Money politics burdens democratization<\/p>\n
Money Politics -- Pengaruh Uang Dalam Pemilu (Money Politics --
\nThe Effects of Money in Elections); By Indra Ismawan; Media Pressindo,
\nYogyakarta, April 1999; iv and 82 pages<\/p>\n
YOGYAKARTA (JP): Money used as a means to gain political power
\nis not a new practice. Nicolo Machiavelli once stated that any
\nway can be used to get power. \"The buck stops here\", said former
\nU.S. president Harry Truman. Even the president seat in U.S. can
\ncost US$70 million to $80 million.<\/p>\n
In Indonesia, the Lippogate\/Riadygate incident was a turning
\npoint for money politics discussions. Other cases which come to
\nmind are the abasement of Jamsostek (workers insurance) funds in
\nthe discussion of the Manpower Law; Golkar's congress; the
\nmassacre of dukun santet (suspected shamans) in East Java; and
\nthe mobilization of a militia.<\/p>\n
These are what Indra Ismawan mentions as the prologue to this
\nbook. The phenomena of money politics is like an iceberg. Why?
\nFrom the spreading discourse, money politics has not been
\nperfectly profiled. The demarcation line between money politics
\nand political financing is still very vague.<\/p>\n
Even Law No. 2\/1999 on political parties does not talk about
\nmoney politics. If there are rules about the source of a
\npolitical party's funds, what is discussed is the stream of the
\nfunds from the donor. Ismawan states that such rules are only
\neffective for the new parties, which are still mobilizing funds.
\nWhat about the established parties that are already rich? This
\ncondition gives the parties the opportunity to hand over funds to
\nthe voters in order to get the political benefit.<\/p>\n
There are different ideas about the meaning of money politics,
\nwhich makes it difficult for the public to judge the maneuver of
\nthe groups. On the other hand, it becomes easy for the political
\nactors to make justification. Ironically, the justification made
\nby a player of money politics is hard to verify, or at least to
\nclarify, to reveal the real substance of the problem.<\/p>\n
For a time, this problem will keep growing in a value system
\nwhich justifies the hidden practice of money politics. Hidden or
\nnot, money politics is a dangerous virus for democratization.<\/p>\n
Ismawan defines money politics as every effort or action plan
\nthat uses money with a political motive (every action that uses
\nmoney convertibility), in order to influence the receiver to do
\nor not to do some action for the sake of the giver.<\/p>\n
This transaction has the potential to raise a distortion to
\nthe pureness of political process and to blur the essence of
\ndemocracy.<\/p>\n
Money politics on a national scale is a reproduction of events
\nin a smaller and more limited scope. At the grass roots of
\ndemocratization, like the election of a village chief, money
\npolitics largely expands. As it happens all the time, it is
\nconsidered normal and people are no longer aware of its danger.<\/p>\n
Money politics which is committed institutionally rather than
\nindividually, is as dangerous as violent intimidation. It is even
\nmore systematic and well camouflaged.<\/p>\n
A floating-mass politics which eliminates individual loyalty
\nto a political party is a precondition of money politics.
\nCorruption as a social-cultural structure which has been well-
\ntended since the colonial era is also a significant precondition
\nof money politics. Thus, money politics is, indeed, inherent to
\nthe corruptive-culture.<\/p>\n
An increase in the \"absolute poverty number\" opens
\npossibilities to commit money politics. A rich party will play
\nSanta Claus to the poor and get community sympathy. The handover
\nof social safety net funds is presumed as a camouflage of money
\npolitics.<\/p>\n
According to the process, money politics in elections is
\ndivided into two fund streams. First, funds flow from donor to
\nparty. What often happens is that the donor, in return, demands
\nprivileges, consensus or any other economic benefit from the
\nparty.<\/p>\n
Second, funds flow from party to voters. The motive behind
\nthis is trading of voters' right.<\/p>\n
Loyalty and volatility of the party mass are also important
\nfactors to know whether money politics is increasing or
\ndecreasing. It is assumed that money politics cannot flourish in
\na loyal mass. In reverse, money politics will flourish in a
\nvolatile mass.<\/p>\n
What has been happening in Indonesia since 1998 is a turn from
\nloyalty to volatility of the mass. There is disequilibrium as a
\nresult of a growth of new parties. The effect which is instantly
\nseen is a decrease of traditional voters' loyalty. In such
\nconditions, a single majority no longer exists.<\/p>\n
When the money politics discussion is taken as a destructive
\npotency, there is an early warning. It comes from the fact that
\nthere is always a certain party that uses its power, including
\nmoney, to win the political competition.<\/p>\n
The danger of money politics can be eliminated through a
\nvoters' education program. This program can also create a group
\nof election monitors at the grass roots.<\/p>\n
Any action to eliminate money politics, in the long-term,
\nshould have a built-in corruption sweeping program. This is
\nrelated to the fact that money politics is always part of
\ncorruption, collusion and nepotism, which are inherited from the
\nNew Order.<\/p>\n
This book is five-chapter compilation of articles and columns.
\nDespite its unsystematic plot, the book could become a discourse
\nof education process related to the 1999 general election.<\/p>\n
-- Ag. Prih Adiartanto<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/money-politics-burdens-democratization-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }