Legal Literacy - Juristocracy is a paradigm that emphasizes the dominant role of legal experts in decision-making and norm creation. Its study is extensive, ranging from Plato's concept of "the philosopher king" to modern critiques of exclusivity and potential injustice. Let's explore the complete discussion below.
The Juristocracy Paradigm
The juristocracy paradigm is an approach or perspective in legal science that emphasizes the dominant role of law and legal experts (jurists) in decision-making and the formation of norms in society. The term "juristocracy" comes from the combination of the words "jurist," which refers to legal experts or jurists, and "aristocracy," which refers to governance by an elite group.
The study of juristocracy is a lengthy one, and in its development, it has undergone changes in meaning and context. In his book "Republica,” Plato conceptually formulated a hope for a group of elites who possess wisdom and systemic intelligence to be relied upon to manage an organization called the State. This elite group was then called juristocrats. A group of elites who possess intelligence and wisdom in the field of law, who, with this valuable modality, are transformed into "the philosopher king."
A system that relies on jurists in managing the state is then called juristocracy. So, initially, the term juristocracy had a positive meaning. However, as it developed, juristocracy underwent a significant shift, generally depicted as the power of a group of jurists, or judges, which is essentially a manifestation of the sovereignty of the judicial branch, in hijacking the legislative function, which should be the authority of the legislative branch.
In the context of the juristocracy paradigm, policies and regulations are considered to be based on the interpretation and construction of law by legal experts. Legal experts are considered to have in-depth knowledge of the law and, therefore, can act as intellectual authorities in developing and managing a country's legal system. This approach can raise several questions and criticisms, including the potential exclusion of broader societal perspectives and participation in the legal decision-making process. The juristocracy paradigm can create inequalities in access to the judicial process and justice, by diminishing the role of the general public in influencing or participating in the formation of legal norms.
Although this paradigm may emphasize the applicability law and order, it is important to strike the right balance between the authority of legal experts and public participation in order to create a fair and inclusive legal system. Along with the development of views regarding public participation in legal processes, the juristocracy paradigm may also require adaptation and incorporation with participatory elements to ensure the fairness and sustainability of the legal system.
Examples of the Juristocracy Paradigm Implementation
An example of juristocracy in the implementation in a country can be seen from the massive and strong decisions of the Court Konstitusi in deciding the social, legal and political constellation of a country. We know that the Constitutional Court has ultra petita decisions. The philosophical basis for the Constitutional Court to issue ultra petita decisions is determined by including the applicant's subsidiary request which reads: "If the court is of a different opinion, please render a decision that is as fair as possible (ex aequo et bono)".
In the event that the applicant submits an application based on juridical justice or the fairest decision, it can be concluded in the law that the applicant has submitted to the Constitutional Court the content of an application that is not required or exceeds the applicant's application. The existing authorities of the Constitutional Court are authorities that have high political nuances. In addition, political considerations in the formation of the Constitutional Court appear to dominate more than scientific considerations. These political aspects are complemented by a mechanism for filling constitutional judge positions which is also full of political interests.
This is what is called the creation of a pseudo-constitution as expressed by Béla Pokol. That the power of the state based on democracy is massively changed by the constitutional court with its expanded authority and, in addition, the judicial activity of ordinary courts which is excluded from the provisions of the law and is more based on abstract statements of the constitution makes the idea of democracy increasingly empty.
Thus the discussion regarding the juristocracy paradigm. If #temanliterasi wants a discussion of other topics, you can contact us through the page contact us or contact us via the WhatsApp widget on the bottom right. Hope it is useful!
Comments (0)
Write a comment