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

Vol 4 No 2 (2024)
High Political Costs: Causes and Effects of High Election Costs in Indonesia

Artikel

Trade-off Anak Adat Status as a High-cost of Political Transaction in Papua Local Elections

https://doi.org/10.53013/bestuurskunde.4.2.141-156

Diterbitkan 2024-10-01

  • Rosita Dewi
    • ,
  • Bondan Widyatmoko

Rosita Dewi
research Centre for Politics - BRIN

Bondan Widyatmoko


Abstrak

Currently, the political transaction through trade-off anak adat (customary child) status is wider applied in Papua local election. Benefiting from the direct elections, the elites competed for political power in the regions by mobilizing ethno-religious sentiments and utilizing money-politics. The voters, in return, behave as clients as they seek to gain material benefits from their preferred candidates in exchange for political loyalty. This condition caused the high-cost politics during the local election. Based on this problem, this paper attempts to analyze the hijacking of adat (customs) through trade-off anak adat status as a form of political transaction which impacted to high-cost politics. This study cultivates the theory of political transactions to analyze the political transaction in Papua local election especially in the gubernatorial election 2018 and election of DPRD (Regional Representative Council)’s member in 2019. This form of political transaction has caused the high-cost of local election in Papua, which is not only in the form of money, but also carried the social cultural high-cost impact. Of course, vote buying will make the candidates have to spend a lot of money. The trade-off of anak adat status from other than Papuan through buying and selling mechanism rather than using achievement and acknowledgement from the adat community would harm the Papuans. Moreover, this practice has brought detrimental destruction to the socio-cultural values of Papuan adat community. This study is qualitative research that use political approach to observe the local election processes in Papua. We used the criteria of credibility and confirmability to validate the data in our qualitative research.

Kata Kunci

Political Transaction, Adat, Anak Adat, Papua

PDF (English)

Referensi

  1. Albuquerque, C., & Werner, D. (1985). Political Patronage in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Current Anthropology, 26(1), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1086/203232
  2. Amin, M. (2021). The Culture of Transactional Politics in Indonesia’s Gubernatorial Elections Since Reformation. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 10, 845–858. https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2021.10.100
  3. Ananda, P. (2015, November 19). Pilkada Yahukimo Pakai Sistem Noken: Masyarakat Sipil Khawatir. Https://Www.Medcom.Id/Pilkada/News-Pilkada/MkMlGomb-Pilkada-Yahukimo-Pakai-Sistem-Noken-Masyarakat-Sipil-Khawatir,.
  4. Arifin, T., Hasan, I., & Kabir, R. (2020). Transactional and relational approaches to political connections and the cost of debt. Journal of Corporate Finance, 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101768
  5. As’ad, M. U., Zhyvko, Z., Boyko, O., & Ruda, I. (2021). Economization of Political Processes in Indonesia. Economics, Finance, and Management Review, 2, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.36690/2674-5208-2021-2-33
  6. Aspinall, E., & Hicken, A. (2020). Guns for hire and enduring machines: clientelism beyond parties in Indonesia and the Philippines. Democratization, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1590816
  7. Auyero, J., Lapegna, P., & Poma, F. P. (2009). Patronage politics and contentious collective action: A recursive relationship. Latin American Politics and Society, 51(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2009.00054.x
  8. Bawaslu. (2023). Indeks Kerawanan Pemilu dan Pemilihan Serentak 2024. Badan Pengawas Pemilu. https://www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/publikasi/BUKU IKP PEMILU DAN PEMILIHAN SERENTAK 2024-2.pdf
  9. Bawn, K., Cohen, M., Karol, D., Masket, S., Noel, H., & Zaller, J. (2012). A theory of political parties: Groups, policy demands and nominations in American politics. In Perspectives on Politics (Vol. 10, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592712001624
  10. BPS. (2024). Indeks Demokrasi Indonesia (IDI) Menurut Provinsi. Bps.Go.Id. https://jambi.bps.go.id/id/statistics-table/2/MTkyOSMy/-metode-baru-indeks-demokrasi-indonesia-idi-menurut-provinsi.html
  11. Brunner, J. A., Chen, J., Sun, C., & Zhou, N. (1990). The role of Guanxi in negotiations in the pacific basin. Journal of Global Marketing, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1300/J042v03n02_02
  12. Butler, G. (2015). Political economy, negotiations, power and empowerment. Journal of Australian Political Economy, 2015(75). https://search.informit.org/doi/epdf/10.3316/informit.347658108151227
  13. Chamidah, N., & Imawan, K. (2018). Measuring The Consistency Of Female Voters In The Practice Of Money Politics. JURNAL ILMU KOMUNIKASI, 2. https://doi.org/10.33005/jkom.v0i2.27
  14. Chaterine, R. N. & S. N. (2023, October 11). Polri Ungkap Ada 12 Wilayah Polda jadi Prioritas Pertama Karena Rawan pada Pemilu 2024. Https://Nasional.Kompas.Com/Read/2023/10/11/13473981/Polri-Ungkap-Ada-12-Wilayah-Polda-Jadi-Prioritas-Pertama-Karena-Rawan-Pada.
  15. Chong, D., Citrin, J., & Conley, P. (2001). When self-interest matters. Political Psychology, 22(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00253
  16. Dewi, R. (2017). Hijacking Adat Recognition Through the Establishment of New Customary Community Council in Papua, Indonesia. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.193
  17. Dewi, R. (2022a). “ The Uneasy Road to Peace: Papuanization and the Politics of Recognition. In O. Masaaki & J. Suryomenggolo (Eds.), Indonesia at the Crossroads: Transformation and Challenges (pp. 110–148). Kyoto University Press- Transpacific Press - UGM Press.
  18. Dewi, R. (2022b). The Implementation of Noken Election System in Papua, Indonesia: Could Noken as Election System Canalize Papua Conflict? Direct Democracy Practices at the Local Level.
  19. Dixit, A. (2003). Some Lessons from Transaction?Cost Politics for Less?Developed Countries. Economics & Politics, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0343.00118
  20. DPD. (2023). Otsus Berlaku di 4 DOB, Senator Filep: Pengisian Jabatan OPD Wajib Prioritaskan OAP. Dpd.Go.Id. https://dpd.go.id/daftar-berita/otsus-berlaku-di-4-dob-senator-filep-pengisian-jabatan-opd-wajib-prioritaskan-oap
  21. Embong, A. R. (2016). The Noisy Right and the Not-So-Silent Moderates: Democracy and All That in Malaysia. In Globalization and Democracy in Southeast Asia. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57654-5_3
  22. Fardian, M. I. (2021). Buying Voters: Money and Political Transaction in Legislative Elections. Journal of Contemporary Sociological Issues, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.19184/csi.v1i1.21508
  23. Funk, C. L. (2000). The Dual Influence of Self-Interest and Societal Interest in Public Opinion. Political Research Quarterly, 53(1), 37–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290005300102
  24. Habib, A., Muhammadi, A. H., & Jiang, H. (2017). Political Connections and Related Party Transactions: Evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Accounting, 52(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2017.01.004
  25. Hafid, I., & Prasetyo Nugroho, D. (2021). Penegakan Hukum Mahar Politik dalam Pilpres 2019 Ditinjau dari Politik Hukum Pidana. Jurnal Adhyasta Pemilu, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.55108/jap.v2i2.27
  26. Hilgers, T. (2012). Clientelism in everyday Latin American politics. In Clientelism in Everyday Latin American Politics. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137275998
  27. Hsu, F. L. K. (1943). Incentives to work in Primitive Communities. American Sociological Review, 8(6). https://doi.org/10.2307/2085223
  28. Hutchings, K., & Weir, D. (2006). Guanxi and Wasta: A Comparison. In Thunderbird International Business Review (Vol. 48, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.20090
  29. Larmour, P. (2012). Corruption and the Concept of Culture: Evidence from the Pacific Islands. In Corruption: Expanding the Focus. https://doi.org/10.22459/cef.09.2012.09
  30. Luo, Y. (2008). The changing Chinese culture and business behavior: The perspective of intertwinement between guanxi and corruption. International Business Review, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2008.02.002
  31. Mahsun, M., Elizabeth, M. Z., & Mufrikhah, S. (2021). Female Candidates, Islamic Women’s Organisations, and Clientelism in the 2019 Indonesian Elections. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 40(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1868103420988729
  32. Moosavi, L. (2019). Decolonising Criminology: Syed Hussein Alatas on Crimes of the Powerful. Critical Criminology, 27(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-018-9396-9
  33. Nell, G. L. (2017). Coordination and Collaboration: Agreement as a Criterion for Democratic Goodness. In The Driving Force of the Collective. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-46839-0_7
  34. Pasaribu, K. (2017). Tambal Sulam Sistem Noken. Perludem.
  35. Piattoni, S. (2012). Clientelism, Interests, and Democratic Representation. In Clientelism, Interests, and Democratic Representation. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139175340.010
  36. Power, T. P. (2018). Jokowi’s authoritarian turn and Indonesia’s democratic decline. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 54(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/00074918.2018.1549918
  37. Rapoport, A. Diekmann, A., & Franzen, A. (1995). Experiments with Social Traps III. Rationality and Society, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463195007003006
  38. Rizkika, H. L., Ummah, H., Raider, A. W., & Rahmawati, E. I. (2019). Banal Politik Transaksional Para Pemilih (Tinjauan Psikologis). Insight?: Jurnal Pemikiran Dan Penelitian Psikologi, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.32528/ins.v15i2.2094
  39. Safford, F., & Martz, J. D. (1998). The Politics of Clientelism: Democracy and the State in Colombia. The Hispanic American Historical Review, 78(2). https://doi.org/10.2307/2518151
  40. Samagita, H. (2023, February 10). “Politisi Non OAP Diingatkan Jangan Maju Sebagai Calon Gubernur/Wakil Gubernur PBD. Https://Teropongnews.Com/2023/02/Politisi-Non-Oap-Diingatkan-Jangan-Maju-Sebagai-Calon-Gubernur-Wakil-Gubernur-Pbd/.
  41. Schmitt, H. O. (1963). Economic Interest and Indonesian Politics Once Again. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1086/450041
  42. Suara Papua. (2023, March 28). Fenomena Jual-Beli Marga Papua: Telanjangi Diri Sebelum Punah. Https://Suarapapua.Com/2023/03/28/Fenomena-Jual-Beli-Marga-Papua-Telanjangi-Diri-Sebelum-Punah/.
  43. Sumartono, S. (2018). Budaya Politik dalam Masyarakat Pragmatis. Lugas Jurnal Komunikasi, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.31334/jl.v2i1.119
  44. Supatmi, S., Sutrisno, S., Saraswati, E., & Purnomosidhi, B. (2021). Abnormal related party transactions, political connection, and firm value: Evidence from indonesian firms. International Journal of Business and Society, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.33736/IJBS.3189.2021
  45. Timberman, D. G. (2019). Philippine Politics Under Duterte: A Midterm Assessment. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
  46. TSUI, A. S., & FARH, J.-L. L. (1997). Where Guanxi Matters. Work and Occupations, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888497024001005
  47. Twight, C. (1994). Political Transaction-Cost Manipulation. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692894006002003
  48. Ulum, M. B. (2020). Indonesian Democracy and Political Parties after Twenty Years of Reformation: A Contextual Analysis. Indonesia Law Review, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v10n1.577
  49. Umam, Moh. K., & Muchlisin, M. (2022). Kyai Pesantren dan Politik Uang dalam Pilkada Indonesia: Kedudukan Kyai dalam Bernegosiasi dengan Demokrasi Neoliberal. Resolusi: Jurnal Sosial Politik, 5(2), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.32699/resolusi.v5i2.2906
  50. Utama, A. (2018, June 27). “Pilgub Papua: Janji kesejahteraan dalam bayang-bayang kontak tembak dan konflik perebutan suara. Https://Www.Bbc.Com/Indonesia/Indonesia-44623771.
  51. Wikrama, Utama A. A. N. A. (2020). Politik Mahar Di Indonesia: Antara Ada dan Tiada. Jurnal Ilmiah Cakrawarti, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.47532/jic.v1i2.13
  52. Zhan, J. V. (2012). Filling the gap of formal institutions: The effects of Guanxi network on corruption in reform-era China. Crime, Law and Social Change, 58(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-012-9379-9

Unduhan

Data unduhan belum tersedia.

Metrik

Metrik sedang dimuat ...