleh karena itu, mereka masuk kedalam demokrasi elektoral. Uruguay, Brazil dan Chile adalah negara-negara yang termasuk dalam kategori ini. Mereka menaruh perhatian pada masalah kemiskinan dan ketimpangan sosial, tapi saat bersamaan mereka sangat fleksibel terhadap soal-soal ekonomi karena pada dasarnya mereka tidak menolak pasar. Mereka umumnya menekankan pada kebijakan sosial, meski disaat bersamaan mereka sepakat dengan hampir semua kebijakan ekonomi ortodoks. Kedua, close minded populis. Trend ini memiliki ciri “tertutup” dan berkembang di Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, Paraguay, Nikaragua dan Kuba. Bersifat nasionalis, vocal dan secara historis akarnya berasal dari tradisi populisme Amerika Latin. Karakternya yang otoritarian dan hirau pada kekuasaan, pada umumnya sangat peduli pada rakyat miskin. Membangun struktur korporatis dalam memformulasikan relasi antara negara dan masyarakat, serta memiliki kecendrungan gandrung dengan proyek nasionalisasi perusahaan besar dan multinasional. Menurut Jorge Castaneda, kedua jalan ini merupakan serangan balik “kiri” terhadap neoliberalisme (the defensive strategy on the left).30
1. Tipologi Pemerintahan Bolivia Sekarang: Evo Morales
Begitu Evo Morales menjadi kandidat Presiden, salah satu janji kampanyenya adalah mengembalikan kedaulatan Bolivia atas kekayaan alamnya. Akhirnya, 1 Mei 2006, hanya tiga bulan setelah dilantik, Evo Morales mengeluarkan dekrit nasionalisasi perusahaan minyak dan migas. Uniknya, nasionalisasi Bolivia berbeda dengan nasionalisasi pada umumnya. Di Bolivia, dekrit nasionalisasi tidak mengarah pada pengambil-alihan asset. Sebaliknya, pemerintah hanya menuntut pajak yang lebih tinggi, renegosiasi kontrak, dan pembangunan kembali perusahaan minyak dan gas negara.31 Evo Morales sudah melakukan empat kali nasionalisasi: nasionalisasi minyak dan gas tahun 2006;
30 Ibid., Jurnal Sosial Demokrasi, Vol 4 No 1, Oktober-Desember 2008, Hal 12. 31
16
nasionalisasi perusahaan telekomunikasi tahun 2008; nasionalisasi pembangkit listrik tenaga air tahun 2010; dan nasionalisasi perusahaan listrik utama tahun 2012. Pemerintah Bolivia juga sudah mulai menasionalisasi perusahaan timah dan perak. Kebijakan renegosiasi dan nasionalisasi Evo Morales berpijak pada empat pilar: Pertama, memulihkan kontrol negara terhadap sumber daya alam. Ini menegaskan kontrol negara dalam segala aspek industri pertambangan: eksplorasi dan prospeksi, eksploitasi, ekstraksi, pemurnian, dan penjualan. Kedua, menulis ulang hukum pertambangan. Sebelumnya, di bawah rezim neoliberal, Bolivia punya hukum pertambangan, tetapi sangat menguntungkan korporasi multinasional dan merugikan bangsa Bolivia sendiri. Aspek utama dari perubahan itu meliputi: kenaikan pajak (dari 35% menjadi 50% dari keuntungan bersih), memberikan hak kepada perusahaan tambang negara (COMIBOL) untuk menjalankan dan mengelola tambang. Dan, terhadap tambang di bawah investor asing, didorong masuk dalam kemitraan 50-50 dengan COMIBOL. Ketiga, memajukan industri tambang dalam dua hal: (1) Teknologi: semua perusahaan asing wajib berbagi (alih-teknologi) dengan perusahaan negara dan membantu meningkatkan kapasitas teknologinya di semua lapangan industri. (2) Pelatihan: bagi koperasi penambang dan penambang tradisional. Keempat, partisipasi rakyat dalam pengelolaan tambang. Evo Morales memanggil rakyat Bolivia, termasuk gerakan sosial dan komunitas, untuk duduk di meja bersama untuk mendiskusikan masa depan pertambangan Bolivia. Maklum, banyak perusahaan tambang di Bolivia yang merusak lingkungan dan memiskinkan rakyat sekitarnya.
17
koperasi tambang ini sampai 200 kali upah minimum. Mereka tidak setuju dengan nasionalisasi. Pasalnya, mereka ketakutan jikalau program nasionalisasi akan menghilangkan pekerjaan mereka. Mereka pun terlibat konflik berdarah dengan pekerja tambang perusahaan negara. Sebagian besar koperasi tambang ini menggunakan metode ekstraksi kuno yang merusak lingkungan. Mereka juga banyak mempekerjakan anak-anak. Meski begitu, koperasi penambang ini sangat politis. Mereka bisa menggalang aksi massa besar, melakukan blockade, dan bahkan pernah menguasai kota La Paz. Baru-baru ini meletus konflik di Posokoni, terletak di Huanuni, provinsi Oruro, dimana penambang koperasi menentang kebijakan nasionalisasi Morales. Konflik berlangsung antara koperasi penambang (yang mempertahankan tambang) dengan pekerja tambang perusahaan negara. 16 orang tewas dan 115 orang terluka akibat konflik itu. Evo Morales segera melakukan negosiasi dengan penambang koperasi. Dengan begitu, konflik pun bisa diredam. Namun, konflik serupa masih terus berpotensi terjadi. Dengan kenaikan harga mineral, para penambang koperasi tidak mau kehilangan pendapatannya. Sedangkan, di pihak lain, negara juga mau menegaskan kontrol terhadap pengelolaan mineral.32
Terpilihnya Evo Morales Ayma sebagai Presiden Bolivia merupakan puncak dari gelombang gerakan sosialis baru di Amerika Latin, yang menimbulkan kekhawatiran besar bagi Gedung Putih.33 Kekhawatiran tersebut dikarenakan typical dari Evo Morales sendiri adalah anti kapitalisme dan imperialisme AS. Evo Morales juga membangun kerjasama dan beraliansi dengan negara tetangga seperti Venezuela, Kuba, Brazil, Chili dan Iran yang beraliran kiri untuk menolak imperialisme dan kapitalisme yang telah dilakukan AS selama bertahun-tahun di negeri tersebut. Kemenangan tersebut di klaim sebagai kemenangan bagi kubu anti-imperialis dan di dedikasikan kepada Fidel Castro. "Ini adalah perdebatan dua model dari kepemimpinan; nasionalisasi atau privatisasi. Nasionalisasi menang 60% dan kemenangan ini untuk melawan anti-imperialis dan anti-kolonialis. Pada saat yang bersamaan Evo Morales membuka hubungan erat dengan para pemimpin sayap kiri di Amerika Latin lainnya, terutama mendiang Hugo Chavez dari Venezuela dan Fidel dan Raul Castro dari Kuba. Sebaliknya, hubungan Bolivia dengan Amerika Serikat tidak
32. Ibid., Kusno, Anggota Partai Rakyat Demokratik (PRD) Pengalaman Nasionalisasi Di Bolivia, dalam
http://www.theglobal review.com/content_detail.php?lang=id&id=10142&type=108#.VswFBGc8cTg , diakses pada 24 Februari 2016.
33. A. Umar Said, “Presiden Bolivia Evo Morales Tokoh Kiri Yang Dimusuhi Amerika”, www.Kontak.club.fr,
18
terlalu baik. Morales hanya menjalin hubungan dengan musuh AS lainnya yaitu Iran, Venezuela, Kuba, Libya, Rusia.34
D. Pengertian Politik Luar Negeri
Foreign policy has traditionally statecraft as an activity through which national governments manage their relations with other states and international bodies. foreign policy-making use as „high‟ politics in that it deals with issues of sovereignty and security – in fact, the very survival of the state –as opposed to the „low‟ politics of economics and other less important state activities. Widened and deepened the scope of the interactions between and amongst states. As the distinctions between home and abroad, inside and outside, and „high‟ and „low‟ politics became perhaps hopelessly blurred, the divide between „foreign‟35 politics and „domestic‟ politics became increasingly difficult to sustain. All that occurs between nations and across nations is grounded in human decision makers acting singly or in groups. That human decision makers acting singly and in groups are the ground of all that happens in international relations and that such decision makers are not best approximated as unitary rational actors equivalent to the state,36 Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) is positioned to provide the concrete theory that can reinvigorate the connection between IR actor-general theory and its social science foundation (Lane, 1990).37 Position and decision-making styles have a significant impact on how conflicting ideas are managed (or not) in small groups (Peterson 1997; Kowert 2002; Verbeek 2003) small group research has typically focused on the presence or absence of conflict over policy preferences, preference disagreement may indeed stem from different national role conceptions held by group members. Indeed, the literature on problem representations suggests that more general disagreements drive small group decision making (Voss et al. 1991; Sylvan and Thorson 1992; Beasley 1998). For example, as simply annexation for national integration would lead to a set of policy
34. Ardita Mustafa, CNN Indonesia
http://www.cnnindonesia.com/internasional/20141014151801-134-6338/teman-teman-anti-amerika-morales/, diakses pada 23 Februari 2016.
