Pilkada 2015 and Patronage Practice among Bureaucrat in West Kalimantan, Indonesia

Abstract

Majority studies on electoral dynamics in Indonesia are reinforce patronage as a pattern of relationships between candidates, winning team, and voters. One of winning team element which have little attention from scholars is bureaucrat. Although, normatively, bureaucrats are required to neutral in all type of general election, but in fact bureaucrats is very involved deeply in general elections. Based on empirical research in Sintang District and Ketapang District, West Kalimantan, Indonesia, we found that bureaucrats have a significant role as a winning team in pilkada (direct election for local leader). Patronage is a keyword to explain political relation between bureaucrats and candidate in pilkada. This situation was triggered by the fact that there are many candidates who have social background as civil servant and, consequently, have direct access to bureaucracy. Bureaucrats have high motivation to participate in pilkada as a broker due to protecting their vested interest. In our cases, the vested interest of bureaucrat is career stability which is promising additional personal revenue and social status. Consequently, staffing (circulation of position) within bureaucracy does not followed by auction mechanism (merit system), but following nepotism mechanism (spoil system). The winner of pilkada is socially pressured to accommodate all bureaucrats who has become their winning team. Finally, we discuss our finding and propose future agenda research to understanding this phenomenon.

The ephemeral nature of local political monopolies

“…Local incumbents have also tried to streamline local bureaucracies by promoting, demoting, and transferring local bureaucrats either before or after elections (Ngusmanto 2016) and to expand their electoral vehicle by spending excessive amounts of the local budget on administrative upkeep rather than service delivery (Sjahrir et al 2013). Finally, bureaucrats have tried to generate resources by selling posts in the local administration (Kristiansen and Ramli 2006).…”

An Overview of Research Trend on Merit System in Indonesia and International Practices: A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization

“…Of the 485 articles found, six of them discussed various aspects of the merit system in Indonesia, including leadership, especially female leaders at Indonesian universities (Sakhiyya & Locke, 2019;Wijaya Mulya & Sakhiyya, 2021); police corruption in Indonesia, and four other Asian countries (Quah, 2019); patronage practice of local head election in 2015 (Ngusmanto, 2016); horror film about people's beliefs that are unruly but seem meritocratic (Harvey, 2008); and organizational management model for civil servants (Febriansyah & Athory Ramdlany, 2016). Of these six articles, only one was published more than ten years, while the other five were published in the last ten years.…”

Hifz Al-Din (maintaining religion) and Hifz Al-Ummah (developing national integration): Resistance of Muslim youth to non-Muslim leader candidates in election

“…If the government is not careful in making policies related to beliefs and religions, it will increase the risk of conflict based on religion, especially in areas that have multiple ethnicities and religions (Elyta 2021;Ngusmanto 2016). Security will make people respect racial, ethnic, religious and political differences (Kristianus 2016;Kurtz 2008).…”