Clientelism Politics of Muslim Politician Who Became People’s Representatives

Mohammad Hidayaturrahman*  -  Universitas Wiraja Madura, Indonesia
Doli Witro    -  Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung, Indonesia
Ahmad Hasan Ubaid  -  Universitas Brawijaya Malang, Indonesia
Tamrin Tamrin  -  Universitas Andalas Padang, Indonesia
Anak Agung Sugiantiningsih  -  Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Sosial dan Politik Wira Bhakti Bali, Indonesia

(*) Corresponding Author

People’s representatives are elected through general elections to represent the people fighting for the people's interests and aspirations. However, in practice, muslim politician who became people's representatives often represent themselves and their groups rather than represent those who have chosen them. This research was conducted to reveal how muslim politician who became people's representatives' actions the correlation between clientelism politics in managing the budget function. This descriptive qualitative research method collects data through direct observation in the field and in-depth interviews with various informants related to the research. The theory used in this research is political clientelism theory. From the research results, muslim politician who became people's representatives fight for the community's aspirations to escort a grant program to community groups, social assistance, and empowerment. The program is directly related to the winning team and supporters of voters in the previous elections. The program is intended to maintain the people's voting base and the granary in the next election. This is how the people's representative uses the parliament's existence and potential for electoral interests. 


Keywords: Muslim Politician, Political Clientelism, People’s Representatives.

