MIMBAR, Vol. 33, No. 2nd (December, 2017), pp. 359-367

Vote Buying in Lampung Local Election

1ROBI CAHYADI KURNIAWAN, 2DEDE MARIANA, 3MUDIYATI RAHMATUNNISA, 4LEO AGUSTINO

1Jurusan Ilmu Pemerintahan FISIP Universitas Lampung, 2,3 FISIP Universitas Padjadajaran 4Jurusan Administrasi Publik,Universitas Sultan AgengTirtayasa Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract Vote buying in elections, both for general and local elections is a phenomenon in Indonesian politics. Lampung Province has implemented direct elections simultaneously in December 2015 and February 2017. This study explains that vote buying can change voter choice in three regional head elections in Lampung Province. This study was conducted with the object of research residing in Way Kanan District on July 2014, Pringsewu District in February 2016 and Bandar Lampung City in November 2015. This study used a survey approach with stratified random sampling method. The survey conducted on 662 respondents in each county or district and city of object being studied. The results show that voters believe the vote buying will happen in local elections.Voters change their choice if they were given bribes of goods, gifts, money, or provision of a project. This research study on how vote buying can change voting choice of voters. Keywords: vote-buying, voting behavior, local election

INTRODUCTION (Hadiz, 2010: 119; Harris, et al., 2005: 51). Hadiz (2010: 120) concludes that Almost all political scientists agree money politics in sharing its forms has vote buying or money politics is a dangerous become a major political game in town and phenomenon and bad for democracy villages in Indonesia today. The authors because it can obscure the principle of agreed that money politics has increased honesty and fairness in the election. Vote more since the era of direct elections and buying occurred in various elections has occurred at local level. given a poor assessment of the democratic process in Indonesia. Indonesia after The study of the voting behavior in the new order considered as a democratic Indonesia have been carried out, both during country (Platzdasch, 2009: 2), even the the new order (among others: Mulkan, 1989, new democratic State (Bird and Hill, 2007: Ghaffar, 1992; Kristiadi, 1996) and the New 17). Lately, Indonesia is categorized as a Order era (like Taqwa, 2004; Liddle and country that is still in the zone of transition Saiful Mujani 2007 & 2010). However, it to democracy. Mietzner (in Bunted an does not seem to be focused on the discussion Ufen, 2009: 124) said that Indonesia leads about vote buying relation or money politics. to democratic regimes with low quality of According to Hikmat, (in the Journal democracy. of MIMBAR, 2014: 22), voting behavior study defined by the characteristics of the Henk Schulte Nordholt (in Harris, et al., region, the level of intelligence, and critical 2005: 29) stated that the decentralization level in each region. of power from central government to the regions in order to have more democratic local Generally, voting behavior study learn government reassures patrimonial culture. on how voters make a choice in general election and the factors that influence Another opinion said that the voters’ choice.The model is based on three decentralization and democratization at main factors that influence voters: social the local level enrich racketeering practices psychology model, rational choice model,

Received: June 21, 2017, Revision: September 08, 2017, Accepted: December 13, 2017 Print ISSN: 0215-8175; Online ISSN: 2303-2499. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.29313 Accredited B based on the decree No.040/P/2014, valid on February, 18, 2014 until February, 18, 2019. Indexed by DOAJ, Sinta, IPI

