Krisis Dua Sisi: Membedah Benang Kusut Badai PHK dan Tekanan Fiskal Domestik

 

Kebijakan ekonomi negara sejatinya menjadi cerminan dari keberpihakan penguasa terhadap kemaslahatan rakyatnya. Namun, dinamika makroekonomi Indonesia saat ini justru memperlihatkan kontradiksi yang mengkhawatirkan. Di satu sisi, masyarakat dihadapkan pada ancaman hilangnya pendapatan akibat gelombang pemutusan hubungan kerja (PHK) yang tak kunjung mereda di berbagai sektor industri. Di sisi lain, sisa ruang finansial yang dimiliki masyarakat kian diperas oleh penetapan target penerimaan negara melalui kebijakan fiskal yang agresif. Fenomena ini memicu perdebatan struktural mengenai efektivitas serta dampak jangka panjang dari kombinasi regulasi yang dinilai kurang sensitif terhadap daya beli riil masyarakat ekonomi lemah.

Melemahnya Fondasi Manufaktur dan Eskalasi Angka PHK

Berdasarkan data yang dihimpun oleh Kementerian Ketenagakerjaan (Kemnaker) serta laporan berkala media terpercaya seperti Tempo.co dan Detik.com, angka pekerja yang terpaksa kehilangan pekerjaan terus merangkak naik secara signifikan. Badai PHK ini tidak lagi menjadi fenomena musiman, melainkan sebuah indikator perlambatan ekonomi yang bersifat struktural (lagging indicator). Sektor industri padat karya, seperti tekstil, pakaian jadi, dan alas kaki, menjadi wilayah terdampak paling parah. Wilayah-wilayah sentra industri utama, mulai dari Jawa Barat, Banten, hingga Jawa Tengah, terus menyumbang porsi terbesar dalam statistik kasus ketenagakerjaan nasional.

Data PHK hingga Juni 2025
(Sumber: https://katadata.co.id/infografik/)

Faktor eksternal seperti kelesuan ekonomi global dan ketegangan geopolitik internasional memang turut andil dalam menekan volume ekspor komoditas manufaktur Indonesia. Namun, masalah internal di dalam negeri tidak kalah krusial. Melonjaknya biaya operasional domestik, serbuan produk impor ilegal di pasar lokal, serta tidak berjalannya insentif dunia usaha secara optimal memaksa banyak manajemen korporasi mengambil langkah efisiensi yang ekstrem. Pengurangan jam lembur dan pemangkasan kontrak kerja yang terjadi beberapa bulan sebelumnya kini telah bermutasi menjadi gelombang PHK massal secara terbuka.

 
Tekanan Fiskal Melalui PPN dan Ambivalensi Insentif Pemerintah

Di tengah rapuhnya kondisi ketenagakerjaan tersebut, pemerintah justru mengambil langkah berani demi mengamankan kesehatan APBN. Implementasi kenaikan tarif pajak pertambahan nilai (PPN) yang bertahap, termasuk penyesuaian tarif yang berjalan sejak UU Harmonisasi Peraturan Perpajakan (UU HPP) diketuk, menaruh beban tambahan langsung pada pundak konsumen akhir. PPN bersifat regresif; artinya, besaran pengeluaran pajak ini relatif memakan porsi pendapatan yang jauh lebih besar bagi masyarakat berpenghasilan rendah dan kelas menengah dibandingkan kelompok elite yang kaya raya.

Pemerintah berargumen bahwa sejumlah barang kebutuhan pokok, seperti beras, telur, daging, serta jasa esensial seperti pendidikan dan kesehatan, dibebaskan dari pengenaan tarif PPN untuk melindungi masyarakat kurang mampu. Paket-paket stimulus ekonomi temporer, seperti subsidi PPN untuk sektor properti rumah sederhana, diskon tarif listrik berskala terbatas, hingga insentif PPh Pasal 21 ditanggung pemerintah, juga digulirkan.

Namun, laporan dari pengamat ekonomi di Kompas.com menunjukkan bahwa efektivitas jaring pengaman sosial ini masih jauh dari kata memadai. Kenaikan PPN pada sektor logistik, bahan bakar nonsubsidi, barang ritel, dan rantai pasok industri sekunder tetap memicu efek domino yang menaikkan harga-harga barang kebutuhan secara umum, yang pada akhirnya menggerus daya beli riil masyarakat.

