How Are They Elected? Vote Buying And General Election In Ogan Ilir District, South Sumatera Province

Mery Yanti* -  Universitas Sriwijaya Palembang, Indonesia
Alamsyah Alamsyah -  Universitas Sriwijaya Palembang, Indonesia

DOI : 10.24269/ars.v6i2.1029

This article designed to examine patronage practice in the 2014 general election in Ogan Ilir district, South Sumatera Province, Indonesia, before and after election in one electoral area (Ogan Ilir 1). We apply Nine Step to Victory (Alamsyah, 2015) framework to achieve this goal. Our key informants are some legislative candidates and their brokerage or winning team at various level. Primary data gathered through depth interview and secondary data collected from the government institution. This data will be analyzed using interactive model (Miles, Huberman, and Saldana, 1994). Drawing on the qualitative approach, we find that, before election day, all candidates in this area practicing vote buying and patronage to get political support from the voters. A form of patronage dominated by club goods, and cash transfer (transport allowance, communication and consumption cost, and vote buying). We do not find incumbency candidate who is practicing fork barrel. After election day, especially when the winner candidates, has been working as a legislator, he has an obligation to continuing patronage through informal and cultural networking (personal or community event). In this various event, he must deliver goods, services, or money to the people (as an individual or group). Our results are strengthening the previous finding that all candidates have begun implementing patronage strategy when they are recruiting the winning team, campaign, and realize vote buying. Family, especially extended family, and friendship is the primary foundation for all candidates to build brokerage (the winning team) structure. All candidates also using “by name by address” strategy to guide vote-buying practice. We discuss this finding, showing limitation and agenda for the research on this topic.

