An Argumentative Analysis of the Paradigmatic Debate among Classical Figures in the Sociology of Law and Its Relevance to Legislative Products in Indonesia - Arina Shiva Official Website

Achmad Shiva’ul Haq Asjach

Scholar ID, Sinta ID, Scopus ID, WoS ID

 

From the perspective of the sociology of law, law is not understood merely as a neutral set of norms, but rather as a social product influenced by relations of power, economic structures, culture, and societal dynamics. In the development of classical sociological legal theory, Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim, and Max Weber offer different approaches to understanding the relationship between law and society. Karl Marx views law as an instrument of the dominant class to maintain economic interests and power. Émile Durkheim considers law as a reflection of social solidarity that maintains societal integration. Meanwhile, Max Weber conceptualizes law as a rational system that evolves alongside the modernization and bureaucratization of society (Weber, 1978).

In my view, among these three perspectives, Karl Marx’s theory is the most relevant for explaining the condition of legislative products in Indonesia today, particularly in understanding how law-making processes are often influenced by the interests of political and economic elites rather than the broader interests of society. The Marxian perspective is more capable of explaining the relationship between power, economy, and law, which appears to be highly dominant in contemporary Indonesian legislative processes.

Karl Marx argues that law is part of the superstructure shaped by the economic base of society. In this framework, the class that controls the means of production also controls the legal system and the state. As a result, law tends to function as an instrument for legitimizing the interests of dominant groups and maintaining a social structure that benefits economic and political elites (Marx & Engels, 1970). Thus, law is not truly neutral but is deeply embedded with power interests.

The relevance of Marx’s theory can be clearly observed in the enactment of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation (Omnibus Law). Since its inception, this law has been controversial, as it is considered to prioritize investment and corporate interests over the protection of workers’ rights, environmental sustainability, and public participation. The government argues that the Job Creation Law is necessary to increase investment, create employment opportunities, and accelerate economic growth. However, many civil society groups, academics, and labor unions argue that the substance of the law disproportionately benefits capital owners and large investors.

Several provisions in the Job Creation Law, such as labor flexibility, ease of investment licensing, and the simplification of environmental impact analysis, are considered to weaken protections for workers and the environment. From a Marxian perspective, this condition illustrates how law operates to serve the interests of the dominant economic class, namely capital owners and business elites, by utilizing the state as an instrument for regulatory production. The relatively rapid legislative process with minimal public participation also reflects an imbalance of power relations in law-making.

In addition to the substance of the law, the political dynamics in its formulation further reinforce the relevance of Marx’s theory. Many critiques argue that the legislative process was more strongly influenced by the interests of the economic-political oligarchy than by the broader aspirations of society. This phenomenon aligns with Marx’s view that the state and law often function as instruments of the dominant class to maintain its economic and political hegemony.

When compared with Émile Durkheim’s theory, Marx’s perspective is considered more capable of explaining the conflict of interests in contemporary Indonesian legislative products. Durkheim views law as a reflection of social solidarity that functions to maintain social integration. In modern societies, restitutive law develops to preserve complex social relations and create social order (Durkheim, 1984). While Durkheim’s perspective is relevant for understanding the function of law in maintaining social stability, it is less able to explain power inequalities and elite domination in the law-making process.

In the case of the Job Creation Law, for instance, Durkheim’s theory would tend to view law as the state’s effort to create economic order and social integration through national economic development. However, this theory is less sensitive to issues of power inequality and class conflict arising from the dominance of investor interests and political elites. In reality, social conditions show that the formation of law often triggers resistance from groups in society who feel disadvantaged.

Meanwhile, Max Weber’s theory also makes an important contribution to understanding modern law. Weber views law as a rational system that develops through bureaucracy and systematic formal procedures (Weber, 1978). His perspective is relevant for explaining how legislation in Indonesia is formed through formal institutional procedures, bureaucratic mechanisms, and modern political processes. However, Weber’s theory tends to be more neutral and structural, and therefore less capable of revealing the economic and political domination behind law-making processes.

In practice, law-making in Indonesia is indeed carried out through formal, rational, and constitutional mechanisms. However, Weber’s approach does not sufficiently explain why many legislative products tend to favor certain groups rather than the broader public interest. Legal rationality in Weber’s perspective also does not necessarily produce substantive justice if the power structure influencing the law is oligarchic.

In my view, the current legislative condition in Indonesia shows that law cannot be understood merely as an instrument of social integration or a purely formal rational system. Law is also a arena of struggle for political and economic interests. Therefore, Karl Marx’s theory becomes more relevant because it is able to explain how relations of power and economic interests influence the substance of laws produced by the state.

Nevertheless, Marx’s theory also has limitations, as it tends to view law in a rather deterministic manner as merely an instrument of the dominant class. In reality, law can also function as an instrument for social protection and a means of progressive social change. Therefore, modern legal analysis still requires a combination of approaches in order to understand the complex relationship between law, power, economy, and society.

Thus, Karl Marx’s theory is the most relevant perspective for explaining the condition of legislative products in Indonesia today, particularly in analyzing the influence of economic-political elite interests in the formation of laws. The study of the Job Creation Law demonstrates that law often tends to favor the interests of capital owners rather than vulnerable social groups. Marx’s perspective is better able to explain this phenomenon compared to the theories of Durkheim and Weber because it places primary emphasis on power relations and economic domination in the law-making process.

References

Durkheim, E. (1984). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1970). The German ideology. New York: International Publishers.

Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Wignjosoebroto, S. (2013). Law in society: Development and issues. Malang: Setara Press.

Soekanto, S. (2014). Fundamentals of legal sociology. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.