 

Dampak Sistemik Terhadap Daya Beli dan Konsumsi Rumah Tangga

Konsumsi rumah tangga selama ini menjadi mesin penggerak utama pertumbuhan ekonomi Indonesia, dengan kontribusi mencapai lebih dari 50 persen terhadap produk domestik bruto (PDB). Pada saat masyarakat kelas menengah — yang tidak menerima bantuan sosial tunai dari pemerintah, tetapi tidak cukup kaya untuk kebal terhadap inflasi — dijepit oleh ketakutan akan PHK dan lonjakan harga akibat pajak, mereka merespons dengan menahan belanja (saving tightening). Sektor ritel dan pelaku usaha mikro, kecil, dan menengah (UMKM) menjadi pihak pertama yang merasakan lesunya serapan pasar. Penurunan volume penjualan ritel ini akhirnya memicu lingkaran setan (vicious cycle): penjualan menurun, profitabilitas pabrik anjlok, dan potensi PHK lanjutan kembali terbuka demi menjaga kelangsungan operasional perusahaan.

 

UMKM (Foto: Akhmad Zamroni)

Reformasi Tata Kelola Fiskal dan Strategi Mitigasi Krisis

Guna memutus lingkaran setan ini, pemerintah tidak bisa lagi hanya mengandalkan pendekatan satu arah yang kaku dalam mengejar target penerimaan perpajakan semata. Kebijakan fiskal yang agresif harus diimbangi secara radikal dengan efisiensi belanja negara dan perluasan basis pajak yang lebih berkeadilan, seperti optimalisasi pajak kekayaan (wealth tax) bagi kelompok superkaya, ketimbang terus memperluas pungutan pada komoditas masyarakat luas. Satuan tugas (Satgas) PHK yang dibentuk pemerintah perlu dilengkapi dengan instrumen kebijakan riil yang mampu meringankan beban struktural dunia usaha. Insentif berupa penurunan tarif pajak penghasilan badan untuk industri padat karya yang berkomitmen tidak melakukan PHK perlu dipertimbangkan secara serius.

Di sisi lain, akuntabilitas dan transparansi penggunaan dana publik menjadi syarat mutlak untuk memulihkan kepercayaan publik (public trust). Rakyat tidak akan keberatan membayar pajak jika mereka melihat dana tersebut kembali dalam bentuk pelayanan publik yang berkualitas, infrastruktur yang menunjang mobilitas ekonomi bawah, serta jaring pengaman sosial yang responsif saat krisis ketenagakerjaan melanda. Sebaliknya, jika anggaran negara terus dihabiskan untuk proyek-proyek mercusuar yang sarat kepentingan politik elite dan rentan bocor akibat korupsi, maka pengetatan ikat pinggang yang dipaksakan kepada rakyat hanya akan menumpuk bom waktu gejolak sosial yang mengancam stabilitas nasional. *

Ironi Negeri Kaya: Saat Kebijakan Fiskal Mencekik Rakyat dan Memanjakan Elite

Oleh Akhmad Zamroni

Indonesia saat ini tengah menghadapi gelombang keprihatinan sosial dan ekonomi yang mendalam. Di tengah situasi global yang tidak menentu, perhatian publik tertuju pada arah kebijakan domestik yang dinilai makin menjauh dari keadilan sosial. Berbagai program unggulan yang digulirkan pemerintahan Presiden Prabowo Subianto, seperti program Makan Bergizi Gratis (MBG) dan pembentukan Koperasi Desa Merah Putih, awalnya dipromosikan sebagai angin segar bagi pemulihan ekonomi masyarakat bawah. Namun, dalam realitas implementasinya, kebijakan-kebijakan tersebut dinilai lebih menguntungkan kelompok elite, kaum oligarki, serta memperkuat dominasi pengaruh kroni politik di lingkaran kekuasaan.