35. Foreign: (from the Latin foris meaning „outside‟) Dealing or concerned with another country, area or people;
implies strange or not familiar.
36. 2005 International Studies Association. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA
02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK. P. 1-2.
37. Much in the same way that Richard Thaler‟s (1994) school of behavioral economics regrounds the modern
19
options that were incompatible with options stemming from a representation of the situation as a first step in German aspirations for domination.38
The matter was made yet more problematical by the fact that globalizing trends have also been associated with the advent of post-sovereign governance and the burgeoning importance of non-state actors: TNCs, NGOs, terrorist groups, international organizations and so on. At the very least this meant that foreign policy can no longer be thought of simply as „what states do to, or with, other states‟. The study of foreign policy remains a worthwhile activity, for at least two reasons. First, although the foreign/domestic divide may have become blurred, it has not been rendered redundant. The simple fact is that the world is still more separated into distinctive communities than it is a single, homogenizing entity (Hill 2003). How these communities attempt to manage the relations between and among them therefore continues to be an interesting and important issue. Second, foreign policy highlights the crucial interplay between structure and agency, emphasizing that events can neither be explained entirely through „top-down‟ systemic pressures nor entirely through „bottom-up‟ individual decision-making (see Structure or agency? p. 72). Is global politics best explained in terms of „structures‟ (the context within which action takes place) or in terms of „agency‟ (the ability of human actors to influence events)? Neorealists (sometimes called structural realists) explain the behaviour of states in terms of the structure of the international system, while Marxists emphasize the crucial impact of international capitalism, sometimes seen as a „world-system‟ by neo-Marxist theorists. One of the attractions of structuralism is that, by explaining human behaviour in terms of external, or exogenous, factors, it dispenses with the vagaries of human volition and decision-making, allowing theories to claim scientific precision. Alternative theories that stress agency over structure subscribe to intentionalism or voluntarism, which assigns decisive explanatory importance to the selfwilled behaviour of human actors. These theories have an „inside-out‟ character: they explain behaviour in terms of the intentions or inclinations of key actors. These theories are therefore endogenous. Examples include „classical‟ realism, which holds that the key to understanding international relations is to recognize that states are the primary actors on the world stage and that each state is bent on the pursuit of self-interest.
38
20
In so doing, foreign policy underlines the crucial significance of a sphere of decision, choice and intentionality within global politics. Foreign policy analysis is characterized by an actor-specific focus, based upon the argument that all that occurs between nations and across nations is grounded in human decision makers acting singly or in groups. FPA offers significant contributions to IR theoretical, substantive, and methodological and is situated at the intersection of all social science and policy fields as they relate to international affairs. It is IR‟s subfield of foreign policy analysis (FPA) that develops the actor-specific theory required to engage the ground of IR. With its assumption that human decision makers acting singly and in groups are the ground of all that happens in international relations and that such decision makers are not best approximated as unitary rational actors equivalent to the state, FPA is positioned to provide the concrete theory that can reinvigorate the connection between IR actor-general theory and its social science foundation (Lane, 1990).39 Explanatory variables from all levels of analysis, from the most micro to the most macro, are of interest to the analyst to the extent that they affect the decision-making process. As a result, insights from many intellectual disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, organizational behavior, anthropology, economics, and so forth, will be useful to foreign policy analysts in their efforts to explain foreign policy decision making, making multi-/interdisciplinarity a third hallmark of FPA. First, theories at different levels of analysis can finally be integrated in a meaningful fashion. As Snyder, Bruck, and Sapin put it over 40 years ago, The central concept of decision-making may provide a basis for linking a group of theories which hitherto have been applicable only to a segment of international politics or have not been susceptible of application at all . . . By emphasizing decision-making as a central focus, we have provided a way of organizing the determinants of action around those officials who act for the political society. Decision makers are viewed as operating in dual-aspect setting so that apparently unrelated internal and external factors become related in the actions of the decision- makers. (1962:74, 85). The second, Scholars in IR have struggled with the „„agent-structure‟‟ problematique for some time now (Carlnaes, 1992; Checkel, 1993; Wight, 1999). Although no final resolution will ever be accepted, as this is a perennial philosophical conundrum, what is accepted is that IR theory currently provides much more insight into structure than agency. This is a severe theoretical handicap, for to lack a robust concept of the „„agent‟‟ in IR means to be at a disadvantage when trying to explain or
39. Much in the same way that Richard Thaler‟s (1994) school of behavioral economics regrounds the modern
21
project significant change and noteworthy creativity. In FPA, we often speak of the concept of „„foreign policy substitutability‟‟ (Most and Starr, 1986); that is to say, for any possible combination of material and structural conditions, there will still be variability in resulting foreign policy. FPA‟s agent-oriented and actor-specific theory is what is required in attempting to explain that variability. The third major advantage is to move beyond a description or postulation of natural law-like generalizations of state behavior to a fuller and more satisfying explanation for state behavior that requires an account of the contributions of human beings. Again, as it was put decades ago by some of the founding fathers of FPA, the phenomena normally studied in the field of international politics can be interpreted and meaningfully related by means of [the decisionmaking approach] as we shall present it. It should be clearly understood that this is not to say that all useful work in the field must or can be done within the decision-making framework . . . However, and the qualification is crucial, if one wishes to probe the „„why‟‟ questions underlying the events, conditions, and interaction patterns which rest upon state action, then decision-making analysis is certainly necessary. We would go so far as to say that the „„why‟‟ questions cannot be answered without analysis of decision making [emphasis in original]. (Snyder, Bruck, and Sapin, 1962:33).40
E. Konsep Politik Luar Negeri
Foreign policy Public policy lays out courses of action for government and its various agencies. Foreign policy refers, broadly, to attempts by governments to influence or manage events outside the state‟s borders, usually, but not exclusively, through their relations with foreign governments. Foreign policy-making involves the establishment of goals and the selection of means to achieve them. In view of the increased interpenetration of domestic and foreign affairs in modern global politics, the term „external relations‟ is sometimes preferred to foreign policy, allowing for interactions that take place on multiple levels and which involve multiple actors. At the very least, the realm of foreign policy can no longer be confined simply to relations between foreign ministers/ministries or between national diplomatic services.
National Interest
In broad terms, the national interest refers to foreign policy goals, objectives or policy preferences that benefit a society as a whole (the foreign policy equivalent of the „public interest‟). The concept is often vague and contested, however. It is most widely
40. Valerie M. Hudson, Foreign Policy Analysis (2005) 1: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of
22
used by realist theorists, for whom it is defined by the structural implications of international anarchy and so is closely linked to national security, survival and the pursuit of power. For decision-making theorists, the national interest refers to the strategies and goals pursued by those responsible for the conduct of foreign policy, although this may mean that it degenerates into mere rhetoric. Alternatively, it may refer to foreign policy goals that have been endorsed through the democratic process.
How decisions are made
The making of decisions, and specifically of bundles of decisions, is clearly central to the policy process. Although policy-making also relates to the acts of initiation and implementation, the making of decisions and reaching of conclusions is usually seen as its key feature. However, it may be difficult to establish how and why decisions are made. In foreign policy-making a levels-of-analysis is commonly adopted, in line with the three levels at which Waltz (1959) analyzed the causes of war:
The level of the individual decision-maker (involving personal priorities, psychological and cognitive dispositions and so on).
The nation-state level (involving the nature of the state, type of government, bureaucratic structure and so on).
The systemic level (involving power balances within the international system, the web of state interdependence, dynamics of global capitalism and so on).
Nevertheless, a number of general theories of political decision-making have been advanced. The most important of these are rational actor models, incremental models, bureaucratic organization models, and cognitive processes and belief-system models.
Rational actor models
Decision-making models that emphasize human rationality have generally been constructed on the basis of economic theories that have themselves been derived from utilitarianism. Developed by thinkers such as Anthony Downs (1957), these theories are usually based on the notion of so-called „economic man‟, a model of human nature that stresses the self-interested pursuit of material satisfaction, calculated in terms of utility (use-value; the balance of pleasure over pain). In this light, decisions can be seen to be reached using the following procedures:
23
The available means of achieving this objective are evaluated in terms of their effectiveness, reliability, costs and so on.
