Discussing Forms of Government in an Era of War -By Tomy Michael

Now, all countries are focused on the wars between Iran, Israel, and the United States, because they also demonstrate a country’s ability to face challenges. The meaning of sovereignty and concern emerge spontaneously when a country is in a state of emergency. Is this due to choosing the wrong form of government? Throughout the development of modern states, the definitions of democracy and republic seem inseparable and serve as primary references. However, when war continues, the form of government becomes marginalized, with defense systems, the economy, and even state relations being sidelined.

The first part is the defense system, which is a key component in emergencies. It’s not the constitution, but rather the state’s ability to attack, conduct espionage, and even engage in war tactics, which the United States consistently employs on weekends. Is a country obligated to consider other countries, including its closest neighbors? Obligations are not the primary concern, but rather how to defend its territory and people. When territory is attacked and lost, anxiety arises. Such behavior is natural, and any means will be used. The second part is the economy, because during war, financial resources are everything. The longer the war, the greater the costs. However, if costs are maximized early in the war, casualties can occur. For comparison, in Indonesia, the state must maintain the economy to prevent a crisis.

Even during war, many things must be maintained, such as the existence of hospitals, the availability of substandard workers, the availability of food and clothing, and how to rebuild destroyed structures. This economy can be funded through taxes, global income from loans, or other income in which only the state is involved. As in Indonesia, economic democracy is not a normative narrative because its existence follows the development of power within it. Iran and Israel’s versions of economic democracy differ, although both support the well-being of the people. There will be moral support, with citizens also contributing their own funds to purchase war equipment, for example, or pay off debts.

The third part concerns a country’s relations with other nations. Relationships can be formed through pressure from superiority or concern. Relationships with other nations greatly facilitate resolving emergencies. Allies will assist when offered benefits or due to historical precedents. Allies will act as assistants, like a vice president, when the president is attacked. The assistance provided is not merely a means of war but also the freedom to extract territory.

Establishing relationships with other nations can also lead to disappointment due to conflicts between leaders or the priority of another nation that must be supported. To this day, war or other emergencies can still affect all forms of government. A state’s response must be cautious, as it can create significant divisions. The constitution must be amended and regulated in emergencies. Faith in God remains essential, as it is what liberates a nation. The form of government will ultimately change or be maintained once the emergency is resolved.

Tomy Michael is a lecturer at Faculty of Law Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya