Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Democracy Disrupted: High Political Costs, Transactional Politic, and Corruption


High political costs have had implications for the degradation of democratic values ??which has caused democratic disruption to occur. This research aims to see the disruption of democracy in Indonesia that occurs in the phenomenon of high political costs, and how possible solutions can be offered. This research used a qualitative approach, with the library research method. The research results show that high political costs are the beginning of a transactional political and corruption phenomenon occurs. High political costs result in figures/candidates using various illegal methods to find sources of financing to fulfill political costs. High political costs and a process based on the logic of the power of financial, tends to open space for the birth of figures/candidates who are far from the values ??of integrity and quality through their ideas/performance. As an important momentum towards a future era of democracy that is more substantive, quality and dignified, several solutions that can be offered, namely: (1) Political parties and the government encourage the optimization of legal sources of political party funding assistance, both in cash and for future considerations through non-cash (in-kind) options, by providing strengthening aspects of accountability and transparency; (2) the government and election organizers strengthen the enforcement of regulations, supervision and strict sanctions, in political party funding; (3) political parties encourage the presence of figures/candidates who have integrity and quality values ??through their ideas/performance; (4) the government and election organizers can consider implementing digital democracy through e-voting in future elections in Indonesia.


Democracy, High Political Costs, Transactional Politic, Corruption



  1. Avis, E., Ferraz, C., Finan, F., & Varjão, C. (2022). Money and politics: The effects of campaign spending limits on political entry and competition. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 14(4), 167-199.
  2. Aspinall, E. (2014). When brokers betray: Clientelism, social networks, and electoral politics in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 46(4), 545-570.
  3. Aspinall, E., & Sukmajati, M. (2015). Politik Uang di Indonesia: Patronase dan Klientelism pada Pemilu Legislatif 2014.
  4. Aspinall, E., & Sukmajati, M. (2016). Electoral Dynamics in Indonesia: Money Politics, Patronage and Clientelism at the Grassroots. NUS Press - National University of Singapore.
  5. Aspinall, E., & Berenschot, W. (2019). Democracy for sale: Elections, Clientelism, and the State in Indonesia. Cornell University Press.
  6. Agustino, L., Hikmawan, M. D., & Silas, J. (2023). Regional head elections, high-cost politics, and corruption in Indonesia. Otoritas: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan, 13(1), 44-59.
  7. Bettiza, G., & Lewis, D. (2020). Authoritarian powers and norm contestation in the liberal international order: Theorizing the power politics of ideas and identity. Journal of Global Security Studies, 5(4), 559-577.
  8. Bawaslu RI. (2019). Asersi Atas Laporan Penerimaan dan Pengeluaran Dana Kampanye. (LPPDK 1-6 Tim Kampanye Nasional Jokowi-Ma’ruf).
  9. Bawaslu RI. (2019). Asersi Atas Laporan Penerimaan dan Pengeluaran Dana Kampanye. (LPPDK 1-6 Badan Pemenangan Nasional Prabowo-Sandiaga).
  10. Bawaslu RI. (2022). Bawaslu Soroti Potensi Politik Transaksional Saat Kampanye.
  11. CNBC Indonesia. (2019). Jadi Gubernur Butuh Rp100 M, Tapi Harta Cagub ‘Cuma’ Rp 21 M.
  12. CNN Indonesia. (2021). Tito Karnavian Cari Sistem Politik Pilkada Tanpa Ongkos Mahal.
  13. Congge, U., Guillamón, M. D., Nurmandi, A., & Sihidi, I. T. (2023). Digital democracy: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Political Science, 5, 972802.
  14. Deutscher Bundestag. (2020). Bekanntmachung von Rechenschaftsberichten politischer Parteien fu?r das Kalenderjahr 2018 (1. Teil – Bundestagsparteien, Band II). Drucksache 19/16760.
  15. Goodman, N., & Stokes, L. (2020). Reducing the Cost of Voting: An Evaluation of Internet Voting’s Effect on Turnout. British Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 1155-1167.
  16. Hicken, A., Aspinall, E., & Weiss, M. (Eds.). (2019). Electoral Dynamics in the Philippines: Money Politics, Patronage and Clientelism at the Grassroots. NUS Press.
  17. Hayati, M., & Noor, R. S. (2020). Korelasi Pilkada Langsung Dan Korupsi Di Indonesia. Morality: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 6(2), 102-115.
  18. Hamada, Y., & Agrawal, K. (2021). Political Party Finance Reform in Southeast-Asia. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA).
  19. Hennen, L., Van Keulen, I., Korthagen, I., Aichholzer, G., Lindner, R., & Nielsen, R. Ø. (2020). European e-democracy in practice (p. 359). Springer Nature.
  20. Khoa, B. T., Hung, B. P., & Hejsalem-Brahmi, M. (2023). Qualitative research in social sciences: data collection, data analysis and report writing. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management, 12(1-2), 187-209.
  21. Kompas. (2019). Kemendagri: Paslon Bisa Keluarkan Dana Rp 25-30 Miliar Saat Pilkada.
  22. Kompas. (2020). Cegah Biaya Politik Tinggi, Tito Kembali Usulkan E-Voting di Pemilu 2024.
  23. Kapur, D., & Vaishnav, M. (Eds.). (2018). Costs of democracy: Political finance in India. Oxford University Press.
  24. Keputusan Komisi Pemilihan Umum Republik Indonesia Nomor: 535/Kpts/KPU/Tahun 2014 Tentang Penetapan Rekapitulasi Hasil Perhitungan Perolehan Suara dan Hasil Pemilihan Umum Presiden dan Wakil Presiden Tahun 2014.
  25. Keputusan Komisi Pemilihan Umum Republik Indonesia Nomor: 1185/PL.01.9-Kpt/06/KPU/VI/2019 Tentang Penetapan Pasangan Calon Presiden dan Wakil Presiden Terpilih dalam Pemilihan Umum Tahun 2019.
  26. Ibadurrahman, I. (2021). Implementasi dan Dampak Politik Transaksional (Mahar Politik) Dalam Pilkada Terhadap Pembangunan di Daerah. Lex Renaissance, 6(4), 770-780.
  27. Kemenko Polhukam. (2022). Problematika Pendanaan Partai Politik dan Politik Berbiaya Mahal.
  28. Morlino, L. (2019). Democratic Consolidation. The Handbook of Political, Social, and Economic Transformation, 459-464.
  29. Muhtadi, B. (2019). Vote buying in Indonesia: The mechanics of electoral bribery (p. 318). Springer Nature.
  30. Marlow, C. R. (2023). Research Methods for Generalist Social Work. Waveland Press.|Research%20methods%20for%20generalist%20social%20work
  31. Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 129-132.
  32. Perludem. (2020). Mempertimbangkan Ulang Wacana Penggunaan E-Voting.
  33. Schedler, A. (2001). Measuring Democratic Consolidation. Studies in comparative international development, 36(1).
  34. Sorensen, L. (2020). Disrupting democracy: Democratization conflicts as performative struggles. Media, War & Conflict, 13(1), 8–26.
  35. Solekha, R. R., Wantu, F., & Tijow, L. (2020). Penegakan Hukum Terhadap Tindak Pidana Money Politic Oleh Calon Anggota Legislatif Pada Pemilihan Umum 2019. Jurnal Legalitas, 13(01), 51-69.
  36. Satria, H. (2019). Politik Hukum Tindak Pidana Politik Uang dalam Pemilihan Umum di Indonesia. Integritas: Jurnal Antikorupsi, 5(1), 1-14.
  37. Satriawan, B. H., & Purwaningsih, T. (2021). Political Marketing Prabowo Subianto and Sandiaga Salahuddin Uno in the 2019 Presidential Election. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, 25(2), 127-143.
  38. Stoica, M., & Ghilic-Micu, B. (2016). E-Voting Solutions for Digital Democracy in Knowledge Society. Informatica Economica, 20(3).
  39. Sukmajati, M., & Disyacitta, F. (2019). Pendanaan Kampanye di Pemilu Serentak 2019 di Indonesia: Penguatan Demokrasi Patronase?. Integritas : Jurnal Antikorupsi, 5(1), 75–95.
  40. Tang, W., Yang, W., Tian, X., & Yuan, S. (2023). Distributed Anonymous e-Voting Method Based on Smart Contract Authentication. Electronics, 12(9), 1968.
  41. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). (2022). Democracy Index 2022.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...