A decision is made through the selection of the means most likely to secure the desired end.
This type of process assumes both that clear-cut objectives exist, and that human beings are able to pursue them in a rational and consistent manner. The best example of such an approach to decision-making is found in the use of cost–benefit analysis in the making of business decisions. In line with the goal of profit maximization, business people make decisions that will ensure the least possible cost and the greatest possible benefit, both calculated in monetary terms. Realist theorists make similar assumptions about decision-making in international politics. In their view, foreign policy is guided by a single overriding goal: the pursuit of vital national interests, understood, at minimum, as ensuring state survival, and beyond that the pursuit of power to enable the state to achieve its national ambitions. This may be dictated by system-level pressures (as neorealists suggest) or by egoistical pressures that operate in and through the state itself (as classical realists argue); either way, it implies that the role of individual decision-makers is largely restricted to the selection of the best means of achieving a pre-determined end.
The rational actor model is attractive, in part, because it reflects how most people believe decisions should be made. Certainly, politicians and others are strongly inclined to portray their actions as both goal-orientated and the product of careful thought and deliberation. When examined more closely, however, rational calculation may not appear to be a particularly convincing model of decision-making. In the first place, in practice, decisions are often made on the basis of inadequate and sometimes inaccurate information. Such difficulties encouraged Herbert Simon (1983) to develop the notion of „bounded rationality‟. This acknowledges that, as it is impossible to analyze and select all possible courses of action, decision-making is essentially an act of compromising between differently valued and imprecisely calculated outcomes. Simon described this process as „satisficing‟. The second problem with rational actor models is that they ignore the role of perception: that is, the degree to which actions are shaped by belief and assumptions about reality, rather than by reality itself. Little or no importance is thus attached to individual and collective psychology or to the values and ideological leanings of decisionmakers.
24
Incrementalism41 is often portrayed as the principal alternative to rational decision- making. David Braybrooke and Charles Lindblom (1963) termed this model „disjointed incrementalism‟, neatly summed up by Lindblom (1959) as the „science of muddling through‟. This position holds that, in practice, decisions tend to be made on the basis of inadequate information and low levels of understanding, and this discourages decision-makers from pursuing bold and innovative courses of action. Policy-making is therefore a continuous, exploratory process: lacking overriding goals and clear-cut ends, policy-makers tend to operate within an existing pattern or framework, adjusting their position in the light of feedback in the form of information about the impact of earlier decisions.
Indeed, incrementalism may suggest a strategy of avoidance or evasion, policy-makers being inclined to move away from problems, rather than trying to solve them. Lindblom‟s case for incrementalism is normative as well as descriptive. In addition to providing a perhaps more accurate account of how decisions are made in the real world, he argued that this approach also has the merit of allowing for flexibility and the expression of divergent views. „Muddling through‟ at least implies responsiveness and flexibility, consultation and compromise. However, the model is clearly best suited to situations in which policy-makers are more inclined towards inertia rather than innovation. It thus explains the foreign policy trends of pro-status-quo states more easily.
F. Politik Luar Negeri Bolivia
Dalam sejarah politik luar negeri menitikberatkan pada penjelasan mengenai kepentingan, tindakan, serta unsur power negara besar. Namun disisi lain politik luar negeri memiliki perbedaan dengan politik internasional. Perbedaan tersebut lebih bersifat akademis daripada kenyataan yang bisa dipergunakan untuk memperkirakan perbedaan antara tujuan dan tindakan (keputusan dan kebijaksanaan).42 Peneliti yang menganalisis tindakan negara terhadap lingkungan eksternal serta berbagai kondisi domestik yang menopang formulasi tindakan, pada dasarnya berkaitan erat dengan kajian politik luar negeri, sedangkan peneliti yang memandang tindakan demikian sebagai salah satu aspek pola tindakan suatu negara serta reaksi atau sambutan (respons) oleh negara lain, berkaitan erat dengan kajian politik internasional.43 Pola interaksi hubungan internasional tidak
41
. Incrementalism: The theory that decisions are made not in the light of clear-cut objectives, but through small adjustments dictated by changing circumstances.
42. Lihat Fred A. Sonderman, “
The Linkage Between Foreign Policy and International Politics,” dalam International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and Theory, ed. James Rosenanu (New York: Free Press, 1961), hlm 8-17.