General Election, Patronage, Clientelism, Vote Buying, Local Politics
  1. Book
  2. Alamsyah, A. (2015). Musi Banyuasin, Sumatera Selatan: Dominasi Haji Sen. In E. Aspinall & S. Mada (Eds.), Politik Uang di Indonesia: Patronase dan Klientelisme pada Pemilu Legislatif 2014 (pp. 147-173). Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Pol Gov.
  3. Aspinall, E. (2013). Money politics: patronage and clientelism in Southeast Asia. In W. Case (Ed.), Handbook of Democracy in Southeast Asia. London, UK: Routledge.
  4. Aspinall, E., &Mada, S. (2015). Politik Uang di Indonesia. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: PolGov.
  5. Erb, M., Beni, R., &Anggal, W. (2005). Creating cultural identity in an era of regional autonomy: reinventing Manggarai? In M. Erb, M. Picard, & C. Faucher (Eds.), Regionalism in post-Suharto Indonesia (pp. 149-179). New York: Routledge Curzon.
  6. Eriksen, T. H. (2004). What is anthropology? London, UK: Pluto Press.
  7. Faucher, C. (2005). Regional autonomy, Malayness and power hierarchy in the Riau Archipelago. In M. Erb, P. Sulistiyanto, & C. Faucher (Eds.), Regionalism in post-Suharto Indonesia (pp. 132-148). New York, USA: Routledge Curzon.
  8. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebooks. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
  9. Picard, M. (2005). Otonomidaerah in Bali: the call for special autonomy status in the name of Kebalian. In M. Erb, P. Sulistiyanto, & C. Faucher (Eds.), Regionalism in post-Suharto Indonesia (pp. 116-131). New York, USA: Routledge Curzon.
  10. Robison, R., &Hadiz, V. R. (2004). Reorganizing power in Indonesia: the politics of oligarchy in an age of markets. New York, USA: RoutledgeCurzon.
  11. Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London, UK: W. Strahan and T. Cadell.
  12. Stoke, S. (2011). Buying votes: distributive politics in democracy. New Heaven, USA: Yale University Press.
  13. Triantini, Z. E. (2015). Blora, Jawa Tengah: Sabet sebagai Penentu Kemenangan. In E. Aspinall & S. Mada (Eds.), Politik Uang Di Indonesia: Patronase Dan KlientelismePadaPemiluLegislatif 2014. Jogjakarta, Indonesia: PolGov.
  14. Weiss, M. L. (2014). Electoral Dynamics in Malaysia. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
  15. Yin, Robert K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
  16. Journal
  17. Allen, N. W. (2014). From Patronage Machine to Partisan Melee: Subnational Corruption and the Evolution of the Indonesian Party System. Pacific Affairs, 87(2), 221-245. doi:10.5509/2014872221
  18. Allen, N. W. (2015). Clientelism and the personal vote in Indonesia. Electoral Studies, 37, 73-85. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2014.10.005
  19. Antlöv, H. (2003). Village Government and Rural Development in Indonesia: The New Democratic Framework. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 39(2), 193-214. doi:10.1080/00074910302013
  20. Aspinall, E. (2011). Democratization and ethnic politics in Indonesia: nine theses. Journal of East Asian Studies, 11(2), 289-319.
  21. Aspinall, E. (2014). When Brokers Betray: Clientelism, Social Networks, and Electoral Politics in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 46(4), 545-570. doi:10.1080/14672715.2014.960706
  22. Brusco, V., Nazareno, M., & Stokes, S. C. (2004). Vote Buying in Argentina. Latin American Research Review, 39(2), 66-88. doi:10.1353/lar.2004.0022
  23. Carreras, M., &Irepoglu, Y. (2013). Trust in elections, vote buying, and turnout in Latin America. Electoral Studies, 32, 609-619. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2013.07.012
  24. Desposato, S. W. (2006). Parties for Rent? Ambition, Ideology, And Party Switching in Brazil's Chamber of Deputies. American Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 62-80.
  25. Fukuoka, Y. (2013). Indonesia's ‘democratic transition’ revisited: a clientelist model of political transition. Democratization, 20(6), 991-1013. doi:10.1080/13510347.2012.669894
  26. Gonzalez-Ocantos, E., de Jonge, C. K., Meléndez, C., Osorio, J., & Nickerson, D. W. (2012). Vote Buying and Social Desirability Bias: Experimental Evidence from Nicaragua. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 202-217. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00540.x
  27. Hicken, A. (2011). Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science, 14(1), 289-310. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.031908.220508
  28. Ichino, N., & Nathan, N. L. (2013). Do Primaries Improve Electoral Performance? Clientelism and Intra-Party Conflict in Ghana. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 428-441. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00624.x
  29. Keefer, P. (2007). Clientelism, Credibility, and the Policy Choice of Young Democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 804-821.
  30. Larreguy, H., Montiel Olea, C. E., &Querubin, P. (2017). Political Brokers: Partisans or Agents? Evidence from the Mexican Teachers' Union. American Journal of Political Science, 61(4), 877-891. doi:10.1111/ajps.12322
  31. Manzetti, L., & Wilson, C. J. (2016). Why Do Corrupt Governments Maintain Public Support? Comparative Political Studies, 40(8), 949-970. doi:10.1177/0010414005285759
  32. Rueda, M. R. (2017). Small Aggregates, Big Manipulation: Vote Buying Enforcement and Collective Monitoring. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 163-177. doi:10.1111/ajps.12260
  33. Vicente, P. C., &Wantchekon, L. (2009). Clientelism and vote buying: lessons from field experiments in African elections. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25(2), 292-305. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grp018
  34. Weghorst, K. R., & Lindberg, S. I. (2013). What Drives the Swing Voter in Africa? American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 717-734. doi:10.1111/ajps.12022
  35. Weitz-Shapiro, R. (2012). What Wins Votes: Why Some Politicians Opt Out of Clientelism. American Journal of Political Science, 56(3), 568-583. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00578.x
  36. Online Media
  37. Burase, A. (2014). Money Politics Reports Began to Appear., April 9, 2014. URL:
  38. Fitria, A. G. (2014). Survey: 2014 Election Prone to Money Politics., Maret 26, 2014. URL:

Full Text:
Article Info
Submitted: 2018-06-14
Published: 2018-07-01
Section: Artikel
Article Statistics: