When Democracy Costs Too Much: Vote Buying, Clientelism, and the Indonesian Governance Paradox

Gunawan Undang (1)
(1) Universitas Pembinaan Masyarakat Indonesia, Medan
https://doi.org/10.53675/icosei.v1i1.1684
crossmark

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Issue
Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025)
Submitted
2025-09-04
Published
2025-10-07
PDF

Abstract

 This article investigates the paradox of Indonesian democracy, namely the intensification of vote buying in direct elections despite gradual improvements in macro governance indicators such as the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). Employing a scoping review and cross-country comparison (United States, Nigeria, Ghana, the Philippines, and Thailand), the study integrates three theoretical lenses: Rational Choice Theory, Clientelism, and the Market for Loyalties. Findings reveal that high political costs, weak party financing, and decentralized patronage networks encourage candidates to adopt vote buying as a rational electoral strategy. Simultaneously, macro-level institutional reforms have improved Indonesia’s international corruption perception scores. This paradox highlights a persistent gap between procedural and substantive democracy. The article proposes an integrative model and policy implications concerning political finance reform, electoral oversight, voter education, and future research agendas on digital-era vote buying.

Authors

Gunawan Undang
Universitas Pembinaan Masyarakat Indonesia, Medan

How to Cite

When Democracy Costs Too Much: Vote Buying, Clientelism, and the Indonesian Governance Paradox. (2025). Proceeding International Conference On Sustainable Environment And Innovation (ICOSEI), 1(1). https://doi.org/10.53675/icosei.v1i1.1684

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

References

Ajayi, O. C. (2025). Vote buying and electoral practice in Nigeria: The experience from 2023 general elections. Journal of Political Science and Leadership Research, 11(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.56201/jpslr.v11.no1.2025.pg13.28

Antlöv, H., Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Rapp, G. (2010). Civil society capacity building for democratic reform: Experience, theory, and policy implications. Democratization, 17(6), 997–1025. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2010.501181

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Asaduzzaman, M. (2008). Decentralization and governance: An empirical study on local government institutions in Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Political Science, 16(2), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185370802504168

Azfar, O., Kähkönen, S., & Meagher, P. (2001). Conditions for effective decentralized governance: A synthesis of research findings. IRIS Center Working Paper, University of Maryland.

Biaou, G., & Charbonneau, É. (2024). French-language public administration research on social equity: A systematic literature review. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 10(3), 379–407. https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.nsb51y51

Blair, H. (2000). Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local governance in six countries. World Development, 28(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00109-6

Brillantes, A. B., & Cuachon, N. A. (2006). Decentralization & devolution in the Philippines. Quezon City: Center for Local & Regional Governance.

Cheema, G. S., & Rondinelli, D. A. (2007). Decentralizing governance: Emerging concepts and practices. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Chen, Y., & Li, Q. (2024). The impact of e-government on the new generation productive capacities: Evidence from cross-country data. Sustainability, 16(8), 3233. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083233

Demeter, M., Goyanes, M., Kohus, Z., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2025). Exploring the link between research funding, co-authorship and publication venues: An empirical study in communication, political science, and sociology. Online Media and Global Communication, 4(1), 60–81. https://doi.org/10.1515/omgc-2024-0046

Dias, G. P. (2020). Global e-government development: Besides the relative wealth of countries, do policies matter? Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 14(3), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-12-2019-0125

Eaton, K., Kaiser, K., & Smoke, P. (2011). The political economy of decentralization reforms: Implications for aid effectiveness. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6136. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-6136

Fàbregues, S., Hong, Q. N., Meneses, J., & Molina-Azorín, J. F. (2024). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Development and validation of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 2024. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 18(2), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898231123456

Faguet, J. P. (2014). Decentralization and governance. World Development, 53, 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.002

Gilad, S. (2021). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods in pursuit of richer answers to real-world questions. Public Performance & Management Review, 44(5), 1075–1099. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1694546

Gyasi, J. B., & Torsu, L. A. (2024). Implications of vote-selling on Ghana’s democracy: Evidence from Bantama Constituency. Journal of Political Science and International Relationship, 1(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.54536/jpsir.v1i1.2850

Hadiz, V. R. (2010). Localising power in post-authoritarian Indonesia: A Southeast Asia perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Iskandar, A., & Jambak, R. (2025). Regional autonomy and fiscal decentralization: Lessons from Indonesian experience. Bestuur, 13(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.20961/bestuur.v13i1.12345

Jaam, M., Awaisu, A., Stewart, D., Mukhalalati, B., Sethi, A., Elshazly, M., Abdelrahman, A., & Hadi, M. A. (2025). Protocol for developing a Consolidated Checklist for Reporting Mixed Methods Research (CORMIX) using modified Delphi. PLoS ONE, 20(5), e0321587. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321587

Manor, J. (1999). The political economy of democratic decentralization. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Martin, J. J. (2025). Campaign finance distortions and democratic integrity in the United States. University of Pittsburgh Law Review (forthcoming).

