Legal Literacy - This writing aims to outline the relationship between social, political, and legal aspects that are fundamental in legal learning. The scope of explanation includes definitions, history, and the thoughts of previous philosophers, including interpretations based on the author's views.

Definition and History

Starting with the basic definition, social is a collection of individuals and human groups that carry out activities referred to as social phenomena. Politics is the effort of individuals or groups to achieve certain interests, which often ends in a struggle for power. Meanwhile, law can be interpreted as the rules of the game or agreements that arise from political activities in social interactions.

Basically, politics and law are products of social interaction. Therefore, these three aspects, namely social, political, and legal, are in the category of social sciences. Nevertheless, the development of science allows all three to have their own specializations. To facilitate understanding, these three concepts can be summarized as follows:

  • Social = community or collection of individuals
  • Politics = interests and power
  • Law = agreements and rules of the game

Referring to Aristotle's thoughts in his book entitled Politics, power is basically the same in every social group. Most of the arguments in this book highlight class conflict, the concept of the state as the largest community, and the ideal actions of individuals in society. Aristotle also discusses social reality and how ideal actions should be taken by individuals. A concrete example of this thought is the explanation of the history of the formation of city-states which illustrates the human tendency to socialize and engage in politics as political animal or political beings.

From the above considerations, it can be understood that social entities fundamentally desire order and regularity. However, this ideal value is often difficult to realize due to the basic nature of humans who have conflicting egos or interests. On the other hand, humans also have a tendency to depend on each other. To achieve this order, laws emerge as standards, ethics, or social norms. The simplest form of this law is custom or culture. The separation of science between social, political, and legal is necessary because the three are interrelated and often overlap in discussion and application.

Checks and Balances in Social Groups

In society, there are various competing interests and needs, so it is necessary to have limitations to fulfill each of these interests fairly. This is where the law is present as a tool that is created and implemented in a certain area of sovereignty or social control. This law arises from a sense of justice and the ideal order desired by the community. Over time, this law can develop into customs or culture.

If we discuss politics as a tool to seize power and law as a tool to enforce power, there are mechanisms that regulate these two processes so as not to cause excessive conflict. The main objective of this arrangement is to maintain order or stability, especially when there is a change of power. This concept is known as check and balance, or control and balance.

Checks and balances cannot be separated from the evolution and historical development of politics and law in a social entity, such as a country. There are two main objectives in this concept:

  1. Ius Constitutum: Rules that have been established to prevent or encourage a certain action to be carried out immediately.
  2. Ius Constituendum: Expectations of a desired condition in the future, which has not been realized.

Dichotomy and Determinants Between Politics and Law Based on Organ Theory

Politics and law basically have a relationship that is both confrontational (dichotomy) and mutually influential (determinant). For example, according to research by Dr. Miro Cerar, the ontological boundaries or philosophical classification between law and politics are divided into two main views:

  1. Monistic Ontology: A view that considers law and politics to be the same or similar concepts.
  2. Dualistic Ontology: A view that sees the difference between law and politics as a result of pluralistic or diverse human perceptions.

This explanation refers to the organ theory or the influence of a community group, both through general social phenomena, law, and politics. Dr. Miro Cerar argues that politics and law not only have a relationship of conflict or consensus, but more often highlight the main characteristic, namely maintaining balance itself. This causes the political and legal processes to be limited in certain stages to create a clear and structured process.

In short, in political science, social phenomena cannot directly influence extreme changes in existing law and politics. This is due to social characteristics that function to maintain check and balance in a social system, both in politics and law and the processes that exist between the two.

Conclusion

From the discussion above, it can be concluded that the relationship between social, political, and legal aspects is complex but very important to understand as a basis for legal learning. Social as a phenomenon of human interaction, politics as a tool to achieve power, and law as a rule that governs social life, are all interconnected and influence each other.

The concept of checks and balances is key to maintaining stability among the three. With a good understanding of the roles and functions of each, we can better understand why law is not just a rule, but also the result of social and political compromises involving various interests.

References:

  1. Aristotle, Politics. https://iep.utm.edu/aristotle-politics/#H4
  2. Cerar, M. (2009). "The relationship between law and politics," Ann. Surv. Int'l & Comp. L., 15, 19. https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=annlsurvey