Banyak analisis ekonomi politik dari berbagai lembaga swadaya masyarakat dan laporan media kredibel, seperti Kompas.com dan Tempo.co, menyoroti adanya salah sasaran dalam distribusi nilai tambah dari program-program raksasa ini. Program Makan Bergizi Gratis, misalnya, menelan anggaran Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara (APBN) yang sangat fantastis. Alih-alih murni menggerakkan perekonomian warung-warung kecil atau petani lokal di seluruh pelosok daerah secara merata, rantai pasok penyediaan logistik skala masif ini diduga kuat dikuasai oleh korporasi-korporasi besar yang terafiliasi dengan jaringan kroni dan oligarki baru.

Program MBG (Foto: Tempo-Tony Hartawan)

Distribusi proyek infrastruktur pendukungnya pun dinilai bias dan berpusat di wilayah tertentu sehingga memicu ketimpangan wilayah serta pemborosan anggaran akibat tata kelola yang buruk. Hal serupa terjadi pada restrukturisasi kelembagaan desa melalui program koperasi merah putih yang rentan ditumpangi kepentingan politik elektoral sekadar untuk memelihara basis kekuasaan di tingkat akar rumput. Kondisi ini diperparah oleh meluasnya kesan bahwa alokasi sumber daya negara kian condong pada penguatan sektor keamanan dan pertahanan, dengan porsi perhatian khusus pada institusi TNI dan Polri demi stabilitas politik formal.

Prioritas anggaran defensif itu terasa kontras dengan nasib pemenuhan hak-hak dasar masyarakat sipil. Pada saat instrumen negara diperkuat secara logistik, jaminan ruang hidup untuk keadilan ekologis dan ekonomi rakyat justru kian menyempit akibat ekspansi industri besar. Sementara itu, para elite menikmati kue kekuasaan, masyarakat kelas menengah dan bawah dipaksa menelan pil pahit akibat kombinasi kebijakan fiskal yang agresif dan situasi pasar kerja yang memburuk.

Untuk mendanai belanja negara yang membengkak, pemerintah terus mengejar target penerimaan pajak yang sangat tinggi. Langkah ini diwujudkan melalui penyesuaian tarif pajak pertambahan Nnilai (PPN) yang merangkak naik serta perluasan basis pungutan pajak lainnya yang secara langsung memicu kenaikan harga barang pokok dan menurunkan daya beli. Rakyat merasa makin terbebani karena kenaikan pungutan ini tidak diimbangi dengan perbaikan kualitas pelayanan publik yang signifikan atau jaminan sosial yang memadai.

Koperasi Desa Merah Putih (Foto: Kompas.com-Bayu Apriliano) 

Ironisnya, tekanan pajak tersebut justru beriringan dengan badai pemutusan hubungan kerja (PHK) yang terus menggulung sektor industri nasional, khususnya industri manufaktur dan padat karya. Berdasarkan data resmi Kementerian Ketenagakerjaan (Kemnaker) yang diliput luas oleh media nasional, angka pekerja yang kehilangan mata pencaharian terus meningkat pesat. Wilayah-wilayah pusat industri besar, seperti Jawa Barat, Banten, dan Jawa Timur, menjadi daerah terdampak paling parah dari fenomena ini. Melemahnya permintaan pasar global dan kenaikan biaya operasional domestik membuat banyak pabrik melakukan efisiensi ketat, meninggalkan puluhan ribu buruh terdampar tanpa kepastian masa depan ekonomi keluarga mereka.

Di atas semua penderitaan ekonomi tersebut, hal yang paling melukai rasa keadilan publik adalah praktik korupsi yang kian dilakukan secara terang-terangan dan masif. Risiko kebocoran sistemik di dalam proyek-proyek strategis nasional beranggaran jumbo dinilai sangat tinggi akibat lemahnya sistem pengawasan hukum dan hilangnya transparansi tata kelola. Sentimen publik mencerminkan keprihatinan mendalam bahwa hukum sering kali tajam ke bawah dalam penegakan kepatuhan wajib pajak rakyat kecil, tetapi tumpul ke atas ketika berhadapan dengan penyelewengan dana publik oleh aktor-aktor politik besar.

