skip to main content

Integrating Social Values: Evidence from The Intermediary Institution in Indonesian Elections

*George Towar Ikbal Tawakkal  -  Governmental Studies Program, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright (c) 2022 Politika: Jurnal Ilmu Politik under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.

Citation Format:
Abstract

Many scholars called the intermediary institutions in elections as vote brokers. As a consequence of that, then they built an argument based on a transactional framework, especially about the motivation of the institution. On the other side, they agreed that vote brokerage was built based on a social network, especially when they tried to define the vote brokerage. It means, the intermediary institution occurred in social interactions. That is weird for explaining social interactions without considering other social values. It looks like social interaction is only about material value. Other scholars tried to be fairness by calling the intermediary as middlemen, but still very few literature built the argument based on a non-transactional framework. This study will certainly provide new insights into the intermediary institution studies, particularly related to the understanding of non-transactional amid transactional arguments that have been shown in many kinds of literature, as well as expanding the study of intermediary institutions which likely to focused on providing voters, to be focused on the establishment of intermediary institutions. We conducted a series of in-depth interviews with 45 people consisting of persons in the intermediary institutions, political party leaders, leaders of campaign teams, election organizers, and more than a hundred voters during 2017 – 2019 in Indonesian elections, consists of four Villages head elections, 2018 Governor election, and 2019 legislative elections. We found the transactional logic or material value was not the only one, even mostly was not the dominant value that generated the intermediary institutions.

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: social values; intermediary institution; establishment

Article Metrics:

  1. Aspinall, E. (2014). When brokers betray: Clientelism, social networks, and electoral politics in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 46(4), 545–570
  2. Blaydes, L. (2006a). Who votes in authoritarian elections and why? Determinants of voter turnout in contemporary Egypt. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Philadelphia, PA, August
  3. Blaydes, L. (2006b). Who votes in authoritarian elections and why? Determinants of voter turnout in contemporary Egypt. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Philadelphia, PA, August
  4. Finan, F., & Schechter, L. (2012a). Vote‐buying and reciprocity. Econometrica, 80(2), 863–881
  5. Finan, F., & Schechter, L. (2012b). Vote‐buying and reciprocity. Econometrica, 80(2), 863–881
  6. Frye, T., Reuter, O. J., & Szakonyi, D. (2019a). Hitting them with carrots: Voter intimidation and vote buying in Russia. British Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 857–881
  7. Frye, T., Reuter, O. J., & Szakonyi, D. (2019b). Hitting them with carrots: Voter intimidation and vote buying in Russia. British Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 857–881
  8. Gingerich, D. W., & Medina, L. F. (2013). The endurance and eclipse of the controlled vote: a formal model of vote brokerage under the secret ballot. Economics & Politics, 25(3), 453–480
  9. Hellmann, O. (2014a). Electoral reform in Asia: Institutional engineering against ‘money politics.’ Japanese Journal of Political Science, 15(2), 275–298
  10. Hellmann, O. (2014b). Electoral reform in Asia: Institutional engineering against ‘money politics.’ Japanese Journal of Political Science, 15(2), 275–298
  11. Kennedy, J. J. (2010). The price of democracy: Vote buying and village elections in China. Asian Politics & Policy, 2(4), 617–631
  12. Rahman, N. (2014). Pati, Jawa Tengah: Target, Teknik dan Makna dari Pembelian Suara. Politik Uang Di Indonesia, Patronase Dan Klientelisme Pada Pemilu Legislatif
  13. Scott, J. C. (1972). Patron-client politics and political change in Southeast Asia. American Political Science Review, 66(1), 91–113
  14. Tawakkal, G. T. I., Kistanto, N. H., Asy’ari, H., Pradhanawati, A., & Garner, A. D. (2017). Why Brokers Don’t Betray: Social Status and Brokerage Activity in Central Java. Asian Affairs: An American Review, 44(2), 52–68
  15. Triantini, Z. E. (2014). Blora, Jawa Tengah: Sabet Sebagai Penentu Kemenangan. Politik Uang Di Indonesia, Patronase Dan Klientelisme Pada Pemilu Legislatif
  16. Wu, C. (2012). Charge me if you can: Assessing political biases in vote-buying verdicts in democratic Taiwan (2000–2010). The China Quarterly, 211, 786–805
  17. Zarazaga, R. (2014). Vote-buying and Asymmetric information. Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.