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

Analysis of Political Party Accountability and Financial Assistance in the Context of Indonesian Democracy


In the contemporary era characterized by globalization and swift democratic progress, Indonesia encounters distinctive challenges of rising political expenses. This article utilizes qualitative research methodologies to examine the consequences of increasing political costs on the dynamics of Indonesian democracy, specifically concerning accountability and financial support for political parties. The main findings suggest that the financial assistance to political parties in Indonesia has not adequately tackled the forthcoming challenges that Indonesian democracy may encounter. In contrast, political parties persist in facing challenges in accountability mechanisms for the funds they acquire. The provision of financial aid may be perceived as a feasible approach to mitigate the financial burdens associated with political campaigns. However, in the absence of adequate mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability, there is a possibility of corruption and concerns regarding the scope of funding. This article further emphasizes the significance of political education as a fundamental obligation of political parties to uphold democratic efficacy. This study places particular emphasis on the ramifications of providing financial assistance to political parties for the future trajectory of Indonesian democracy. To ensure the continued progress of democracy in Indonesia and realize the “Golden Indonesia 2045” vision, stakeholders must possess a comprehensive comprehension of the matter and effectively tackle the obstacles that arise from the significant political expenses involved.


Indonesian Democracy, Political Education, Accountability, Financial Assistance for Political Parties



  1. Aditya, N. R., & Santosa, B. (2023). PDI-P Terima Bantuan Dana Parpol dari Pemerintah Senilai Rp 28 Miliar. Kompas.
  2. Alt, J. E., Lassen, D. D., & Rose, S. (2006). The causes of fiscal transparency: Evidence from the U.S. States. IMF Staff Papers, 53(SPEC. ISS.).
  3. Amenta, E., & Halfmann, D. (2000). Wage wars: Institutional politics, WPA wages, and the struggle for U.S. social policy. American Sociological Review, 65(4).
  4. Anggrainy, F. C. (2023). Golkar: Politik Uang Tak Hanya Pemilu, tapi Juga Pemilihan Kepala Desa. Detiknews.
  5. Badoh, I. Z. F., & Dahlan, A. (2010). KORUPSI PEMILU DI INDONESIA. Indonesia Corruption Watch.
  6. Benito, B., & Bastida, F. (2009). Budget transparency, fiscal performance, and political turnout: An international approach. Public Administration Review, 69(3).
  7. Benito, B., Guillamón, M. D., & Bastida, F. (2015). Determinants of urban political corruption in local governments. Crime, Law and Social Change, 63(3–4).
  8. Bubandt, N. (2014). Menuju Sebuah Politik Tradisi Yang Baru? Desentralisasi, Konflik, dan Adat di Wilayah Indonesia Timur. Antropologi Indonesia, 0(74).
  9. Burden, B. C. (2004). Candidate Positioning in US Congressional Elections. British Journal of Political Science, 34(2).
  10. Carlson, M. (2012). Financing democracy in Japan: The allocation and consequences of government subsidies to political parties. Party Politics, 18(3).
  11. Casal Bértoa, F., & Spirova, M. (2019). Parties between thresholds: State subsidies and party behaviour in post-communist democracies. Party Politics, 25(2).
  12. Catterberg, G. (2006). The Individual Bases of Political Trust: Trends in New and Established Democracies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(1).
  13. Cnnindonesia. (2023). UU Pilkada: Sumbangan Kampanye Perorangan Rp75 Juta, Swasta Rp750 juta. Cnnindonesia.
  14. Craig, S. C., Martinez, M. D., Gainous, J., & Kane, J. G. (2006). Winners, losers, and election context: Voter responses to the 2000 presidential election. Political Research Quarterly, 59(4).
  15. Dai, X., & Cheng, L. (2015). The effect of public subsidies on corporate R&D investment: An application of the generalized propensity score. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90(PB).
  16. Dian Purnama Anugerah and Yuniarti. (2010). Implementasi Prinsip Tranparansi dalam Good Corporate Governance melalui Peraturan Presiden (Perpres) No. 26 Tahun 2010 tentang Transparansi Pendapatan Negara Diperoleh dari Industri Ekstraktif. Yuridika, 25(1).
  17. Dillard, J., & Vinnari, E. (2019). Critical dialogical accountability: From accounting-based accountability to accountability-based accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 62.
  18. Febriyan. (2023). Survei Indikator Politik Indonesia, Partai Politik dan DPR Lembaga Yang Paling Tidak Dipercayai Masyarakat. Tempo.
  19. Gordon, S. C., & Hafer, C. (2005). Flexing muscle: Corporate political expenditures as signals to the bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 99(2).
  20. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2012). Linking transparency, knowledge and citizen trust in government: An experiment. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1).
  21. Hansen, K. M. (2009). Changing patterns in the impact of information on party choice in a multiparty system. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 21(4).
  22. Haryanto, H. (2016). Kebangkitan Party ID: Analisis Perilaku Memilih dalam Politik Lokal di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Ilmu Politik, 17(3).
  23. Hawley, W. D. (1971). Political Education and School Organization. Theory Into Practice, 10(5).
  25. Ignazi, P. (2014). Power and the (il)legitimacy of political parties: An unavoidable paradox of contemporary democracy? Party Politics, 20(2).
  26. Jerit, J., Barabas, J., & Bolsen, T. (2006). Citizens, knowledge, and the information environment. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2).
  27. Khlif, H., & Amara, I. (2019). Political connections, corruption and tax evasion: a cross-country investigation. Journal of Financial Crime, 26(2).
  28. Kleer, R. (2010). Government R&D subsidies as a signal for private investors. Research Policy, 39(10).
  29. Ko?czy?ska, M. (2020). Democratic values, education, and political trust. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 61(1).
  30. Le, K., & Nguyen, M. (2021). Education and political engagement. International Journal of Educational Development, 85.
  31. Lipcean, S., & McMenamin, I. (2023). Rethinking public funding of parties and corruption: Confronting theoretical complexity and challenging measurement. Governance, 1–23.
  32. Mantalean, V., & Stuningsih, N. (2023). KPU Akui Politik Uang Jadi PR untuk Pemilu 2024, Ungkit Fenomena Klientelisme. Kompas.
  33. Martin, G. J., & Peskowitz, Z. (2018). Agency problems in political campaigns: Media buying and consulting. American Political Science Review, 112(2).
  34. Mietzner, M. (2007). Party financing in post-soeharto indonesia: Between state subsidies and political corruption. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 29(2).
  35. Mietzner, M. (2008). Soldiers, parties and bureaucrats: Illicit fund-raising in contemporary Indonesia. South East Asia Research, 16(2).
  36. Muhtadi, B., & Warburton, E. (2020). Inequality and democratic support in Indonesia. Pacific Affairs, 93(1).
  37. Nosihana, A., & Yaya, R. (2016). Internet Financial Reporting dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya Pada Pemerintah Kota dan Kabupaten Di Indonesia. Jurnal Dinamika Akuntansi Dan Bisnis, 3(2).
  38. Nurfaizah, A. (2023). Saatnya Mengawasi Aliran Dana Kampanye. Kompas.
  39. Ortiz, D. R. (1998). The Democratic Paradox of Campaign Finance Reform. Stanford Law Review, 50(3).
  40. Pierre, J., Svåsand, L., & Widfeldt, A. (2000). State subsidies to political parties: Confronting rhetoric with reality. West European Politics, 23(3).
  41. Poczter, S., & Pepinsky, T. B. (2016). Authoritarian Legacies in Post–New Order Indonesia: Evidence from a New Dataset. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 52(1).
  42. Puron-Cid, G., Reddick, C. G., & Ganapati, S. (2019). Public value of online financial transparency: Financial sustainability and corruption of public officials in the US state governments. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(5).
  43. Quintelier, E. (2010). The effect of schools on political participation: A multilevel logistic analysis. Research Papers in Education, 25(2).
  44. Rahat, G., Hazan, R. Y., & Katz, R. S. (2008). Democracy and political parties: On the uneasy relationships between participation, competition and representation. Party Politics, 14(6).
  45. Rahma Bachtiar, F. (2014). PEMILU INDONESIA: KIBLAT NEGARA DEMOKRASI DARI BERBAGAI REFRESENTASI. Jurnal Politik Profetik, 3(1).
  46. Rahmawati, D. (2023). AHY: Kemunduran Demokrasi di RI Akibat Politik Uang-Identitas Merajalela. Detiknews.
  47. Rensburg, R., & Botha, E. (2014). Is Integrated Reporting the silver bullet of financial communication? A stakeholder perspective from South Africa. Public Relations Review, 40(2).
  48. Ridlwan, Z. (2016). Cita Demokrasi Indonesia dalam Politik Hukum Pengawasan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat terhadap Pemerintah. Jurnal Konstitusi, 12(2).
  49. Rodica Svetlicinâi, Mariana Ia?co, & Tatiana Turco. (2019). INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES IN THE FINANCING OF POLITICAL PARTIES (CASE STUDY OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA). International Academy Journal Web of Scholar, 2(1(31)).
  50. Roper, S. (2007). The differential impact of state finance on the Romanian party system. Europe - Asia Studies, 59(1).
  51. Russell Neuman, W., Guggenheim, L., Mo Jang, S., & Bae, S. Y. (2014). The Dynamics of Public Attention: Agenda-Setting Theory Meets Big Data. Journal of Communication, 64(2).
  52. Sengupta, B. (2011). Provision of public goods in a federal economy: The role of party politics. European Journal of Political Economy, 27(1).
  53. Setiawan, D., & Rizkiah, F. (2017). Political budget cycles in municipalities: Evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Business and Society, 18(3).
  54. Setyaningsih, T., Asrihapsari, A., & Setiawan, D. (2019). DANA BANTUAN KEUANGAN PARTAI POLITIK DI SURAKARTA, SUDAHKAH TRANSPARAN DAN AKUNTABEL? Wahana: Jurnal Ekonomi, Manajemen Dan Akuntansi, 22(2).
  55. Shin, J. H. (2015). Voter demands for patronage: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of East Asian Studies, 15(1).
  56. Sitter, N. (2001). The politics of opposition and European integration in Scandinavia: Is Euro-scepticism a government-opposition dynamic? West European Politics, 24(4).
  57. Soliman, H., & Cable, S. (2011). Sinking under the weight of corruption: Neoliberal reform, political accountability and justice. Current Sociology, 59(6).
  58. Susanto, M. (2017). Model Alternatif Pendanaan Partai Politik. Jurnal Kajian, 22(3).
  59. Syakirun, N., & Setuningsih, N. (2023). Kemendagri Usulkan Dana Bantuan Parpol Rp 3.000 Per Suara pada 2023. Kompas.
  60. Sztompka, P. (1998). Trust, distrust and two paradoxes of democracy. European Journal of Social Theory, 1(1).
  61. Telhaug, A. O., Mediås, O. A., & Aasen, P. (2004). From collectivism to individualism? education as nation building in a Scandinavian perspective. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 48(2).
  62. Warner, C. M. (1997). Political parties and the opportunity costs of patronage. Party Politics, 3(4).
  63. Wiborg, S. (2013). Neo-liberalism and universal state education: The cases of Denmark, Norway and Sweden 1980-2011. Comparative Education, 49(4).
  64. Wille, A. (2010). Political-bureaucratic accountability in the EU commission: Modernising the executive. West European Politics, 33(5).
  65. Williams, D. W., & Onochie, J. (2013). The rube goldberg machine of budget implementation, or is there a structural deficit in the new york city budget? Public Budgeting and Finance, 33(4), 1–21.
  66. Wu, S., Li, B., Nie, Q., & Chen, C. (2017). Government expenditure, corruption and total factor productivity. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168.
  67. Zahariadis, N. (1997). Why State Subsidies? Evidence from European Community Countries, 1981-1986. International Studies Quarterly, 41(2).
  68. Zielinski, J., Slomczynski, K. M., & Shabad, G. (2005). Electoral Control in New Democracies: The Perverse Incentives of Fluid Party Systems. World Politics, 57(3).


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...