Kombinasi antara beban pajak yang menjepit, gelombang pengangguran baru akibat PHK, penyalahgunaan anggaran, dan suburnya korupsi menciptakan kesenjangan yang makin lebar antara penguasa dan rakyat. Jika pemerintah tidak segera melakukan evaluasi radikal, membenahi tata kelola program nasional secara inklusif, dan mengembalikan orientasi kebijakan pada asas kemaslahatan murni rakyat banyak, maka stabilitas social-ekonomi yang dicita-citakan menuju Indonesia Emas berisiko runtuh dan hanya menyisakan narasi kemakmuran semu bagi beberapa gelintir elite semata. *

A Brief History of the Implementation of Democracy Around the World

 By Akhmad Zamroni

The implementation or application of democracy is inseparable from the assumption that democracy is a sound political or constitutional system, one that is believed to bring about many positive outcomes. Samuel Huntington, a political scientist at Harvard University, identified three waves of democracy in the political systems of various countries. The first wave of democracy occurred during the French Revolution and the American Revolution, marked by the expansion of suffrage (1828–1926). The second wave of democracy emerged during and after World War II as a result of Allied occupations that spurred the formation of new institutions (1943–1962). The third wave of democracy emerged, marked by the large number of countries worldwide that adopted democracy as their political system (1974–... ).

However, the history of democracy actually began long before the period outlined by Huntington. The waves of democracy described by Huntington represent the practice of democracy in its modern and complex form. Democracy in its simplest form, however, had been practiced since ancient Greece in the pre-Christian era.

Democracy was first implemented in Greece from the 6th to the 3rd centuries BCE. The implementation of democracy at that time was based on the concept of democracy from ancient Greek culture. The form or model of democracy adopted was direct democracy, which was applied on a limited basis in entities known as city-states—small states whose territory was confined to a single city.

Direct democracy is a form of government in which political decisions and policies are made directly by all citizens, acting in accordance with the principles and procedures of majority rule. Direct democracy could be effectively implemented in Greece at that time because living conditions were still simple, its scope of application was limited (a state consisting of a city and its surrounding areas), and the population was small (approximately 300,000 citizens in a single city-state). Direct democracy could also be implemented effectively because democratic provisions applied only to official citizens, who constituted only a small portion of the population—democracy did not apply to slaves and foreign merchants (who made up the majority of the population).

Foto: Council of Europe/Facebook

The Greek democratic system gradually faded and disappeared from the political system and life of the Western world after the Romans—who had still adopted the Greek democratic system—were conquered by Western European tribes and the European continent entered the Middle Ages (600–1400). The Middle Ages are often equated with the Dark Ages. The social structure of that era was feudal; social and spiritual life was controlled by the Pope and religious officials, and the political landscape was marked by power struggles among the nobility.

The ideas and practice of democracy began to show signs of revival following the emergence of the Magna Carta in 1215 in England. This document was created, on the one hand, to limit the rights or powers of the king (King John of England) and, on the other hand, to recognize and guarantee certain rights and privileges of the king’s subjects (the nobility). Given its nature, the Magna Carta became a milestone in the resurgence of democratic ideas and practices.

The emergence of the Renaissance (1350–1600) and the Reformation (1500–1650) reinforced the rise of democracy. The Renaissance, which emerged primarily in Southern Europe (particularly Italy), was an era marked by a resurgence of interest in classical literature (ancient Greece), the development of new arts and literature, and the growth of modern science — fields that had been marginalized during the Middle Ages. Meanwhile, the Reformation was a reform movement that gained significant support in Northern Europe (Germany, Switzerland, and elsewhere).

During the Middle Ages, the European public’s attention was focused solely on religious matters and the edicts of church leaders. However, thanks to the Renaissance, the European public’s attention shifted to secular issues, and many new ideas began to emerge. Meanwhile, the Reformation and the religious conflicts that followed freed society from the church’s dominance in the spiritual, social, and political spheres. This led to the separation of church and state. At that time, the idea of the importance of religious freedom and a clear separation between religious and secular matters — particularly in the realm of state affairs or governance — gained significant traction.

The Renaissance and the Reformation subsequently led European (Western European) society to what is known as the Enlightenment and rationalism. The Enlightenment was a movement that emphasized the use of reason, advocated a critical approach to thought, and encouraged the investigation of everything in the natural world, while rationalism was a movement that prioritized reason. Both sparked a desire to free people’s minds from the constraints imposed by the church and to base thought entirely on reason.