‘Terakreditasi’ SK Kemendikbud, No.040/P/2014, berlaku 18-02-2014 s.d 18-02-2019 359 ROBI CAHYADI KURNIAWAN, et al. Vote Buying In Lampung Local Election and sociological model. giver cannot actually control the electoral choices (Stokes, 2005: 315). However, The sociological model is a voting other opinion stated that the influence of behavior that puts the sociological factors money in the political process differs in each such as the similarity of national origin, religion community, depending on the social and and gender in determining political choice. cultural characteristics (Schaffer, 2005). The social psychology model voters tend to be grounded in proximity with a particular The study of vote buying behavior political party, while the rational choice model in Indonesia is still limited. As far as the prioritizes profit made by the voter and his research deepened, the study on relationship group (Evan, 2004: 13). The three models of money politics in election is not a particular according to the author are still relevant to e concern to the researchers earlier. The used in the context of Indonesia today. studies include a study by Rifai (2003) which examined allegations of money politics All three voting behavior models above in the gubernatorial elections in some are basically categorized by decisive factors areas through the mass media, but not of voting determinants of a person or group detailed enough to do the digging. Another of persons (see Niemi 2008: 13-15; Evans, researcher, Lesmana, who examined the direct 2004; 6-89; Heywood, 2007: 265- 269; Liddle gubernatorial elections in the western part of and Mujani, 2007). However, in addition Sumatra and Riau Island, concluded that to categorization of the models, voting the practice of money politics are believed behavior can also go through concepts of: to be existed but it is very difficult to prove (1) compliance of voters (Schaffer, 2005: (Hidayat, et al., 2007: 124). Similar studies 3-4; Schaffer, 2007: 17-29); (2) loyalty submitted by Mietzner in the case of elections of voters (Hirschman, 1970; Anderson and in North Sulawesi. It also concluded the Srinivasan, 2003; Evans, 2004; Bratton, same results regarding the strong political 2008: 15; Bartels, 2008; 14; Scaffer, 2007: influence of money in elections, and did not 185); (3) the decision to select or choose clearly explained the relationship between a specific selection (see Redlawsk, 2006: money politics and voting behavior (Bunte 3-8; Evans, 2004: 4; Vicente 2007: 18; and Ufen, 2009: 124-149). Nurdin’s study Woshinsky, 2008: 102-132; Zulkerman, (2014) explained well about the behavior 2005; 229) of money politics in Banten Governor Based on the previous reference, the Election in 2011 in Pandeglang. Research author feels it is important to conduct a special conducted by the Election Commission study on the relationship between voting (KPU) West Bandung regency (2014) on behavior and vote buying. Indications of money money politics in legislative elections in politics is a serious threat to the quality of 2014. Another study was also carried out by democracy and clean government. There KIP (General Election Commission) of Aceh’s are 118 democratic countries in the world, Bireuen (2015) regarding money politics in and Indonesia is still considered as one the 2014 election. of the group of countries that has low Barenscoot & Purba Study (2014) transparency in management of funds in described the vote buying occurred the election campaign (Ward, 2003; 30). in Lampung gubernatorial election in 2014. Money politics is based on two sub- The research results have been collaborations variables: political understanding of money between companies incorporated in Sugar and the experience of voters associated with Group Company (SGC) and the candidate for politics of money (see Brusco, et al, 2004: 69; governor of Lampung, using influence and the Schaffer, 2004: 84; Vicente 2007: 14; also power of money, especially the distribution Lingkaran Survey Indonesia, 2010: 14). It of sugar in Lampung in gubernatorial election seems in accordance with the opinion of of 2014.Various previous studies provided Woshinsky (2008: 132), who stated that initial hypothesis for this research which the decision to vote in election contest is stated that vote buying can influence voters ultimately determined by the experience and choices. understanding of the electorate. Based on the description above, The influence of money politics on researcher is trying to find answers electoral behavior remains a puzzle (Kramon, about vote buying or money politics in the 2009: 1). For such reasons, elections are local context: the local elections (pilkada) voluntary and confidential so that the money- in the counties and cities in the province of

360 ISSN 0215-8175 | EISSN 2303-2499 MIMBAR, Vol. 33, No. 2nd (December, 2017), pp. 359-367

Lampung. stated that vote-buying is the exchange of political support with personal material gain (Heidenheimer, et al., 1989; 287) or the use of money and direct benefit to influence voters RESEARCH METHOD (Bryan 2005: 4). Both definitions emphasize This study is the result of a combination the purpose, which is to get a personalized of three different studies, but specializes content or go directly to voters in exchange at some points of vote buying or money for political support. politics phenomenon. The object of this A similar definition is given by Fox, research conducted in two counties (districts) who explained vote buying as “political rights and one city, Way Kanan District on July exchange for material benefits (Fox, 1994; 2014, Pringsewu District on February 2016 151-184). It happens in the elections and and Bandar Lampung City on November, also occurs in competition from non-electoral 2015. politics. Fox (1994) was not too concerned This study uses a quantitative about the purchase of vote buying, but put method through a survey using stratified more attention to the exchange politics of the random sampling method. The survey candidates with their political supporters. conducted on 662 respondents in each In the Indonesian context, district and the city that became the Supriyanto (2005: 3) presented two object of the survey. Some villages or political understandings about money.The kelurahan within urban areas were selected first one refers to the practice of money using stratified random sampling method. politics, which he called exchange with the It was based on the number of voters from position or policy or political decisions. the final voters list in each region. An understanding of the practices of Samples taken from this survey based money politics is particularly those which on a formula nomogram by Hery King (in concern directly to the voters, campaign Sugiyono, 2010: 98). For the population transportation costs, distribution of money/ around 1.000.0000, samples should be goods, food distribution or cement to build taken from minimum of 662 respondents to places of worship, and the “dawn attack” obtain accurate survey with error between (serangan fajar) which means who do 1% to 5%. The object of this research was first and grab the first chance, especially total samples taken from sub-samples in in campaign. The first definition refers the district/regency/city. Each district will to the events or non-electoral political be divided into 2 to 5 villages/sub-elected competition, which does not directly involve region with a large pitch sequence of the voters. The second definition clearly refers final voters list (DPT) that became the object to the general election with political actors of the research. involving a lot of money, the candidates and voters, but with more diverse forms of transactions. The author is more inclined SCOPE OF VOTE BUYING to the second understanding with the Vote buying has different meanings involvement of political actors and voters in and is often understood in different contexts the election, but the first definition is also in some countries, depending on factors asked to the respondent in an effort to add such as culture and tradition of political and material and to enrich the data. electoral models (Schaffer, 2007: 25). For Vote buying actors, had at least example, in US politics, some donors donated five different interests, namely voters, a large sum of money to a particular political candidates, political parties, election party or presidential candidate or candidates administration, and funders (businessmen, for governor to protect the business donors). Bribery goods, either in cash or interests of the donors in campaign. In the other materials, are to be exchanged with the Philippines, money politics can be defined as position, the decision, or political decision the use of money or compensation in vote- (Supriyanto, 2005: 3) buying activities directly to influence voters and support candidates who donated (Forest In the context of elections, there and Teresita, 2000: 94). are four circles of vote buying. First, the transaction between the economic elite One definition of vote-buying often (money owner) and the candidates head of cited by many circles is Etzioni-Halaevy’s who

‘Terakreditasi’ SK Kemendikbud, No.040/P/2014, berlaku 18-02-2014 s.d 18-02-2019 361 ROBI CAHYADI KURNIAWAN, et al. Vote Buying In Lampung Local Election the region. Second, the transaction between drug cartels as an effort to put some people in the prospective head region and the political public office through legal elections (Hodess, party has the right to nominate. This 2004: 76-82). Three reasons above become practice is summarized by Buehler and Tan important to examine the basis of local study (2007; 67) as “the parties preying money because the realm of local elections is more from candidates’. complex due to the strong national than local primordial elements. Third, the transaction between the candidate and the campaign team Schaffer (2008: 198) says there are of election officials who has the authority to at least four types of motivation among counting votes. The purpose is to add vote voters of why they accept the offer of in unauthorized ways. money politics. The first is the short-term economic needs of the voters to gain a Fourth, the transaction between can- personal advantage shortly. didates or voters with campaign team which shape a sensible purchase. Second is a worry feeling about the possibility of retaliation from a candidate if The candidates distribute money voters reject the offer of money politic. directly to potential voters in hopes of getting instant voice (Supriyanto, 2005: 4). The Third is related to a sense of personal author believes that these four circles of vote responsibility to the broker (team for buying occur more in the context of local success) who has given money or goods, elections. which usually consists of significant others, friends, or family members. There are at least three reasons why the vote buying should be considered illegal Fourth is the common belief that in a political contest in the State (Ward, money politics is a sign of virtue or proof et al., 2003: 2). The first reason, the of consciousness of the electorate. The purchase of the most basic votes considered third and fourth motive is explanation to reduce the application of the principle of of why vote buying is often difficult justice in the election. The rationality of to remove (Schaffer, 2008: 198). In the voters in assessing the quality of candidates local context the authors believe that short- (individuals or political parties) can be term economic needs are the main drivers, disrupted since participants offer the lure of especially in rural areas. money or other materials. Injustice occurs because the voters have different economic ability. This argument is based on the VOTE BUYING IN LAMPUNG PROV- Buchanan and Tullock studies (1990: 27- INCE 274), which illustrate the relationship between In the context of Lampung Province, economic feasibility and political skills from since the local elections conducted in the perspective of the electorate. 2004 until now, the issue of vote-buying The second reason; Vote buying or money politics has been heard since are considered to pollute the electoral 2014, when the election of the governor of process and affect the overall quality of Lampung and legislative elections was held democracy. Bargaining power can make simultaneously. Based on the research, voters ignore the evaluation of objective authors try to provide another perspective indicators (Ward, et al., 2003: 5). through research in the counties and cities in the province of Lampung. The third reason is more practical, the use of illegal money can encourage corruption Lampung held local elec tions in De- and abuse of power. Experience in a number of cember 2015 at eight regions in Lampung West African countries showed that the money Province. The researchers took two used to buy voted comes from the smug- elections as the object; Bandar Lampung and glers and unauthorized activities (Vicente Way Kanan. For local simultaneous elections and Wantchekon, 2009: 17). In the countries in February 2017, researchers took Pringsewu of East and Southeast Asia, such as Japan, election. The survey was conducted at Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines and three locations before the elections, and Thailand, money politics is often associated as a separate part of the election mapping with corruption and abuse of power (Austin, survey ever conducted by the researchers. 2004: 55-67). Even in Latin America, practice of vote buying is conducted by the

362 ISSN 0215-8175 | EISSN 2303-2499 MIMBAR, Vol. 33, No. 2nd (December, 2017), pp. 359-367

BANDAR LAMPUNG LOCAL ELECTION projects The results of the research conduc- financed by state 17 2.6% ted in the mayor election of Bandar Lampung. money (pork Table 1. barrel project) Expectations of voters when joined the Electoral fraud 313 47.3% election campaign in Bandar Lampung The appearance Local Election (Pilwakot) 2015 of identity (based on 5 0.8% INFORMATION RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE religion and Vision, mission ethnicity) and work 237 35.8% Fundraising by 40 6% program candidates Distribution of All happened 45 6.8% 16 2.4% goods (points 1-8) Distribution of 57 8.6% Total 662 100% money Political 63 9.5% Source: Survey results in Bandar Lampung City, Contract November 2015 Entertainment 221 33.4% (song, dangdut) Based on the data presented on the Photos (selfie) above table, it was a surprise that election 39 5.9% with candidates fraud was chosen by 47, 3% of respondents, Total 662 100% followed by the vote buying of 29.1%. For the respondents, the reason they choose Source: Survey results in Bandar Lampung City, November 2015 the answer reflected from the experience of Pilwakot in 2010 and the 2014 gubernatorial Distribution of goods amounted election, in which there were a very strong to 6, 8% of the total respondents; distribution indication of money politic took place. The of money amounting to 8.6% of the total fear of election fraud occurred because respondents; when the two combined, Lampung prone to cheating with the case there was 15.4% of the total number of of some local election commissioner was respondents. Vote buying indications with fired, as well as experience in the legislative money and goods was 15, 4%. elections in 2014. Potential changes of voter Respondents were not fully believed preferences in local elections in Bandar in the performance of Regional Election Lampung with exchange for distribution Commission (KPUD) and other organizers. money and goods were 15, 4%. This It is caused by traumatic events in the past indication was largely occurred on mayoral where some of the commissioners of the elections (Pilwakot) Bandar Lampung. Election Commission in violation of laws and received sanctions from the Honorary Council General Election Organizer (DKPP) centers, Table 2. ranging from administrative sanctions to the Model of vote-buying which is believed toughest sanctions of dishonorable discharge. by respondents will happen in Pilwakot Bandar Lampung, December 2015

