Klientelisme sebagai Perilaku Koruptif dan Demokrasi Banal
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Clientelism or clientelist practices is still a part of Indonesia’s democracy, especially regarding electoral and local practices. Seeing clientelism as a corruptive behavior goes deep into its meaning, which is a two-way transaction, therefore in need of two-sided elucidation: supply and demand part. In this context, the demand that is continuously found in democratic practices is a logical consequence of the capacity lack of voters or citizen to control their representative and political figures. Especially to ensure that their welfare is a part of the political agenda. Specifically, there are two factors identified that make clientelism a logical consequence, which is unfulfilled rights as a citizen and the malfunctioning of political representation. Therefore, to respond to these corruptive and distortive phenomena, there are at least four strategies to implement. First, tighten and have more rigorous post-election programs implementation. Second, provide a local and socially-rooted mechanism and platform to control political figures. Third, reforming regulations on the patron-client relationship, especially in political/electoral momentum. Lastly, tighten the supervision of recess activities.
Keywords: Clientelism, Democracy, Well-Being, Corruptive Behavior, Recess
Article Details
References
Badan Pusat Statistik, ‘Indeks Pembangunan Manusia Menurut Kabupaten/Kota, 2017 (Metode Baru), https://www.bps.go.id/dynamictable/2018/04/16/1297/indeks-pembangunan-manusia-menurut-kabupaten-kota-2017-metode-baru-.html, 26 Maret 2019
Berenschot, W. 2018. The Political Economy of Clientelism: A Comparative Study of Indonesia’s Patronage Democracy, Comparative Political Studies, 00(0): 1-31.
Cho, H. Y. 2012. Democratization as De-monopolization and Its Different Trajectories: No Democratic Consolidation without De-monopolization, Asian Democracy Review 1: 4-35.
Gellner, E. & J. Waterbury, 1977. Patrons and Clients in Mediterranian Societies. Duckworth, London.
Hicken, A., 2011. Clientelism, Annual Review of Political Science 14: 289-310.
Keefer, P., 2005. Democratization and Clientelism: Why are Young Democracies Badly Govemed?, dalam World Bank Policy Research Paper.
Klinken, G. V. 2019. Patronage Democracy in Provincial Indonesia. O. Tornquist, N. Webster, & K. Stokke (Eds.). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Marshall, T. H. 1950. Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Morlino, L. 2004. What is a ‘Good’ Democracy?, Democratization 11(5): 10-32.
Muhtadi, B. 2013. Politik Uang dan Dinamika Elektoral di Indonesia: Sebuah Kajian Awal Interaksi Antara “Party-ID†dan Patron-Klien, Jurnal Penelitian Politik 10(1): 41-57.
Muno, W. 2010. Conceptualizing and measuring clientelism. Presented at workshop Neopatrimonialism in Various World Regions, GIGA, Hamburg.
Norris, P. 2012. Making Democratic Governance Work: How Regimes Shape Prosperity, Welfare, and Peace. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Putra, A., I. Silitonga, & T. Wardhani, 2014. Menuju Demokrasi Bermakna: Persoalan-Persoalan Perbaikan Representasi Politik di Indonesia. Demos, Jakarta.
Sen, A. 1999. Democracy as a Universal Value, Journal of Democracy 10(3): 3-17.
Spicker, P. 2008. The Substantive Element of Democracy, Int J Soc Welfare 17: 251-259.
Tarrow, S. 1967. Peasant Communism in Southern Italy. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Taylor, L., 2004. Clientship and Citizenship in Latin America, Bulletin of Latin American Research 23(2): 213-227.
Undang-undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2017 tentang Pemilihan Umum
Winters, J. A. 2016. Electoral Dynamics in Indonesia: Money Politics, Patronage and Clientelism at the Grassroots, Bulletin of Indonesia Economic Studies 52(3): 405-409.
Young, I. M., 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.