Framing Issues of Ex-Prisoners, Vote Buying, and Winning Teams: Evidence from Pilkada of the Palangka Raya City

Anyualatha Haridison

doi:10.18196/jgpp.v8i3.11081

Framing Issues of Ex-Prisoners, Vote Buying, and Winning Teams: Evidence from Pilkada of the Palangka Raya City

Anyualatha Haridison

Abstract

This manuscript specifically explores the dynamics of the Pilkada of Palangka Raya City in 2018. As with the simultaneous regional elections in Indonesia in general, there are still problems related to the practice of vote buying, network of winning teams and strong patronage. This is a determining factor in a candidate's victory, even though he was once labeled a prisoner. We observed a phenomenon in the Pilkada of Palangka Raya City; that having high popularity and strong political clientelism cannot help a person that is labeled an ex-prisoner to attain victory. Our study is complemented by a case study approach with a holistic analysis method. We observed and interviewed key informants in order to obtain some data related to the theme. Results show that the ability of the winning candidate’s team to frame and counter frame the candidate as an ex-prisoner who gives cash to former fellow inmates, succeeded in helping the other candidate to win the Pilkada in the Palangka Raya City. We found that the implementation of the frame and counter frame theories was successful in the Pilkada context. This method of framing and counter framing is very effective in producing regional leaders with integrity and clean records and in instilling rationality in voters to reject corrupt leaders. Empirically, the limitations in framing these issues have not completely eliminated the pattern of giving money in politics.

Keywords

Framing Issues of ex-prisoners; Vote buying; Winning team; Palangka Raya

Full Text:

PDF

References

Aspinal, E., & Sukmajati, M. (2015). Politik Uang di Indoneia: Patronase dan Klientilisme pada Pemilu Legislatif 2014. In PolgGov UGM.

Aspinall, E. (2014a). Parliament and patronage. In Journal of Democracy (Vol. 25, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2014.0070

Aspinall, E. (2014b). When brokers betray: Clientelism, social networks, and electoral politics in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 46(4), 545–570.

Aspinall, E., & As’ ad, M. U. (2016). Understanding family politics: Successes and failures of political dynasties in regional Indonesia. South East Asia Research, 24(3), 420–435.

Aspinall, E., & As’ad, M. U. (2015). The patronage patchwork: Village brokerage networks and the power of the state in an Indonesian election. Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land-En Volkenkunde/Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, 171(2–3), 165–195.

Aspinall, E., Rohman, N., Hamdi, A. Z., Triantini, Z. E., & others. (2017). Vote buying in Indonesia: Candidate strategies, market logic and effectiveness. Journal of East Asian Studies, 17(1), 1–27.

Aspinall, E., & Sukmajati, M. (2015). Politik Uang di Indonesia: Patronase dan Klientelisme di Pemilu Legislatif 2014. In Polgov: Yogyakarta.

Badan Pusat Statistik. 2017. Kota Palangka Raya Dalam Angka.

BBC Indonesia. 2018. Pilkada 2018: Isu SARA diprediksi akan kembali panaskan tensi. (Online). Accessed at https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/indonesia-42602218. 11 Agustus 2018.

Borneonews. 2018. Mantan Napi Tipikor Aries M Narang Jabat Ketua Koni Kalteng. Accesses at https://www.borneonews.co.id/berita/29337-mantan-napi-tipikor-aries-m-narang-jabat-ketua-koni-kalteng. 25 Januari 2021

Borneonews. 2018. (Online). Accessed at https://www.borneonews.co.id/berita/95085-rusliansyah-rogas-pihak-kedua-bersepakat-teken-pakta-integritas-dengan-sabran-ahmad. 2 September 2018.

Boudreau, V. (2009). Elections, repression and authoritarian survival in post-transition Indonesia and the Philippines. The Pacific Review, 22(2), 233–253.

Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 637–655.

Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2008). Dynamic public opinion: Framing effects over time. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.

Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2011). Identifying frames in political news. Sourcebook for Political Communication Research: Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques, 238–267.

Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2013). Counterframing effects. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), 1–16.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (Second Edi). Sage Publication.

Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 729–745.

Dwiranda, I. F., & Anggoro, S. A. (2020). Kandidat Problematik dalam Pilkada Serentak 2015-2018: Celah Hukum Pilkada Hingga Pragmatisme Partai Politik. Jurnal Transformative, 6(2), 224–253.

Hicken, A. (2007). How do rules and institutions encourage vote buying? Elections for Sale: The Causes and Consequences of Vote Buying, 33, 60.

Hicken, A. (2011). Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 289–310.

Hutchcroft, P. D., & others. (2014). Linking capital and countryside: Patronage and clientelism in Japan, Thailand, and the Philippines. Clientelism, Social Policy, and the Quality of Democracy, 174–203.

