2018 Simultaneous Regional Head Elections
Political Dowry and Policy Implication
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.12.2020.11-20Keywords:
Political Dowry, Regulations, Political PartiesAbstract
According to previous studies, political dowry was practiced in the 2018 simultaneous regional head elections as found in several cases although policies on the prohibition of rewards have been adopted. This is regrettable because political dowry has fairly destructive impacts. For instance, the local governments formed after the elections will have the potential to be corrupt. This study aims to analyze potential political dowry practices in the 2018 regional head elections, their factors, and the policy implication. The research method used in this study is a qualitative approach with a descriptive content analysis on some secondary data. This study found that potential political dowry practices had occurred in the 2018 regional head elections as found in several cases but were difficult to prove by regulations. The factors of a political dowry practice are three elements as involved in any transactional activity, i.e. seller (political party), buyer (prospective regional head candidate), and system (electoral system). The policy implication is to integrate Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections, Law No. 10 of 2016 concerning Regional Head and Deputy Regional Head Elections, and Law No. 2 of 2011 concerning Political Parties with reinforcement in several aspects, such as the appointment of an independent institution to be permanently responsible for the financial management of political parties, the system with fair, affordable, and accountable opportunities to attain political leadership positions, the rationalization of political finance, the verification of political parties to support participation in simultaneous regional head elections, the reinforcement of information systems in the financial management of political parties, and the reinforcement of the role and independence of the Elections Supervisory Body (Bawaslu) in handling political dowry practices in regional head elections.
Downloads
References
Agustina, W. (2017, September 26). Dedi Mulyadi Diminta Rp 10 Miliar untuk Pilkada Jawa Barat (W. Agustina (ed.)). Tempo.Co. https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1020024/dedi-mulyadidiminta-rp-10-miliar-untuk-pilkada-jawa-barat
Ayeni, O. O. (2019). Commodification of Politics: Party Funding and Electoral Contest in Nigeria. SAGE Open, 9(2), 215824401985585. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019855855
Azra, A. (2016, March 16). Mahar Politik, Politik Mahar (S. Gatra (ed.)). Kompas.Com. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2016/03/16/10594231/Mahar.Politik.Politik.Mahar
Bhawono, A. (2018, January 13). Prabowo: Rp 300 Miliar untuk Nyagub Itu Paket Hemat. DetikNews. https://news.detik.com/berita/d-3813301/prabowo-rp-300-miliar-untuk-nyagub-itu-paket-hemat
Chaniago, P. S. (2016). Evaluasi Pilkada Pelaksanaan Pilkada Serentak Tahun 2015. Politik Indonesia: Indonesian Political Science Review, 1(2), 196–211. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpi.v1i2.6585
CNN Indonesia. (2018, January 20). Tudingan Mahar Politik, Kemarin Gerindra & Hanura, Sekarang PKS? [Video File]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oku2y70zVtE
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
Dariyanto, E. (2018, April 13). Ketum PAN Sebut Biaya Saksi di Pilgub Jatim Capai Rp 200 Miliar. DetikNews. https://news.detik.com/berita/d-3969889/ketum-pan-sebut-biaya-saksi-di-pilgub-jatim-capai-rp-200-miliar
Gabrillin, A. (2015, July 28). Diminta “Mahar” Politik, Sebastian Salang Batal Jadi Calon Bupati (S. Gatra (ed.)). Kompas.Com. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2015/07/28/16183391/Diminta.Mahar.Politik.Sebastian.Salang.Batal.Jadi.Calon.Bupati
Gunawan, W. (2018). Anomali Kewenangan Dewan Pimpinan Pusat Partai Politik dalam Sistem Desentralisasi Pemerintahan di Indonesia. Jurnal Academia Praja, 1(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.36859/jap.v1i01.44
Hanafi, R. I. (2014). Pemilihan Langsung Kepala Daerah di Indonesia: Beberapa Catatan Kritis untuk Partai Politik. Jurnal Penelitian Politik, 11(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14203/jpp.v11i2.197
Hanif, H. (2009). Politik Klientelisme Baru dan Dilema Demokratisasi di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Ilmu Politik, 12(3), 257–390. https://doi.org/10.22146/jsp.10974
Harris, S. (2018). Regulasi “Mahar Politik” Perlukah?
Heidenheimer, A. J. (2007). Political Corruption: A Handbook. Transaction Publishers.
Hummel, C., Gerring, J., & Burt, T. (2019). Do Political Finance Reforms Reduce Corruption? British Journal of Political Science, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123419000358
Ihsanuddin. (2018, January 12). Waketum Gerindra Nilai Wajar jika La Nyalla Diminta Rp 40 Miliar oleh Prabowo (I. D. Wedhaswary (ed.)). Kompas.Com. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2018/01/12/10140391/waketum-gerindra-nilai-wajar-jika-la-nyalla-diminta-rp-40-miliar-oleh
Indrayana, D. (2017). Money Politics in a More Democratic Indonesia : An Overview. Australian Journal of Asian Law, 18(2), 1–15. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3144916
Irawan, A., Dahlan, A., Fariz, D., & Putri, A. G. (2014). Panduan Pemantauan Korupsi Pemilu. Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW).
Mardiansyah, W. (2018, January 17). Oesman : Parpol Biasa Ada Mahar Asal Tak Dipaksa. Medcom.Id. https://www.medcom.id/nasional/politik/GNGM6qlk-oesman-parpol-biasa-ada-mahar-asal-tak-dipaksa
Mietzner, M. (2015). Dysfunction by Design: Political Finance and Corruption in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 47(4), 587–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2015.1079991
Mladenovic, A. (2010). Electoral finance reform in New Zealand: a need for a conceptual framework. Policy Quarterly, 6(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.26686/pq.v6i1.4322
Monita, T., Lestari, A. A., & Yustikarini, H. D. (2018). Polemik Budaya Gratifikasi (Mahar Politik) dalam Implisit Penyelenggaraan Pesta Rakyat di Indonesia. Law Research Review Quarterly, 4(2).
Mulyadi, D. (2018). Concurrent Regional Elections Phenomenon as a Political Recruitment in Indonesia. Jurnal Dinamika Hukum, 18(1), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2018.18.1.843
Noor, F. A. (2011). The Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS) in the landscape of Indonesian Islamist Politics - Cadre-Training as Mode of Preventive Radicalisation? (No. 231; RSIS Working Paper).
Putra, E. V. (2017). Money Politics dalam Penyelenggaraan Pemilihan Umum di Kota Pariaman. SOCIUS, 4(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.24036/scs.v4i1.19
Qodir, Z. (2016). Politik Uang dalam Pemilu-Pemilukada 2014: Modus dan Resolusinya. Jurnal Administrasi Pemerintahan Daerah, 8(2), 39–54. http://ejournal.ipdn.ac.id/JAPD/article/view/82
Redjo, S. I. (2016). Pemilihan Kepala Daerah dan Wakil Kepala Daerah, Dinamika Demokrasi dan Partai Politik di Indonesia. Jurnal Agregasi, 4(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.34010/agregasi.v4i2.195
Shihab, N. (2018, February 21). Part 3 - Uang Haram Demokrasi: Miliaran Rupiah! Jual Beli Dukungan Partai Politik [Video File]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rJAjy1UtNE
Solihah, R. (2016). Politik Transaksional dalam Pilkada Serentak dan Implikasinya bagi Pemerintahan Daerah di Indonesia. The POLITICS: Jurnal Magister Ilmu Politik Universitas Hasanuddin, 2(1), 97–109. http://journal.unhas.ac.id/index.php/politics/article/view/1659
Susilo, A. B., & Sa’bani, A. (2018). Mahar Politik Sebagai Bagian dari Unsur Tindak Pidana. Law Research Review Quarterly, 4(2), 154–169.
Sutisna, A. (2017). Demokrasi Elektoral dan Pilkada Langsung: Tinjauan Teori dan Sisi Gelapnya. In S. Ladiqi, I. S. Wekke, & C. Seftyono (Eds.), Religion, State and Society: Exploration of Southeast Asia (1st ed., pp. 115–139). Political Science Program, Department of Politics and Civics Education, Universitas Negeri Semarang.