43. K.J. Holsti, Politik Internasional: Suatu Kerangka Analisis (Terjemahan Wawan Juwanda) (Bandung:
25
dapat dipisahkan dari segala bentuk interaksi yang berlangsung dalam pergaulan masyarakat internasional, baik oleh para pelaku negara (state-actor) maupun dari pelaku bukan negara (non-state actor). Pola hubungan dan interaksi tersebut dapat berupa kerjasama, persaingan, dan pertentangan. Kerjasama yang terjadi merupakan bentuk kerjasama yang dijalankan seiring dengan meluasnya globalisasi.44
Kepentingan nasional suatu negara dapat dilihat dari kondisi internalnya, baik dari kondisi politik-ekonomi, militer, dan sosial-budaya. Kepentingan juga didasari akan suatu ‘power’ yang ingin diciptakan sehingga negara dapat memberikan dampak langsung bagi pertimbangan negara. Peran suatu negara dalam memberikan bahan sebagai dasar dari kepentingan nasional tidak dipungkiri akan menjadi kacamata masyarakat internasional sebagai negara yang menjalin hubungan yang terlampir dari kebijakan luar negerinya. Dengan demikian, kepentingan nasional secara konseptual dipergunakan untuk menjelaskan perilaku politik luar negeri dari suatu Negara.45
Dalam kepentingan nasional, terdapat pembedaan yang mendasar yakni; kepentingan nasional yang bersifat vital atau esensial dan kepentingan nasional yang bersifat non-vital atau sekunder. Kepentingan nasional yang bersifat vital biasanya berkaitan dengan kelangungan hidup negara tersebut serta nilai-nilai inti (core values) yang menjadi identitas kebijakan luar negerinya. Sedangkan kepentingan nasional non-vital atau sekunder tidak berhubungan secara langsung dengan eksistensi negara itu namun tetap diperjuangkan melalui kebijakan luar negeri. Kepentingan vital menjelaskan seberapa jauh kepentingan tersebut ada dan digunakan, dimana lebih kepada keadaan darurat suatu negara sehingga harus segera diputuskan. Berbeda dengan kepentingan non-vital yang digunakan karena prosesnya berlangsung lama namun hasilnya dan fungsinya dapat dirasakan lebih baik dikemudian hari dengan jangka waktu yang lama.46
Bagian terbesar di dalam perumusan politik luar negeri sepenuhnya memperhatikan usaha menanggulangi masalah sehari-hari (seperti isyu-isyu) yang timbul di dalam dan di luar negeri. Tujuan politik luar negeri bisa bersifat khusus berkaitan dengan beberapa masalah tertentu (seperti membentuk pasaran bersama di kawasan tertentu) misalnya ini ada hubungan dengan politik luar negeri Bolivia yang membuka kerjasama antar negara lain terutama lebih mengedepankan sektor ekonomi dan kesepakatan kerjasama bilateral di dalam membahas isu-isu seperti kerjasama FEALAC (Forum for East Asia and Latin
44
. Joshua S. Goldstein dan Jon C. Pevehouse. 2010. International Relations. Longman: New York. Hlm 5.
45. P.Anthonius Sitepu. 2011. Studi Hubungan Internasional. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu, hal. 163.
26
America Cooperation),47 fasilitasi visa dan kerjasama pendidikan. Khusus mengenai kerjasama pendidikan, Dubes RI menyampaikan penawaran program beasiswa Dharmasiswa dan Kemitraan Negara Berkembang. Penawaran tersebut disambut baik oleh pihak Bolivia. Selain melakukan pertemuan dengan kalangan pemerintah, Dubes RI juga telah melakukan pertemuan dengan kalangan pengusaha Bolivia yang tergabung pada Kamar Dagang Nasional Bolivia. Hadir dalam pertemuan tersebut, Presiden Kamar Dagang Nasional Bolivia, Fernando Cáceres. Melalui pertemuan tersebut, Dubes RI mempromosikan pelaksanaan Trade Expo Indonesia 2013 dan mengundang para pengusaha Bolivia untuk berpartisipasi pada TEI 2013.48 Dari sini kita bisa melihat suatu politik luar negeri Bolivia sekarang ini yang berangkat dari basis ekonomi kira-kira seperti itu.