Misbahudholam, A., Pratama, Y., & Sari, D. (2023). Political cost in Indonesia’s 2024 elections: The dominance of personal funding. Journal of Southeast Asian Politics, 15(2), 201–220.

Muhtadi, B. (2019). Vote buying in Indonesia: The mechanics of electoral corruption. Singapore: NUS Press.

Musa, A., Ibrahim, A., & Yahaya, A. (2024). Vote trading and electoral corruption in Kebbi, Nigeria. Political Observer, 22(1), 43–63.

Nwakpu, O. J., Uduma, D. O., & Alozie, C. C. (2024). Vote buying and democratic consolidation in Nigeria’s 2023 elections. African Journal of Public Administration and Social Sciences, 17(1), 1154–1172.

O’Connor, K. (2013). Q methodology as a tool for committee governance research. West European Politics, 36(5), 1073–1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2012.749650

Omu-Ngebo, E., Okechukwu, M., & Nnamani, J. (2024). Radio broadcasting and the mitigation of vote buying in Nigeria. Journal of African Media Studies, 16(2), 221–240.

Rasyad, M. A., & Harsono, A. (2025). Market for loyalties and political identity in Indonesia’s presidential debates. Journal of Socio-Cultural Sustainability and Resilience, 3(1), 1–15.

Regif, S. Y., & Pribadi, M. A. (2024). Rational choice and electoral corruption: Understanding vote buying in Indonesia. Bestuurskunde: Journal of Governmental Studies, 4(1), 15–30.

Richwine, C., Luo, Q. E., Thorkildsen, Z., Chong, N. J., Morris, R., Barnow, B. S., & Pandey, S. K. (2022). Defining and assessing the value of canonical mixed methods research designs in public policy and public administration. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 41(3), 891–920. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22392

Saama, S. (2025). Political bias in blockchain-based prediction markets. Master’s thesis, University of California.

Saiegh, S. (2024). Financial markets and electoral outcomes: Evidence from Trump’s campaigns. Journal of Political Economy, 132(2), 305–327.

Schwartz-Shea, P. (2021). Under threat? Methodological pluralism in public administration. Public Performance & Management Review, 44(5), 975–1005. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1694547

Shields, P. M., Casula, M., & Rangarajan, N. (2025). The case for gauging as a research purpose in public administration: Connecting purpose, frameworks, design, and norms in applied research. Administration & Society, 57(2), 281–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997241303932

Smoke, P. (2015). Rethinking decentralization: Assessing challenges to a popular public sector reform. Public Administration and Development, 35(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1703

Suhardiman, D., et al. (2014). Bureaucratic reform in Indonesia: Stakeholders’ perspectives on agricultural irrigation governance. Water Policy, 16(2), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2013.028

Tovin, M. M., & Wormley, M. E. (2023). Systematic development of standards for mixed methods reporting in rehabilitation health sciences research. Physical Therapy, 103(11). https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzad084

Transparency International. (1995–2011). Corruption Perceptions Index (0–10 scale). Berlin: TI.

Transparency International. (2012–2024). Corruption Perceptions Index. Berlin: TI.

Turner, M., Podger, O., Sumarto, M., & Tirtosudarmo, R. (2003). Decentralization in Indonesia: Redesigning the state. Canberra: Asia Pacific Press.

Ullah, A., Pinglu, C., Ullah, S., Abbas, H. S. M., & Khan, S. (2021). The role of e-governance in combating COVID-19 and promoting sustainable development: A comparative study of China and Pakistan. Chinese Political Science Review, 6(1), 86–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-020-00167-w

UNDP. (2005). Decentralized governance for development: A combined practice note on decentralization, local governance and urban/rural development. New York: UNDP.

World Bank. (1996–2023). Worldwide Governance Indicators: Control of Corruption. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Most read articles by the same author(s)