INFORMATION RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE WAY KANAN LOCAL ELECTION Vote buying 193 29.1% The results of research conducted in Way (directly) Kanan local election. Gift from the 61 9.2% candidates Table 3. Services and Expectations of voters when joined the activities from 8 1.2% election campaign in Way Kanan Local candidates Election, December 2015

Public goods 9 1.3% INFORMATION RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE Work program 88 13.3% Distribution of 125 18.8% goods

‘Terakreditasi’ SK Kemendikbud, No.040/P/2014, berlaku 18-02-2014 s.d 18-02-2019 363 ROBI CAHYADI KURNIAWAN, et al. Vote Buying In Lampung Local Election

Vission, Mission Vote buying 265 40% and candidate 129 19.5% (directly) exposure Gift from 77 11.6% Distribution of candidates 65 9.8% money Services and Entertainment activities from 13 1.9% 248 37.4% (dangdut songs) candidates Others 7 1% Public goods 14 2.1% Total 662 100% Projects financed by Source: Survey results in Way Kanan, July 2014 state money 22 3.3% (pork barrel Voters expecting a distribution of goods project) were to 18, 8%, while those expecting to Electoral fraud 180 27.2% distribution of money were 9.8%. Total The appearance both reached 28, 6%. That amount was of identity larger than the voters in Bandar Lampung (based on 35 5.3% which only reached 15, 4%. Figures of religion and respondents showed 28.6% voters in Way ethnicity) Fundraising Kanan still taking into account that provision 29 4.4% or distribution of money and goods as candidates All happened something natural and should be done as a 27 4% (points 1-8) form of compensation for participating in the campaign. They did not work because they Total 662 100% participate in the campaign, so they could not Source: Survey results in the Way Kanan district, make money during that day.The majority of July 2014 respondents were farmers and farm workers. Compensation for not working on that Voters in Way Kanan believe that day should be paid with money or goods vote-buying will occur in WayKanan in exchange for the loss of income. The local elections. The assumption caused authors analyzed that voters in Way Kanan many candidates started their immediate expect the provision of goods and money campaign (guerrilla) during the survey and higher than those in Bandar Lampung had already given many items, ranging because voters in Way Kanan mostly located from rice, flour, cooking oil, sugar, mukena, in rural areas with lower income than the veil and even inserted money into sealed voters in Bandar Lampung. Most of the voters envelopes. This made 40%, respondents in Way Kanan district work as farmers and believed that vote-buying will take place other form of farming, in contrast to those during the polling of head of local elections in in Bandar Lampung who work in services Way Kanan district. The second position area and entrepreneurs with better income placed by respondents of 27, 2% who levels. According to Arwiyah ( 2012: 86) said that fraud in the elections will take the socioeconomic status of the community place. Electoral fraud can happen at the affects the level of political participation. time of voting in the election conducted by Educational status, income, and occupational the committee, from TPS and KPPS up to differences affect the voter participation. The higher level. low socioeconomic status of the people of The elections of district heads in Way Way Kanan and Pringsewu regencies effect Kanan in 2015 only presented two pairs of their political participation, and based on the candidates, incumbent Bustami Zainudin research done, requires the compensation and his opponent Adipati Surya who was of money and goods to be active in election. the Chairman of Way Kanan Regency (DPRD). With limited candidate pairs, the Table 4. chances of getting rewards were also limited Model of vote-buying which is and pushed the candidates to compete and believed by respondents will happen give their best to hook voters. The results in Way Kanan local election (pilbup), of table 4 illustrate that voters in Way December 2015 Kanan convinced that their votes should be INFORMATION RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE paid by money or goods since the Election Day has interfered their work routines in

364 ISSN 0215-8175 | EISSN 2303-2499 MIMBAR, Vol. 33, No. 2nd (December, 2017), pp. 359-367

the fields. Wasting of work time should be Projects financed by state money replaced with commensurate value similar 37 5.6% to the results they would get if working in (pork barrel the fields. project) Electoral Fraud 137 20.7% PRINGSEWU LOCAL ELECTION The appearance The results of research conducted in of identity Pringsewu local election. (based on 134 20.2% religion and Table 5. ethnicity) Fundraising Expectations of voters when joined the 30 4.5% election campaign in Pringsewu Local candidates All happened Election (pilbup) in 2017 36 5.4% (points 1-8) INFORMATION RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE Total 662 100% Work program 113 17% Distribution of Source: Survey results in Pringsewu District, February 98 14.8% 2016 goods Vision, Mission According to voters, vote buying and candidate 148 22.3% believed to be occurred in Pringsewu was exposure quite high with the number 21, 6% of Distribution of of 78 11.8% money respondents. Entertainment 212 32% The respondents also saw vote buying in (dangdut songs) the implementation of the previous Pringsewu Others 13 1.9% election in 2012. The distribution of goods Total 662 100% such as sugar, flour, and other food packages was also rife in election 2014. Source: Survey results in Pringsewu District, February 2016 Local Elections (pilkada) in 2012 and 2014 made respondents believe that the Voters in Pringsewu district expected purchase or distribution of money will happen to get goods (14, 8%) and money (11.8%) in Pringsewu election (pilbup) in 2017. during the campaign. Vote-buying by summing the provision of goods and Table 6 shows that the respondents money reached 26, 6%. This figure was also believed the election fraud will smaller than the number of vote-buying in occur (20, 7%) and appearance of identity Way Kanan which was 28, 6%. Pringsewu (20.2%). The authors’ analysis is strongly district, which is geographically strategic and correlated with the results of Pringsewu economic in Lampung province, could not District elections in 2012. At that time, a avoid its constituents to be also affected by strong candidate Ririn Kuswantari had only 700 distribution of money and goods. voters difference from Sujadi Saddat, who was paired with the son of the governor of Table 6. Lampung Syachrudin ZP. Survey of Pringsewu Model of vote-buying which is society, political analysts, local democracy, believed by respondents will and local institutions in Lampung found that happen in Pringsewu local election Ririn Kuswantari’s supposed victory was taken (pilbup), February 2017 by Syachrudin ZP by changing the result of election using his powers and made Sujadi RESPON- INFORMATION PERCENTAGE Saddat -Handitya Narapati (Syachrudin ZP’s DENT son) won in the Pringsewu elections. Vote buying 143 21.6% (directly) (Source: respondents answers, Pringsewu 2016) Gift from 89 13.4% candidates Services and Related to appearance of identity activities from 24 3.6% which reached 20, 2%, it was inseparable candidates from the religious Pringsewu society. It Public goods 32 4.8% is a highly need for the political image of candidates to come from the religious and social organization. The existence of religious

