Beralih ke menu navigasi utama Beralih ke bagian utama Beralih ke bagian footer website

Vol 4 No 1 (2024)
High Political Costs: Causes and Effects of High Election Costs in Indonesia

Artikel

Analisis Akuntabilitas Partai Politik dan Bantuan Keuangan dalam Konteks Demokrasi Indonesia

https://doi.org/10.53013/bestuurskunde.4.1.73-86

Diterbitkan 2024-04-03

  • Muhammad Yamin
    • ,
  • Slamet Rosyadi
    • ,
  • Agus Ganjar Runtiko
    • ,
  • Denok Kurniasih
    • ,
  • Shadu Satwika Wijaya
    • ,
  • Arif Darmawan
    • ,
  • Darmanto Sahat Satyawan
    • ,
  • Wahyuningrat
    • ,
  • Alizar Isna
    • ,
  • Adhi Iman Sulaiman
    • ,
  • Wiwik Novianti

Muhammad Yamin
Universitas Jenderal Soedirman

Slamet Rosyadi


Agus Ganjar Runtiko


Denok Kurniasih


Shadu Satwika Wijaya


Arif Darmawan


Darmanto Sahat Satyawan


Wahyuningrat


Alizar Isna


Adhi Iman Sulaiman


Wiwik Novianti


Abstrak

Di era kontemporer yang ditandai dengan globalisasi dan kemajuan demokrasi yang pesat, Indonesia menghadapi tantangan tersendiri terkait dengan meningkatnya biaya politik. Artikel ini menggunakan metodologi penelitian kualitatif untuk mengkaji dampak peningkatan biaya politik terhadap dinamika demokrasi Indonesia, khususnya terkait akuntabilitas dan dukungan finansial bagi partai politik. Temuan-temuan utama menunjukkan bahwa penyediaan bantuan keuangan kepada partai politik di Indonesia belum cukup mengatasi tantangan-tantangan yang mungkin dihadapi demokrasi Indonesia. Sebaliknya, partai politik masih menghadapi tantangan terkait pembentukan mekanisme akuntabilitas atas dana yang diperolehnya. Pemberian bantuan keuangan mungkin dianggap sebagai pendekatan yang layak untuk mengurangi beban keuangan yang terkait dengan kampanye politik. Namun, jika tidak ada mekanisme yang memadai untuk menjamin transparansi dan tanggung jawab, terdapat kemungkinan meningkatnya korupsi dan kekhawatiran mengenai cakupan pendanaan. Artikel ini lebih lanjut menekankan pentingnya pendidikan politik sebagai kewajiban mendasar partai politik dalam rangka menegakkan efektivitas demokrasi. Kajian ini memberikan penekanan khusus pada dampak pemberian bantuan keuangan kepada partai politik bagi masa depan demokrasi Indonesia. Untuk memastikan kemajuan demokrasi di Indonesia dan mewujudkan visi “Indonesia Emas 2045”, para pemangku kepentingan harus memiliki pemahaman yang komprehensif tentang masalah ini dan secara efektif mengatasi hambatan yang timbul dari biaya politik yang besar. Artikel ini menyajikan saran-saran yang bertujuan untuk meningkatkan akuntabilitas dan transparansi dalam pemberian bantuan keuangan kepada partai politik, serta mengusulkan langkah-langkah tambahan untuk mencegah biaya politik menghambat kemajuan demokrasi di Indonesia.

Kata Kunci

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

PDF (English)

Referensi

  1. Aditya, N. R., & Santosa, B. (2023). PDI-P Terima Bantuan Dana Parpol dari Pemerintah Senilai Rp 28 Miliar. Kompas. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2023/07/31/20132931/pdi-p-terima-bantuan-dana-parpol-dari-pemerintah-senilai-rp-28-miliar.
  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.). https://doi.org/10.2307/30036021
  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). https://doi.org/10.2307/2657380
  4. Anggrainy, F. C. (2023). Golkar: Politik Uang Tak Hanya Pemilu, tapi Juga Pemilihan Kepala Desa. Detiknews. https://news.detik.com/pemilu/d-6469148/golkar-politik-uang-tak-hanya-pemilu-tapi-juga-pemilihan-kepala-desa.
  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). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.01988.x
  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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-015-9563-9
  8. Bubandt, N. (2014). Menuju Sebuah Politik Tradisi Yang Baru? Desentralisasi, Konflik, dan Adat di Wilayah Indonesia Timur. Antropologi Indonesia, 0(74). https://doi.org/10.7454/ai.v0i74.3507
  9. Burden, B. C. (2004). Candidate Positioning in US Congressional Elections. British Journal of Political Science, 34(2). https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712340400002X
  10. Carlson, M. (2012). Financing democracy in Japan: The allocation and consequences of government subsidies to political parties. Party Politics, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068810380086
  11. Casal Bértoa, F., & Spirova, M. (2019). Parties between thresholds: State subsidies and party behaviour in post-communist democracies. Party Politics, 25(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068817710221
  12. Catterberg, G. (2006). The Individual Bases of Political Trust: Trends in New and Established Democracies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh081
  13. Cnnindonesia. (2023). UU Pilkada: Sumbangan Kampanye Perorangan Rp75 Juta, Swasta Rp750 juta. Cnnindonesia. https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20230213091731-617-912230/uu-pilkada-sumbangan-kampanye-perorangan-rp75-juta-swasta-rp750-juta.
  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). https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900407
  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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.04.014
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2018.10.003
  18. Febriyan. (2023). Survei Indikator Politik Indonesia, Partai Politik dan DPR Lembaga Yang Paling Tidak Dipercayai Masyarakat. Tempo. https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1720314/survei-indikator-politik-indonesia-partai-politik-dan-dpr-lembaga-yang-paling-tidak-dipercayai-masyarakat.
  19. Gordon, S. C., & Hafer, C. (2005). Flexing muscle: Corporate political expenditures as signals to the bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 99(2). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051634
  20. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2012). Linking transparency, knowledge and citizen trust in government: An experiment. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311429667
  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). https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edp042
  22. Haryanto, H. (2016). Kebangkitan Party ID: Analisis Perilaku Memilih dalam Politik Lokal di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Ilmu Politik, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.22146/jsp.13082
  23. Hawley, W. D. (1971). Political Education and School Organization. Theory Into Practice, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.1080/00405847109542354
  24. Hermawan, A. A. (2014). PERSEPSI PEMUDA TERHADAP PARTAI POLITIK NASIONALPESERTA PEMILU 2014 DAN IMPLIKASINYA TERHADAPKETAHANAN POLITIK WILAYAH (Studi Pada KNPI Provinsi Banten). Jurnal Ketahanan Nasional, 20(3), 1–13.
  25. Ignazi, P. (2014). Power and the (il)legitimacy of political parties: An unavoidable paradox of contemporary democracy? Party Politics, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068813519970
  26. Jerit, J., Barabas, J., & Bolsen, T. (2006). Citizens, knowledge, and the information environment. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00183.x
  27. Khlif, H., & Amara, I. (2019). Political connections, corruption and tax evasion: a cross-country investigation. Journal of Financial Crime, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-01-2018-0004
  28. Kleer, R. (2010). Government R&D subsidies as a signal for private investors. Research Policy, 39(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.08.001
  29. Ko?czy?ska, M. (2020). Democratic values, education, and political trust. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 61(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715220909881
  30. Le, K., & Nguyen, M. (2021). Education and political engagement. International Journal of Educational Development, 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102441
  31. Lipcean, S., & McMenamin, I. (2023). Rethinking public funding of parties and corruption: Confronting theoretical complexity and challenging measurement. Governance, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12782
  32. Mantalean, V., & Stuningsih, N. (2023). KPU Akui Politik Uang Jadi PR untuk Pemilu 2024, Ungkit Fenomena Klientelisme. Kompas. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2023/01/19/16023181/kpu-akui-politik-uang-jadi-pr-untuk-pemilu-2024-ungkit-fenomena-klientelisme.
  33. Martin, G. J., & Peskowitz, Z. (2018). Agency problems in political campaigns: Media buying and consulting. American Political Science Review, 112(2). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000594
  34. Mietzner, M. (2007). Party financing in post-soeharto indonesia: Between state subsidies and political corruption. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.1355/cs29-2b
  35. Mietzner, M. (2008). Soldiers, parties and bureaucrats: Illicit fund-raising in contemporary Indonesia. South East Asia Research, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.5367/000000008785260446
  36. Muhtadi, B., & Warburton, E. (2020). Inequality and democratic support in Indonesia. Pacific Affairs, 93(1). https://doi.org/10.5509/202093131
  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). https://doi.org/10.24815/jdab.v3i2.5389
  38. Nurfaizah, A. (2023). Saatnya Mengawasi Aliran Dana Kampanye. Kompas. https://www.kompas.id/baca/polhuk/2023/03/18/momen-tepat-kawal-keterbukaan-aliran-dana-pemilu
  39. Ortiz, D. R. (1998). The Democratic Paradox of Campaign Finance Reform. Stanford Law Review, 50(3). https://doi.org/10.2307/1229326
  40. Pierre, J., Svåsand, L., & Widfeldt, A. (2000). State subsidies to political parties: Confronting rhetoric with reality. West European Politics, 23(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380008425381
  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). https://doi.org/10.1080/00074918.2015.1129051
  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). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-03-2018-0073
  43. Quintelier, E. (2010). The effect of schools on political participation: A multilevel logistic analysis. Research Papers in Education, 25(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520802524810
  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). https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068808093405
  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. https://news.detik.com/pemilu/d-6597381/ahy-kemunduran-demokrasi-di-ri-akibat-politik-uang-identitas-merajalela.
  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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.11.016
  48. Ridlwan, Z. (2016). Cita Demokrasi Indonesia dalam Politik Hukum Pengawasan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat terhadap Pemerintah. Jurnal Konstitusi, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1226
  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)). https://doi.org/10.31435/rsglobal_wos/31012019/6321
  50. Roper, S. (2007). The differential impact of state finance on the Romanian party system. Europe - Asia Studies, 59(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/09668130601072720
  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). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12088
  52. Sengupta, B. (2011). Provision of public goods in a federal economy: The role of party politics. European Journal of Political Economy, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2010.04.005
  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). https://doi.org/10.35591/wahana.v22i2.186
  55. Shin, J. H. (2015). Voter demands for patronage: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of East Asian Studies, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1598240800004197
  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). https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380108425463
  57. Soliman, H., & Cable, S. (2011). Sinking under the weight of corruption: Neoliberal reform, political accountability and justice. Current Sociology, 59(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392111419748
  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. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2022/09/16/16322841/kemendagri-usulkan-dana-bantuan-parpol-rp-3000-per-suara-pada-2023.
  60. Sztompka, P. (1998). Trust, distrust and two paradoxes of democracy. European Journal of Social Theory, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/136843198001001003
  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). https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383042000198558
  62. Warner, C. M. (1997). Political parties and the opportunity costs of patronage. Party Politics, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068897003004005
  63. Wiborg, S. (2013). Neo-liberalism and universal state education: The cases of Denmark, Norway and Sweden 1980-2011. Comparative Education, 49(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2012.700436
  64. Wille, A. (2010). Political-bureaucratic accountability in the EU commission: Modernising the executive. West European Politics, 33(5). https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2010.486137
  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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5850.2013.12021.x
  66. Wu, S., Li, B., Nie, Q., & Chen, C. (2017). Government expenditure, corruption and total factor productivity. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.043
  67. Zahariadis, N. (1997). Why State Subsidies? Evidence from European Community Countries, 1981-1986. International Studies Quarterly, 41(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2478.00045
  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). https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2006.0006

Unduhan

Data unduhan belum tersedia.

Metrik

Metrik sedang dimuat ...