G. Kepentingan Nasional: Kerjasama Bolivia Dengan Negara Lain 1. Bolivia-RI Kerjasama Migas
Pemerintah Indonesia dan Bolivia berencana bertemu untuk melihat potensi kekayaan minyak dan gas bumi (migas) di negara bagian Amerika Selatan tersebut. Presdir Yasimento Petrolifero Fiscal Boliviano (YPFB) Roberto Cuadros telah melakukan pembicaraan dengan pemerintah terkait mengadakan kerjasama dengan perusahaan nasional untuk melakukan eksplorasi dan ekploitasi. Bolivia mempunyai 15 blok minyak dan gas bumi yang berpotensi mengandung gas sebanyak 13 triliun kaki kubik (TCF) dan 900 juta barel minyak. Memproduksi minyak sebanyak 45 ribu barel per hari dan memproduksi gas sebanyak 1,2 miliar metrik standar kaki kubik (bmcfpd). Seluruh Bolivia mempunyai 64 blok yang berpotensi menghasilkan gas sebanyak 60 triliun kaki kubik (TCF) dan minyak sebanyak 250 miliar barel. Dengan melakukan pembicaraan
47. FEALAC was established primarily to promote comprehensive cooperation and bi-regional dialogues. Since
its establishment, FEALAC is the only inter-governmental cooperation forum that connects East Asian region and Latin American region with a total trade volume of USD 267 billion in 2011. Currently, FEALAC represents 40% of the world population, 32% of the world economy and more than 40% of the world trade. FEALAC consists of 36 member states comprising 16 East Asian countries including ASEAN (10 ASEAN countries, China, Japan, Mongolia, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand) and 20 Latin American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Dominican Republic , Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela). Lihat http://www.kemlu.go.id/en/kebijakan/kerjasama-regional/Pages/FEALAC.aspx diakses pada 23 Februari 2016.
48. Indonesia-Bolivia Sepakat untuk Memakmasimalkan Kerjasama Bilateral, didalam
27
untuk menawarkan blok-blok ke Pertamina eksplorasi dan produksi untuk melakukan eksplorasi di Bolivia. 49
2. Bolivia - United States of America Perbaiki hubungan Diplomatik
Bolivia dan Amerika Serikat sepakat untuk membenahi hubungan diplomatik kedua negara tiga tahun setelah Presiden Evo Morales mengusir Duta Besar AS di La Paz. Dalam sebuah kesepakatan yang ditandatangani di Washington DC, kedua negara sepakat untuk menjalin kerjasama dalam memberantas penyelundupan obat-obatan terlarang. Perjanjian itu menyatakan penugasan kembali para duta besar di Washington dan La Paz, demikian pernyataan resmi Kementerian Luar Negeri Bolivia seperti dikutip Reuters. Tujuan perjanjian ini termasuk memperkuat dan memperdalam hubungan bilateral dan mendukung kerja sama yang efisien untuk memberantas produksi dan penyelundupan obat-obatan terlarang," tambah pernyataan itu.50
3. Bolivia - Iran: Bilateral, Regional dan Internasional
Pertemuan presiden Bolivia dengan Presiden Iran dalam rangka membicarakan hubungan bilateral, regional dan internasional. Bolivia akan mendukung politik dan perekonomian Iran, sementara Iran akan mendukung para perjuangan petani di Amerika Latin.51
4. Bolivia - Rusia: Energi dan Militer
Bolivia dan Rusia menandatangani berbagai perjanjian yang berkaitan dengan energi dan hubungan militer, kegiatan pertambangan dan pemberantasan narkoba. Morales meminta Putin untuk menyegarkan kembali hubungan bilateral dengan Bolivia di bidang diplomatik, komersial dan investasi seperti pengadaan pesawat presiden, modernisasi angkatan bersenjata, dan pembangunan bandar udara.52
49
. Pebrianto Eko Wicaksono, Bolivia-RI Berharap Ada Kerjasama Migas., dalam http://economy.okezone.com/read/2012/05/24/19/635123/bolivia-ri-berharap-ada-kerjasama-migas, diakses pada 23 Februari 2016.
50
. http://www.bbc.com/indonesia/dunia/2011/11/111107_usbolivia.shtml, diakses pada 23 Februari 2016.
51.
http://www.cnnindonesia.com/internasional/20141014151801-134-6338/teman-teman-anti-amerika-morales/, diakses pada 23 Februari 2016.
52