‘Terakreditasi’ SK Kemendikbud, No.040/P/2014, berlaku 18-02-2014 s.d 18-02-2019 365 ROBI CAHYADI KURNIAWAN, et al. Vote Buying In Lampung Local Election organizations such as Nahdatul Ulama and locations shows that voters can influence their Muhammadiyah become important to give a choice and likely to change if they were given religious image. The appearance of identity goods or money. rather than religious, ethnic, or ethnic primordial identity factor is also important. The biggest ethnic in Pringsewu is Javanese REFERENCES ethnic, so that Javanese culture or behavior Austin, Reginald dan Tjernstrom, Maja needs to be put forward. This is important in (eds) (2004). Handbook of funding of order to hook the biggest Javanese voters in Political Parties and Election Campaign. Pringsewu. Regent of Pringsewu elected for Stockholm: Internasional IDEA the second time was the incumbent Sujadi Arwiyah,M. Yahya (2012). “Status Sosial Saddat, a Pringsewu NU figures in the district Ekonomi dan Kualitas Partai Politik dalam and great Kiai inTanggamus. Meningkatkan Partisipasi Politik’, MIMBAR According to Faridl (2003: 196), Jurnal Sosial dan Pembangunan Unisba, Kiai became elite strategic and figures in Volume 28 No 1 Tahun 2012 hal 85-92. Islam. Kiai is sources of legitimacy of the Bartels, Larry M (2000). “Partisanship and various problems facing the communities and Voting Behaviour 1952-1996, “American make them play a strategic role, especially Journal of Political Science, Vol. 44, No.1 in the aspects of political and social life in (Jan 2000), hal. 35-50 Indonesia. Bird, Kelly dan Hill (2007). “Making Trade Policy in a New Democracy after a Deep Crisis: Indonesia, “Economics RSPAS CONCLUSION Working Papers 2007-01, Australian National University. Vote buying in the research of election Bratton, Michael (2008). “Vote Buying and of regional head is caused by: First, Violence in Nigerian Election Campaign”. voters still doubts over their choices and Working Paper No 99. Afro Barometer, waiting to see what will be provided by June 2008. the candidates; Second, the habits of the Brusco, Valeria; nazareno, Marcelo and contesting candidates who always give gifts Stokes, Susan C. (2004). “Vote Buying or souvenir which is considered a form of in Argentina”, Latin American Research cultural customs; Third, majority voters Review, Volume 39 Nomor 2 June 2004, of farmers and farming in Way Kanan and hal: 66-88 Pringsewu felt that their work time is wasted Bryan, Shari dan Baer, Denise (2005). due to the election process and it reduced Money in Politics: A Study of Party their earnings, so that getting money or Financing Practices in 22 Countries. goods for their participating in the campaign Washington: National Democratic Institute or election is very reasonable. Voters expected for International Affairs (NDI) something useful (money or goods) for the Buchanan, James M dan Tullock, Gordon political support they granted. (1999). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Social and economic factors in the study Foundation of Constitutional Democracy. sites remained low after the last vote buying. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Area with a population of low income usually Buehler, Michael dan Tan, Paige (2007). “Party targeted for vote-buying in practice. In this –Candidate Relationship in Indonesian case is district of Way Kanan and Pringsewu, Local Politics: A Case Study of the 2005 where most farmers voters shifting their Regional Elections in Gowa South Sulawesi political selection and choose those who Province”. Journal INDONESIA Nomor 84, give a sufficiently large exchange of money October 2007, hal: 41-69 or goods. This also happened in Bandar Bunte, Marco dan Ufen, Andreas (2009). Lampung, although not as big as the other Democratization in Post-Suharto two districts with the economic status of Indonesia. London: Routledge the people working as laborers and private Evans, Jocelyn A (2004). Voter and Voting: An workers. Introduction. London: Sage Publications. Faridl, Miftah (2003). “Peran Sosial Politik Kiai Trauma of the past is also influencing di Indonesia”, MIMBARJurnal Sosial dan the votes, as happened in the Pringsewu, Pembangunan Unisba, Volume 19 No 2 where traumatic political events occurred tahun 2003 hal 195-202. during the previous elections. Conclusion Forest, Liacco dan Teresita Dy (2000). of this study taken from three different