Jerit, J. (2009). How predictive appeals affect policy opinions. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 411–426.

Juditha, C. (2014). Interpretation Black Campaign in Short Message Services at Election of Mayor Makassar 2013. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pengembangan Komunikasi Dan Informatika, 5(1), 122044.

Kalteng Pos. 2018. (Online). Accessed at http://www.kaltengpos.co.id/detail_berita/berita-459-fairid-umi_dapat_dukungan_pakuwojo_.html. Diakses tanggal 2 September 2018.

Kalteng Pos. 2018. (Online). Accessed at http://www.kaltengpos.co.id/detail_berita/berita-475-dara_kunjungi_tokoh_dayak.html. 2 September 2018.

Kalteng Pos. 2018. Accessed at http://kaltengpos.web.id/detail_berita/berita-2624-fairid-umi_mesti_didukung_ karena_berjuang_untuk_ rakyat.html. Accessed at 2 September 2018.

Keyim, P. (2018). Tourism Collaborative Governance and Rural Community Development in Finland: The Case of Vuonislahti. Journal of Travel Research, 57(4), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517701858

Klinken, G. Van. (2001). 4 . Indonesia ’ s New Ethnic Elites. East, 19.

Kompas. 29 Juni 2009. Biar Cerdas, Publik Justru Membutuhkan Kampanye Negatif. (Online). Accessed at https://bola.kompas.com/read/2009/. 06/29/12270027/biar.cerdas.publik.justru.membutuhkan.kampanye.negatif. 25 Agustus 2018.

KPU Kota Palangka Raya. 2018. Keputusan KPU Kota Palangka Raya tentang Hasil Rekapitulasi Penghitungan Suara. Palangka Raya: KPU.

Lay, C. (2012). Democratic transition in local Indonesia: An overview of ten years democracy. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Ilmu Politik, 15(3), 207–219.

Lecheler, S., & De Vreese, C. H. (2011). Getting real: The duration of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 959–983.

Leider, S., Möbius, M. M., Rosenblat, T., & Do, Q.-A. (2009). Directed altruism and enforced reciprocity in social networks. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4), 1815–1851.

Merdeka. 2018. (Online). Accessed at https://www.merdeka.com/politik/wiranto-disarankan-cari-jalan-tengah-polemik-eks-koruptor-dilarang-jadi-caleg.html. 18 Agustus 2018.

Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. N. (2005). Framing public discussion of gay civil unions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(2), 179–212.

Ravanilla, N., Haim, D., & Hicken, A. (2017). Brokers, social networks, reciprocity, and clientelism. Unpublished Working Paper.

Samadhi, W. P. (2016). Blok Politik Kesejahteraan: Merebut Kembali Demokrasi. Polgov.

Schaffer, F. C., & Schedler, A. (2002). What is vote buying? Empirical evidence. Typescript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Slothuus, R., & De Vreese, C. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. The Journal of Politics, 72(3), 630–645.

Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, 133–165.

Sobel, J. (2005). Interdependent preferences and reciprocity. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(2), 392–436.

Stokes, S. C., Dunning, T., Nazareno, M., & Brusco, V. (2013). Brokers, voters, and clientelism: The puzzle of distributive politics. Cambridge University Press.

Tabengan. 2018. CEPP Survei Kandidat Cawalkot dan Cawawalkot. (Online). Accessed at https://www.tabengan.com/bacaberita/4585/cepp-survei-kandidat-cawalkot-dan-cawawalkot/. 26 Agustus 2018.

Tawakkal, G. T. I., Damayanti, R., Subekti, T., Alfian, F., & Garner, A. D. (2020). Social networks and brokerage behavior in Indonesian elections: Evidence from Central Java. Asian Affairs: An American Review, 47(4), 227–244.

Tawakkal, G. T. I., Kistanto, N. H., Asy’ari, H., Pradhanawati, A., & Garner, A. D. (2017). Why Brokers Don’t Betray: Social Status and Brokerage Activity in Central Java. Asian Affairs: An American Review, 44(2), 52–68.

Tempo, 2018. Kasus Dugaan Mahar Politik Pilkada Palangka Raya dihentikan. (Online). Accessed at https://Pilkada.tempo.co/read/1057960/kasus-dugaan-mahar-politik-Pilkada-palangkaraya-dihentikan/full&view=ok. 6 Februari 2018

van Klinken, G. (2007). Communal Violence and Democratization in Indonesia: Small town wars. Routledge.

Wang, C.-S., & Kurzman, C. (2007). The logistics: How to buy votes. Elections for Sale: The Causes and Consequences of Vote Buying, 61–78.

Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of Case Study Research. Sage Publications, Inc.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18196/jgpp.v8i3.11081