Achmad Shiva’ul Haq
Asjach
Scholar ID, Sinta ID, Scopus ID, WoSID
In the study of sociology of law, law
is not only understood as a set of regulating and coercive norms, but also as
an instrument of social change. One of the most influential theories in this
context is Roscoe Pound’s conception of law as a tool of social engineering.
According to Pound, law can be used as a means to shape and direct social
change toward a desired social condition (Pound, 1954). However, this view was
later criticized and developed by the Chambliss–Seidman Model, which emphasizes
that the effectiveness of law is strongly influenced by social, cultural,
political forces, and personal interests operating among role holders in
society (Chambliss & Seidman, 1971).
In the context of Indonesian society,
which is pluralistic and still strongly adheres to communal values and living
customary law (living law), the question of the effectiveness of law as
an instrument of social engineering becomes highly relevant. In my view, law
can indeed function as an instrument of social engineering, but its
effectiveness depends greatly on the compatibility of law with societal values,
cultural legitimacy, the quality of law enforcement, and the level of public
participation in the law-making process. If law is formulated in a top-down
manner without considering social and cultural realities, it tends to be
difficult to implement effectively.
Roscoe Pound’s theory is based on the
assumption that law has the capacity to direct social behavior through state
regulation and institutions. From this perspective, law is seen as a tool that
governments can use to create planned social, economic, and cultural change.
The state can use law to promote modernization, development, and social order.
This view has significantly influenced legal development in many developing
countries, including Indonesia, particularly in national development policy.
Nevertheless, the Chambliss–Seidman
Model provides a more realistic perspective by emphasizing that the success of
law is not determined solely by written norms, but also by social structures
and the behavior of legal actors. Chambliss and Seidman explain that law
functions effectively when there is social support, aligned political
interests, and law enforcement officials with integrity (Chambliss &
Seidman, 1971). Thus, law cannot simply be imposed on society without
considering the existing social conditions within it.
This condition is clearly visible in
various legal policies in Indonesia. One concrete example is Law No. 6 of 2014
on Villages. This law essentially represents a form of social engineering aimed
at strengthening village governance, encouraging community participation, and
enhancing community-based development. The state seeks to transform villages
into development actors through village fund allocations and the strengthening
of local authority.
From Roscoe Pound’s perspective, the
Village Law can be understood as a legal instrument designed to promote social
change and rural development. However, the implementation of this law shows
that legal effectiveness is strongly influenced by local culture, power
relations, and the social capacity of rural communities. In some regions,
village fund policies have successfully improved development and community
participation. In others, however, they have led to corruption, local elite
conflicts, and abuse of authority due to strong patronage networks and weak
oversight mechanisms.
This phenomenon demonstrates the
relevance of the Chambliss–Seidman Model, which argues that law does not
operate in a vacuum but is shaped by social and personal forces acting upon
legal actors. In communities where communal values and customary law remain
strong, the effectiveness of state law is highly dependent on its ability to
adapt to local culture. If law contradicts societal values, people tend to
comply more with customary law than with state law.
Another example can be found in the
policy prohibiting child marriage through the amendment of Law No. 16 of 2019
on Marriage. The state raised the minimum age of marriage as a form of social
engineering to protect children’s rights and reduce early marriage practices.
However, the implementation of this policy faces significant challenges in
various regions because of persistent cultural traditions and social
perceptions that regard early marriage as acceptable.
This condition indicates that law is
not always capable of rapidly changing social behavior when societal cultural
values have not yet shifted. In communal societies, social legitimacy is often
stronger than formal legal legitimacy. Therefore, the success of social
engineering through law requires an approach that is not only repressive and
normative, but also educational, participatory, and cultural.
In my view, there are several
critical factors that support the effectiveness of law as an instrument of
social engineering. First is the compatibility between law and societal values.
Laws must take into account local culture and living law in order to
obtain social legitimacy. Eugen Ehrlich emphasized that effective law is law
that lives within society (living law), not merely law that exists in
written legislation (Ehrlich, 1936).
Second is the quality of law
enforcement officials. Law will not be effective if law enforcement officers
lack integrity, professionalism, and public trust. Corruption and abuse of
authority constitute serious obstacles to the success of legal social engineering.
Third is public participation in the
law-making and implementation process. Communities that feel included are more
likely to accept and comply with the law. Conversely, laws that are elitist and
top-down tend to generate social resistance.
Fourth is the level of legal
education and public legal awareness. Social engineering through law requires
changes in mindset and legal culture within society. Therefore, legal education
and socialization are essential to ensure that society understands the purpose
of such laws.
The inhibiting factors for the
success of social engineering through law include strong patronage culture,
legal pluralism, low public trust in legal institutions, and socio-economic
inequality. In many cases in Indonesia, people tend to place greater trust in
customary leaders or religious figures than in state legal institutions. This
condition indicates that the effectiveness of state law is strongly influenced
by the social structure of society.
Based on the discussion above, it can
be concluded that law can indeed function as an instrument of social
engineering, but its effectiveness has certain limitations. Law cannot operate
optimally when it contradicts societal values and cultural norms. In the
context of Indonesia’s pluralistic and communal society, the success of legal
social engineering is highly dependent on the state’s ability to integrate
formal law with the living values present within society. Therefore, a more
dialogical, participatory, and culturally grounded approach is essential so
that law can truly function as an effective and just instrument of social
change.
References
Chambliss, W. J., & Seidman, R.
B. (1971). Law, order, and power. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Ehrlich, E. (1936). Fundamental
principles of the sociology of law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pound, R. (1954). An introduction
to the philosophy of law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Soekanto, S. (2014). Fundamentals
of legal sociology. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Law of the Republic of Indonesia No.
6 of 2014 on Villages.
Law of the Republic of Indonesia No.
16 of 2019 amending Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.
Wignjosoebroto, S. (2013). Law in
society: Development and issues. Malang: Setara Press.
Post a Comment