366 ISSN 0215-8175 | EISSN 2303-2499 MIMBAR, Vol. 33, No. 2nd (December, 2017), pp. 359-367

Controlling Illegal Influence of Money Southeast Asian Studies. Politics. Washington DC: IFES Rifai, Amzulian (2003). Politik Uang Dalam Fox, Jonathan (1994). “The Difficult Transition Pemilihan Kepala Daerah di Indonesia. from Clientelism to Citizenship; Lessons Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia from Mexico,” World Politics, Volume 46 Schaffer, F.C and Schedler, A (2007), “What is Nomor 2 hal 151-184, Juli 1994 Vote Buying”, in F.C. Schaffer (ed), Election Hadiz, Vedi R (2010). Localising Power in Post- for Sale: The Causes and Consequences Authoritarian Indonesia: A Southeast Asia of Vote Buying, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Boulder, pp. 17-30. Press Schaffer, Frederic Charles (ed) (2007). Heywood, Andrew (2007). Politics. Third Elections for Sale; The Causes and Edition. New York: Palgrave Foundation Consequences of Vote Buying. Manila: Hikmat, Mahi M. (2014).”Pemetaan Masalah Ateneo De Manila University Press dan Solusi Konflik Lokal dalam Pilkada Stokes, Susan C (2005). “Pervence Langsung di Indonesia”,MIMBAR, Jurnal Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Sosial dan Pembangunan Unisba, Volume Politics with Evidence from Argentina” 30 No 1 Juni 2014, hal 18 – 27. American Political Science Review, Volume Hirschman, Albert O (1970). Exit, Voice, 99 No 3 tahun 2005, hal 315 -325. and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Sugiyono (2010). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif University Press Kualitatif dan Reseach Design, Alfabeta Hodess, Robin, dkk (2004). Global Corruption Bandung Report 2004: Special Focus Political Taqwa M. Ridhah dan Usman, Sunyoto (2004). Corruption, Londeon: Transparency “Perilaku Memilih dan Politik Kepartaian International pada Pemilu 1999; SOSIOSAINS Volume Kristiadi, J. (1996) “Pemilihan Umum dan 17 Nomor 3, Juli 2004. Perilaku Pemilih di Indonesia”. Prisma, No Vicente, Pedro C dan Wantchekon, Leonard 3 hal 73-91, Maret 1996 (2009). “Clientelism and Vote Buying: Liddle, William dan Mujani, Syaiful (2007). Lessons from Field Experiments In African “Leadership, Party and Religion: Elections”. The Oxford Review of Economic Explaining Voting Behaviour in Indonesia. Policy, Volume 25 Nomor 2 Tahun 2009, “Comparative Political Studies, Volume 40 hal:292-305 Nomor 7, hal 832-857. Ward, Gene, dkk (2003). Money in Politics Liddle, William dan Mujani, Syaiful (2010). Handbook: A Guide to Increasing “Indonesia: Personalities, Parties and Transparency in emerging Democracies. Voters” Journal of Democracy, Volume 21 Technical Publication Series. Washington: No 2, hal, 35-49 USAID Niemi, Richard G., dkk (eds), (2011). Woshinsky, Oliver. H (2008). Explaining Controversies in Voting Behaviour, Fifth Politics: Cultures, Institutions, and Political Edition. Washington DC: CQ Press. Behaviour, New York: Routledge Nurdin, Ali (2014). Politik Uang dan Perilaku Memilih dalam Pemilihan Gubernur Banten 2011 di Kabupaten Pandeglang. Disertasi Pasca Sarjana Universitas Padjadajaran. Platzdasch, Benhard (2009). Islamism in Indonesia: The Politics of Emerging Democracy. Singapore: Institute of

‘Terakreditasi’ SK Kemendikbud, No.040/P/2014, berlaku 18-02-2014 s.d 18-02-2019 367