Slashing Rhetorical Ghosts, Addressing the RTRW Debate into the Data and Legal Space

Photo: Is.

By: Hamdan Halil

Evening in a corner of Veda City there is always a way to slow down time. Under the dim light of a low-hanging lamp, I solemnly sipped the last dregs of Yandi’s Tawwabi coffee.

I took a drag from a cigarette, letting the smoke rise along with each line of their sentences which I studied with a smile. Their criticism is a trigger for dialectics in a healthy intellectual tradition in North Maluku. My sincere thanks for that.

The thick bitter aroma suddenly collided with the “point” of arguments from the device screen through two articles by Firmansyah Usman and Sofyan Hidayat who tried to dissect my reasoning in the previous article.

Unfortunately, I wrote about the Spatial Planning Law Study on Gebe Island which was not in the least bit refuted by legal studies. An “answer and answer” argument that I consider to be a discordant tone beyond the origin of the study of norms wrapped in legal philosophical substance. They only spew out strands of philosophical rhetoric that appear slick and stunning on the surface.

However, there is an oddity that tickles the mind; they argue behind flashy diction, but implicitly brandish daggers Marx and deconstruction Foucault haphazardly in the halls of rhetorical ghosts.

Their writing tries to position Ben Gliniecki through his work Law and Marxism as a striker to dismantle “bourgeois law”. Sadly, Gliniecki called for a “sunset” kick that went high at the wrong address.

Gliniecki indeed dissects law in a class framework, but he also recognizes law as a dynamic field of contradiction. Accusing the RTRW Regional Regulation of being “owned by investors” without looking at the limitation figures is a form of anemia of reason.

If we want to use glasses Karl Marx Honestly, we have to get to the heart of the dialectic of materialism. Marx explains that law functions as a superstructure to manage the internal crisis of capitalism itself.

In the context of Gebe Island, limiting the mineral production zone to 22.7 percent is authentic evidence of the state’s efforts to put a “brake” on capital’s self-destruction so as not to exceed the ecological threshold.

Without RTRW regulations, capitalism will run wild without binding legal sanctions, destroying its own material base, namely nature and labor. This regional regulation is actually an instrument to prevent it ecological suicide.

Accusing that this Regional Regulation is purely owned by investors shows a failure to understand the thesis Marx about the role of the state. When there are conservation zones where extraction is prohibited, it is a triumph of living space over capital accumulation.

To sharpen the anatomy of this law, we need to call Roscoe Pound. He emphasized that the law is like that social engineering—a social engineering tool tasked with balancing intersecting interests in society.

The RTRW Regional Regulation is not a dead text, but rather a functional instrument to ensure that the roar of industrial machines does not kill the social life of local communities. Rejecting regional regulations means allowing public space to become a jungle without a referee.

Furthermore, through glasses Roberto Unger in the Critical Legal Studies (CLS)law has properties uncertainty or flexibility. The law can be drawn towards justice if the actors in it are able to move these instruments.

This is where their fatal mistake lies. Community participation and political will provided by regulations in Articles 71 to Article 74 of Regional Regulation No. 1 of 2012 is a real “transformative gap”.

This gap must be controlled intellectually, not discarded for the sake of romanticizing revolution on blurry paper. Discarding formal instruments in the name of ideological resistance is actually a betrayal of the real interests of the people on the ground.

Without formal channels, the people will face the giants of capital without any legal shield at all. Ignoring this gap for the sake of utopia is a selfish luxury of thinking because people need spatial certainty, not just theory.

I also need to highlight his thoughts Lon Fuller about Legal Morality. Fuller emphasized that valid laws must have clarity. The RTRW Regional Regulation brings together various sectoral laws that previously overlapped.

Rejecting formal logic is an action that invites legal uncertainty (legal uncertainty). Without a logical structure, people’s struggles will lose the compass and legal basis for challenging future territorial violations.

This attitude of denying legal reality for the sake of utopian romanticism will only harm the bargaining position of local communities. Ideology without legal instruments is just speech on the side of the road that will soon evaporate in the changing times.

The RTRW Regional Regulation is a bridge to measurable prosperity and a holistic instrument that ensures development does not undermine human dignity. People need certainty of space to breathe, work and live honorably.

Let us stop being “ghost callers” and start being honest and integral students of the law. If this dialectic is to continue, bring competent data and legal studies to the discussion table in a mature manner.

Don’t serve rhetorical dishes that suffer from anemia of reason any more in front of an increasingly intelligent public. In the true intellectual tradition, the knife of analysis is used to dissect facts, not to cut the truth for the sake of ego alone.

The author is the Natural Resources Management Observer Coordinator (PKSDA)