Reading this 300-page book, in my opinion, is not an easy matter. This is so because our heads are already crammed with a 'misguided' understanding of politics. Many of us may be allergic to the word 'politics'. Political meaning narrows down to just coming to the polls to elect representatives in parliament, or in other words, participate in the elections; like an anarchy that has been distorted by its meaning to mere chaos. In short, we have become cynical with politics-because engaging in politics means letting the leaders and the people's representatives determine our lives, determining what is good and bad for us. No more.
Some even assume that politics is involved in party, participate in election contestation, entering the state bureaucracy to then make changes from top to down (top-down). Politics like this is not something cheap and easy according to political observers. To engage in politics, at least must have three capital, namely political capital, social capital, and economic capital. These three modalities are needed to gain the voice support of the people.
Nevertheless, reading this book Social Politics of Ecology is reopening our vague view of politics. Blatantly, Murray Bookchin distinguishes between politics and state-of-state (statecraft). Prior to the emergence of nation-states centuries ago, politics was understood as citizen activity in a public agency empowered and implemented jointly through participatory institutions, not through bureaucratic institutions and professionals that made passive societies in politics. The state assumes citizens as amateur entities who are unable to take care of political issues.
Historically, politics was developed by ancient Athenian society in the middle of the fifth century BC. A face-to-face (face-to-face) democracy in the Athena policy is a tradition built on participatory spirit in the community. The practice of direct democracy gives the Athenians freedom to think and solve their own problems independently. Residents meetings are held almost every week to solve problems. Every man in Athens at that time had the responsibility and obligation to engage in citizen assemblies and citizen meetings. Institutions in the form of citizen assemblies allow politics to be broad and ongoing.
Nevertheless, the historical picture of direct democracy in Athens is far from ideal. Patriarchy and slavery still occur and undermine the direct democratic practices of citizens. However, Libertarian Munisipalism takes the good from the direct practice of democracy in the past to form a political field that is not parliamentary, non-bureaucratic, not centralistic, but democratic and political. It is based on society that rich political culture will flourish.
The distinction between politics and statehood is crucial. Simply put, politics can be interpreted as an attempt to solve its own problems independently through participatory institutions built by citizens themselves based on their needs. Meanwhile, the state-of-existence is the power of a handful of elites against the masses. The mass that we call the people, the entity that has been classified by the State is only made busy to take care of his private affairs, becomes indifferent to the social conditions by giving his stewardship to the state.
Because of the great and widespread hegemony of this State, the basic meaning of politics is becoming increasingly blurred; making citizens a political object rather than a dynamic political subject. The passivity of citizens in politics drives him out of the community, has no power, and is alone in a mass society that is less useful to him as a political being, according to Bookchin. It thus increasingly distanced citizens in the political sphere, reluctant to engage in activities that determine their own survival and wider community. This is the success of the state to keep people away from politics. The more citizens stay away from politics, the State will increasingly easily determine our lives.
Thus, the state has succeeded in making us passive and apolitical in the real sense of choosing to surrender the things related to our lives to the state institutions. To the extent that the most private affairs, such as the matter of marriage and reproduction, we submit it to the state.
Thus, the state has succeeded in making us passive and apolitical in the real sense of choosing to surrender the things related to our lives to the state institutions. To the extent that the most private affairs, such as the matter of marriage and reproduction, we submit it to the state.
At this point, Bookchin's thoughts become very important, namely how to restore politics to the real basis, ie citizens and communities. The Libertarian Munennialism idea that Bookchin promotes seeks to develop and develop local direct democracy (municipal), namely that citizens make decisions for themselves and their communities. But it is important to understand that, the idea meant by Bookchin is not within the framework of the nation-state concept. Libertarian Munisipalisme exactly contrary to the State.
Why Libertarian Munisipalism is against the State? Libertarian Munisipalism rejects the conventional notion that today's countries are democratic. The idea that today's modern state is democratic is just a narcissistic rhetoric to cover up the country's own weaknesses. The state is a coercive institution that is coercive. The state has its own logic to defend its power and sovereignty.
In the view of liberals and conservatives, the state is required to maintain a regular social order. Through its repressive device, the police and the army, the State is able to make its citizens to submit to the established rules for maintaining social order. Some of these circles even judge that the State is a blessing and a driver of civilization. Democracy in the view of liberals and conservatives is representative democracy. Citizens are amateurs who are incapable of making decisions thoroughly, so professionals who are able to manage and perform tasks that amateurs can not do.
While the left is mistaken in reading the special features of the State. They tend to regard the State as a reflection of class dominance and at the same time as the right tool to be owned and used for the benefit of the working class. The state in question is a State controlled by a handful of party bureaucrats who control the society in the name of the working class.
What must be understood is that the State has its own logic, namely to maintain its power and sovereignty. By itself the state will protect itself from the bad elements that threaten and disrupt its existence. Mistakes in analyzing and observing the State will ultimately perpetuate dominance, as has been the case in history.
Meanwhile, Liembarian Munisipalism develops a direct democracy where citizens are directly involved (face-to-face) to solve the problem. Libertarian municipalism no longer requires elites to represent the people, no leader has the power to determine the other's life, but rather a delegate chosen by the municipality (local or community) that can be recalled by its citizens. The state no longer exists when citizens become political.
In the end, as a political idea, Bookchin's ideas in this book need to be taken seriously and further discussed, then elaborate them with experiences where we stand to create rational alternatives to eliminate the state and restore politics into the hands of the citizens.