In Indonesia, the art of winning elections can cost candidates an arm and a leg – or a kidney
- Polls are seen by some Indonesian voters as a ‘season of money’, as tens of thousands of candidates vie for spots in the house of representatives
- One legislative candidate’s revelation that he would sell his kidney to offer voters ‘tips’ underscores the extent of the illegal but increasingly commonplace practice
The electoral dynamics for legislative elections, particularly the practice of money politics – defined here as the exchange of material benefits (given to potential voters) for, or in the expectation of, receiving votes – has received less attention.
Erfin Sudanto, a legislative candidate in Bondowoso from the PAN party, recently caused a stir on social media when he revealed he intended to sell one of his kidneys to finance his campaign. He said he needed up to US$50,000, and that much of that sum would be spent on what he called “tips” to gain the support of potential voters.
Under Indonesian law, purchasing votes is illegal. Nevertheless, vote buying has become increasingly commonplace and is rarely dealt with by law enforcement. Some voters no longer see elections as windows of opportunity to express their political preferences but rather see them as a “season of money”.
Money politics has long been a part of Indonesian electoral politics, particularly in legislative elections, where tens of thousands of candidates compete for limited seats.
Many politicians lament the increased pressure on them to engage in vote-buying, claiming that such transactions have become part of everyday politics. They admit voters believe that whoever is elected will quickly forget their constituents after the election.
As Indonesian election nears, vote-buying remains a corrupting force
Before last month’s elections, many politicians and voters openly discussed vote-buying practices – terms such as “NPWP”, “golput” (spoiled vote or abstention) and berjuang (“struggle”) were widely circulated.
In ordinary usage, NPWP is the acronym for Indonesians’ tax filing numbers, but in the context of electoral speak, it stands for “nomer piro, wani piro”, which translates to “What [candidate] number are you, and how much do you dare to give [a voter to vote for you]?”
Golput in this context means “Golongan penerima uang tunai”, a phrase describing voters who are willing to vote if given cash (literally, “the group that receives cash”). Meanwhile, berjuang is used as an abbreviation for beras (rice), baju (clothes), and uang (money).
An exit poll conducted by pollster Indikator Politik among 2,975 voters found that 46.9 per cent of them considered money politics as “normal”. Some 49.6 per cent of respondents considered the practice unacceptable.
The survey found that women, young voters, those from the lower-middle class demographic and Muslim respondents were more inclined to consider vote-buying acceptable. Young Indonesians were more likely to agree with the practice because they were economically reliant on their parents and tended to be more politically non-committal.
Some studies suggest that under certain circumstances, women may be more susceptible to vote buying, for instance, if they have lower educational attainment and economic standing in comparison to men.
Meanwhile, lower-income and less-educated people are more likely to sell their votes because they are risk-averse and value a bag of goodies in hand today over the promise of redistributive government policies tomorrow. They discount future benefits because they are less certain about their futures.
From the perspective of the political elites, poor people’s votes are more ‘affordable’ to buy, as small amounts of money go further for them. Having a lower education also increases citizens’ susceptibility to vote buying because they are unaware that money politics can harm political representation.
From the perspective of the political elites, poor people’s votes are more ‘affordable’ to buy
Muslim voters may tend to normalise money politics, as numerous Muslim candidates and recipients have invoked religious justifications to accept vote buying. Many candidates cloaked their offerings in religious terminology, such as designating them as sedekah (alms).
Almsgiving is an important part of Islam. While true charitable giving is highly regarded, vote buying is justified as being done with good intentions to assist the poor. Those who buy votes hide behind a fiqh precept that states, “All actions are based on intentions”, claiming they truly want to give to charity. Consequently, these candidates’ cash recipients might not perceive the campaigning season handouts as ethically dubious.
03:09
Prabowo Subianto declares victory in Indonesian election as early counts give him 58% of votes
Compared to 2019, there has been a substantial surge in the proportion of Indonesians who deem vote buying permissible. Indikator’s 2019 post-election survey showed 32.1 per cent of respondents deemed this practice acceptable, while nearly half of respondents in this year’s survey held this view. Five years ago, 67.2 per cent of respondents deemed money politics as unacceptable, but in last month’s vote, this dropped to 49.6 per cent.
The recent exit polls revealed a strong link between citizens who tolerate vote buying and the practice of vote selling. For those who believed vote buying was acceptable, a follow-up question was: “Will you accept that money or gift?” The modal response was that they would accept money but vote according to their conscience (48.4 per cent), while 35.1 per cent would accept money and vote for that candidate.
Where more than one candidate offered money, 7.3 per cent would accept and vote for the one who gave more money; only 8 per cent would “not accept” any handout. This finding supports the perception that vote buying is an uncertain business.
Indonesia’s ‘anti-graft workshops’ will lead to more corruption, critics say
However, if vote buying is not a reliable strategy, why then do Indonesian legislative candidates invest so much in it?
In Indonesia, where candidates may require narrow margins to defeat co-partisans (that is, politicians from their own parties contesting the same seat) in a highly competitive open-list system, even small numbers of voters can be the deciding factor. Accordingly, numerous candidates actively pursue vote buying, as this could significantly alter the outcome of the election for them.