Reaseach & Writing: Dorothy Neufeld and Niccolo Conte; Design: Sabrina Lam

Freedom of thought paved the way for the expansion of ideas in the fields of politics and government. From this arose the idea that the people possessed political rights that could not be manipulated by the king. The king, who at that time held absolute (unlimited) power, faced intense criticism and pressure. Criticism of royal absolutism received massive support from the middle class.

The emergence of the idea or theory of the social contract further reinforced the understanding and awareness that the king’s power was not absolute and that society (the people) possessed political rights that must be respected. The idea of the social contract (which, among other sources, emerged from the writings of John Locke and Montesquieu) asserts that the relationship between the king and the people is based on a contract whose clauses are binding and must be obeyed by both parties. The social contract stipulates that the king is granted power by the people to maintain order and create conditions that allow the people to safely enjoy and exercise their natural rights, while the people are obligated to obey the king’s government to the extent that their natural rights are duly guaranteed by the king.

The idea that the people possess political rights sparked the French Revolution in the late 18th century and the American Revolution in the 18th century. Both revolutions were marked by popular resistance against the king’s absolute power. The fall of absolute monarchy allowed democracy to take shape once again. Furthermore, as a result of developments in various spheres of life, the democratic system adopted is no longer a pure or fully direct democracy (as in ancient Greece), but has increasingly shifted toward representative democracy.

The concept and implementation of democracy began to take concrete form as a political program and system (government/state structure) toward the end of the 19th century. By the mid-20th century, following the end of World War II and the liberation of many nations from colonialism and imperialism, democracy began to play a significant role as a system of government and state administration. And now, at the beginning of the 21st century, democracy has become a system of government—and a way of life—that is widely embraced by people across the globe.

It could be said that in the 21st century, the world has been swept up in a wave of democracy, leading the 21st century to be frequently referred to as the “century of democracy”—as well as the “century of human rights.” As awareness of human rights and the urgency of peace and prosperity continues to grow, the implementation of democracy has also become an increasingly serious demand. In fact, the implementation of democracy has even become a prerequisite for the implementation of other programs. International aid and cooperation, for example, in the 21st century are almost always provided on the condition of democracy; that is, cooperation will take place and aid will be provided to a country only if that country can demonstrate that it has implemented democracy properly and effectively. ***

Transforming Ethnocentrism into Nationalism

By Akhmad Zamroni

Primordialism and ethnocentrism are two of the many potential sources of conflict that can arise due to diversity in tribes, ethnic groups, religious affiliations, social classes, and so on. However, specifically regarding ethnocentrism, is this concept always a potential source of conflict with negative implications? It turns out that this is not the case. In addition to its negative aspects, ethnocentrism can also have positive aspects. Under certain circumstances, ethnocentrism can foster a sense of nationalism and patriotism. In other words, ethnocentrism can be “channeled” into nationalism and patriotism.

Hierarchically speaking, ethnocentrism appears to be the very foundation upon which nationalism and patriotism are built. When viewed in terms of the manner and sequence of their formation, nationalism and patriotism may well be further developments of ethnocentrism. The seeds of national spirit and love for the homeland found in nationalism and patriotism — whether consciously or unconsciously — are the result of the development of the “belief in one’s own superiority” inherent in ethnocentrism.

Nasionalisme Indonesia (Foto: Net)

The traits found in ethnocentrism are indeed similar to those found in nationalism and patriotism. All three tend to be characterized by “pride in oneself.” However, while ethnocentrism tends to be excessive — to the point of looking down on other groups — nationalism and patriotism are relatively proportionate and controlled, making them more courteous and civilized.

It is said that the growth and development of nationalism and patriotism are the result of the accumulation or combination of ethnocentrism emerging from ethnic, racial, social, religious, and other groups within a nation. Through this process, the emerging ethnocentrism coalesces into nationalism and patriotism. Therefore, when intergroup relations become strained, ethnocentrism is triggered to confront other groups; however, when the nation is in danger, the ethnocentrism of various groups coalesces to form a new unity known as nationalism and patriotism to confront the nation’s enemies.

Such a dynamic demonstrates that ethnocentrism can be harnessed to foster nationalism and patriotism. Indeed, ethnocentrism should be channeled into nationalism and patriotism. However, this channeling and utilization must be carried out in a controlled and civilized manner so that the resulting nationalism and patriotism do not degenerate into chauvinism. ***