Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Pemain veto memiliki posisi yang penting dalam proses formulasi kebijakan. Hasil dan proses formulasi kebijakan Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021 di Australia dan Medida Provisória 1045/2021 di Brazil banyak dipengaruhi oleh aktor politik sebagai pemain veto. Kebijakan Fair Work Amendment (SAJER) Bill 2021 di Australia berhasil diratifikasi menjadi Fair Work Act 2021. Sementara, kebijakan Medida Provisória 1045/2021 di Brazil tidak berhasil diratifikasi menjadi undang-undang. Padahal, Australia dan Brazil memiliki kesamaan pada sistem parlemennya yang bikameral. Terlebih lagi, kedua kebijakan antara Fair Work Amendment (SAJER) Bill 2021 dan Medida Provisória 1045/2021 diajukan oleh pihak pemerintah yang dipimpin oleh Scott Morrison di Australia dan Jair Bolsonaro di Brazil yang notabene dianggap lebih berpihak pada kelompok bisnis. Dengan adanya perbedaan hasil formulasi dari masing-masing kebijakan, tulisan ini berusaha untuk membandingkan peran pemain veto dalam formulasi kebijakan Fair Work Amendment (SAJER) Bill 2021 dan Medida Provisória 1045/2021 dalam parlemen federal Australia dan Brazil. Dengan menggunakan teori pemain veto yang dikemukakan oleh George Tsebelis, tulisan ini menganalisis peran pemain veto dalam proses formulasi kebijakan Fair Work Amendment (SAJER) Bill 2021 di Australia dan Medida Provisória 1045/2021 di Brazil. Penelitian dalam tulisan ini menemukan bahwa pemain veto berperan signifikan dalam formulasi kebijakan Fair Work Amendment (SAJER) Bill 2021 dan Medida Provisória 1045/2021, yang berkontribusi pada perbedaan hasil dari formulasi kedua kebijakan tersebut. Signifikansi peran pemain veto di antara kedua formulasi kebijakan tersebut dilatarbelakangi oleh perbedaan komposisi, preferensi, dan karakteristik pemain veto.......Veto players have an important position in the policy formulation process. The results and process of formulating the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021 policy in Australia and Medida Provisória 1045/2021 in Brazil are heavily influenced by political actors as veto players. The Fair Work Amendment (SAJER) Bill 2021 policy in Australia was successfully ratified into the Fair Work Act 2021. Meanwhile, Brazil's Medida Provisória 1045/2021 was not successfully ratified into law. In fact, Australia and Brazil have similarities in the parliamentary system which adheres to a bicameral system. Furthermore, the two policies between the Fair Work Amendment (SAJER) Bill 2021 and Medida Provisória 1045/2021 were proposed by the government led by Scott Morrison in Australia and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil which are considered more pro-business groups. Given the differences in the results of the formulation of each policy, this paper attempts to compare the role of veto players in the policy formulation of the Fair Work Amendment (SAJER) Bill 2021 and Medida Provisória 1045/2021 in the federal parliaments of Australia and Brazil. Using the veto player theory put forward by George Tsebelis, this paper analyzes the role of the veto player in the policy formulation process for the Fair Work Amendment (SAJER) Bill 2021 in Australia and Medida Provisória 1045/2021 in Brazil. The research in this paper found that veto players played a significant role in the policy formulation of the Fair Work Amendment (SAJER) Bill 2021 and Medida Provisória 1045/2021, which contributed to the different results of the formulation of the two policies. The significance of the veto player's role between the two policy formulas is motivated by differences in the composition, preferences, and characteristics of the veto players."

"Di tengah dinamisnya politik global antara negara Barat dengan Cina saat ini, Pemerintah Australia mengambil keputusan geopolitik yang cukup besar, yakni Perjanjian AUKUS. Perjanjian ini tidak hanya mempengaruhi dinamika pertahanan dan keamanan nasional dalam negeri Australia, namun juga akan berdampak pada stabilitas kawasan. Namun, pembentukan perjanjian AUKUS ini tidak terlepas dari mekanisme yang kurang demokratis, seperti minimnya transparansi pemerintah dan pengawasan parlemen terhadap perjanjian tersebut. Akan tetapi, dengan mekanisme yang kurang demokratis itu parlemen tetap mengambil sikap bipartisan terhadap perjanjian tersebut. Dengan menggunakan teori bipartisanship norm oleh Andrew Carr, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengemukakan mengapa parlemen Australia mengambil sikap bipartisan terhadap Perjanjian AUKUS. Teori bipartisanship norm menjelaskan bahwa terdapat konsekuensi apabila sikap bipartisan tidak diambil oleh aktor yang bersangkutan. Dalam Perjanjian AUKUS, norma bipartisan memiliki dua konsekuensi jika tidak dijalankan, antara lain (1) partai menjadi kurang diuntungkan dalam pemilihan federal karena dinilai tidak mengutamakan keamanan nasional, dan (2) partai kehilangan kepercayaan dari aliansi utama Australia, yaitu Amerika Serikat dan Inggris.......In the midst of the current dynamics of global politics between Western countries and China, the Australian Government made a fairly major geopolitical decision, namely the AUKUS Agreement. This agreement will not only affect the dynamics of Australia's internal national defense and security, but will also have an impact on regional stability. However, the formation of the AUKUS agreement is inseparable from mechanisms that are less democratic, such as the lack of government transparency and parliamentary oversight of the agreement. However, with this less democratic mechanism, the parliament still takes a bipartisan attitude towards the agreement. By using the theory of bipartisanship norm by Andrew Carr, this study aims to explain why the Australian parliament took a bipartisan attitude towards the AUKUS agreement. The bipartisanship norm theory explains that there are consequences if the bipartisan attitude is not taken by the actor concerned. In the AUKUS agreement, the bipartisan norm has two consequences if it is not implemented, namely (1) the party becomes disadvantaged in the federal election because it is considered not to prioritize national security, and (2) the party loses the trust of Australia's main alliance, namely the United States and Britain."