  1. Allen, Nathan W. 2015. Clientelism and the Personal Vote in Indonesia. Electoral Studies 37: 73–85.
  2. Ansell, Aaron. 2018. Clientelism, Elections, and the Dialectic of Numerical People in Northeast Brazil. Current Anthropology 59(S18): S128–37.
  3. Aspinall, Edward. 2010. The Irony of Success. Journal of Democracy 21(2): 20–34.
  4. Aspinall, Edward. 2011. Democratization and Ethnic Politics in Indonesia: Nine Theses. Journal of East Asian Studies 11(2): 289–319.
  5. Aspinall, Edward. 2014. Parliament and Patronage. Journal of Democracy 25(4): 96–110.
  6. Aspinall, Edward. 2014. When Brokers Betray: Clientelism, Social Networks, and Electoral Politics in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies 46(4): 545–70.
  7. Aswicahyono, Haryo, Kelly Bird, and Hal Hill. 2009. Making Economic Policy in Weak, Democratic, Post-Crisis States: An Indonesian Case Study. World Development 37(2): 354–70.
  8. Bali, Ahmed Omar. 2018. The Roots of Clientelism in Iraqi Kurdistan and the Efforts to Fight It. Open Political Science 1(1): 98–104.
  9. Bedran-Martins, Ana Maria, and Maria Carmen Lemos. 2017. Politics of Drought under Bolsa Família Program in Northeast Brazil. World Development Perspectives 7–8(March): 15–21.
  10. Bénit-Gbaffou, Claire. 2011. Up Close and Personal’ - How Does Local Democracy Help the Poor Access the State? Stories of Accountability and Clientelism in Johannesburg. Journal of Asian and African Studies 46(5): 453–64.
  11. Berenschot, Ward. 2018. The Political Economy of Clientelism: A Comparative Study of Indonesia’s Patronage Democracy. Comparative Political Studies 51(12): 1563–93.
  12. Berlant, Lauren. 2007. Slow Death (Sovereignty, Obesity, Lateral Agency). Critical Inquiry 33(4): 754–80.
  13. Bhavnani, Rikhil R., and Francesca R. Jensenius. 2019. Voting for Development? Ruling Coalitions and Literacy in India. Electoral Studies 62: 102069.
  14. Bobonis; Gertler; Navarro; Nichter. 2019. Vulnerability and Clientelism. National Bureau of Economic Research: 1–37.
  15. Corstange, Daniel. 2018. Clientelism in Competitive and Uncompetitive Elections. Comparative Political Studies 51(1): 76–104.
  16. Daby, Mariela. 2021. The Gender Gap in Political Clientelism: Problem-Solving Networks and the Division of Political Work in Argentina. Comparative Political Studies 54(2): 215–44.
  17. Davidson, Jamie S. 2009. Dilemmas of Democratic Consolidation in Indonesia. Pacific Review 22(3): 293–310.
  18. Dettman, Sebastian, Thomas B. Pepinsky, and Jan H. Pierskalla. 2017. Incumbency Advantage and Candidate Characteristics in Open-List Proportional Representation Systems: Evidence from Indonesia. Electoral Studies 48: 111–20.
  19. Deutsch; Bliss; Eckstein. 2018. Population, Sovereignty, and The Share of Foreign Trade. World Politics: 353–67.
  20. Doyon, Jérôme. 2018. Clientelism by Design: Personnel Politics under Xi Jinping. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs 47(3): 87–110.
  21. Fossati, Diego, Edward Aspinall, Burhanuddin Muhtadi, and Eve Warburton. 2020. Ideological Representation in Clientelistic Democracies: The Indonesian Case. Electoral Studies 63(November 2019): 102111.
  22. Frączkiewicz-Wronka, Aldona, Iwona Kowalska-Bobko, Anna Sagan, and Martyna Wronka-Pośpiech. 2019. The Growing Role of Seniors Councils in Health Policy-Making for Older People in Poland. Health Policy 123(10): 906–11.
  23. Frey, Anderson. 2019. Cash Transfers, Clientelism, and Political Enfranchisement: Evidence from Brazil. Journal of Public Economics 176: 1–17.
  24. Gherghina, Sergiu, and Clara Volintiru. 2017. A New Model of Clientelism: Political Parties, Public Resources, and Private Contributors. European Political Science Review 9(1): 115–37.
  25. Grignon, M., C. J. Longo, G. P. Marchildon, and S. Officer. 2020. The 2018 Decision to Establish an Advisory Council on Adding Pharmaceuticals to Universal Health Coverage in Canada. Health Policy 124(1): 7–11.
  26. Hanif, Hasrul. 2009. Politik Klientelisme Baru Dan Dilema Demokratisasi Di Indonesia . JSP: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik 12(3): 257–390.
  27. Kariem, Muhammad Quranul, and Noor Ishmatuddin. 2020. Analysis of the Legislative Function of Banyuasin Regency Legislative Council Members during the Recess Period. Journal of Governance and Public Policy 7(1): 29–34.
  28. Keefer, Philip. 2005. Democratization and Clientelism: Why Are Young Democracies Badly Governed? (3594).
  29. Kurer, Oskar. 2007. Why Do Papua New Guinean Voters Opt for Clientelism? Democracy and Governance in a Fragile State. Pacific Economic Bulletin 22(1): 39–53.
  30. Larson, Brooke. 2009. 13 Democratic Deficits. Addressing challenges to sustainability and Consolidation around the world Democratic Deficits Addressing Challenges to Sustainability and Consolidation Around the World. ed. Gary Bland and Cynthia J. Arnson. Washington: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
  31. Latief, Hilman. 2014. The Politics of Benevolence: Political Patronage of Party-Based Charitable Organizations in Contemporary Indonesian Islam. Al-Jami’ah 51(2): 337–63.
  32. Lund, Christian. 2011. Fragmented Sovereignty: Land Reform and Dispossession in Laos. Journal of Peasant Studies 38(4): 885–905.
  33. Lussier, Danielle N., and M. Steven Fish. 2012. Indonesia: The Benefits of Civic Engagement. Journal of Democracy 23(1): 70–84.
  34. Mietzner, Marcus. 2010. Political Conflict Resolution and Democratic Consolidation in Indonesia: The Role of the Constitutional Court. Journal of East Asian Studies 10(3): 397–424.
  35. ———. 2012. Indonesia’s Democratic Stagnation: Anti-Reformist Elites and Resilient Civil Society. Democratization 19(2):209–29.
  36. Muhtadi, Burhanuddin. 2013. Money Politic Dalam Pemilu Menurut Pandangan ukum Islam Dan Undang-Undang. Jurnal Penelitian Politik 11(1): 45.
  37. Mujani, Saiful, R William Liddle, Saiful Mujani, and R William Liddle. 2020. Indonesia : Personalities , Parties , and Voters Parties , and Voters. 21(2): 35–49.
  38. Nasution, Indra Kesuma. 2014. Ethnicity, Democracy and Decentralization: Explaining the Ethnic Political Participation of Direct Election in Medan 2010. Procedia Environmental Sciences 20: 496–505.
  39. Negri, Margherita. 2018. Preferential Votes and Minority Representation in Open List Proportional Representation Systems. Social Choice and Welfare 50(2): 281–303.
  40. Prihatini, Ella S. 2019. Women’s Views and Experiences of Accessing National Parliament: Evidence from Indonesia. Women’s Studies International Forum 74(December 2018): 84–90.
  41. Rahman, Oki, and Yusri Munaf. 2019. Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Kota Pekanbaru Periode 2009-2014. Wedana: 201–11.
  42. Ramadhan, Muhammad Nur, Jimmy Daniel, and Berlianto Oley. 2019. Klientelisme Sebagai Perilaku Koruptif Dan Demokrasi Banal. Jurnal Antikorupsi Integritas 5(1): 169–80.
  43. Riwanto, Agus. 2015. Korelasi Pengaturan Sistem Pemilu Proporsional Terbuka Berbasis Suara Terbanyak Dengan Korupsi Politik Di Indonesia. Yustisia Jurnal Hukum 91(1): 89–102.
  44. Robinson, James A., and Thierry Verdier. 2013. The Political Economy of Clientelism. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 115(2): 260–91.
  45. Rocha, Marta Mendes, Augusto Carvalho de Souza, and Paulo Magalhães Araújo. 2019. Clientelism and Local Politics: Interactions Between Municipal Councilors and Voters in the State of Minas Gerais. Brazilian Political Science Review 13(3): 1–33.
  46. de Rozas, Victoria Ortiz. 2017. Clientelismo o Representación Política? El ‘Programa’ de Los Mediadores Políticos. Reflexiones Desde Argentina. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales 62(229): 263–96.
  47. Soedirgo, Jessica. 2018. Informal Networks and Religious Intolerance: How Clientelism Incentivizes the Discrimination of the Ahmadiyah in Indonesia. Citizenship Studies 22(2): 191–207.
  48. Solihah, Ratnia, and Siti Witianti. 2016. Pelaksanaan Fungsi Legislasi Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Pasca Pemilu 2014: Permasalahan Dan Upaya Mengatasinya. CosmoGov 2(2): 291.
  49. Stokes, Susan C., Thad Dunning, Marcelo Nazareno, and Valeria Brusco. 2013. Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  50. Sulistyo, Hermawan. 2002. Electoral Politics in Indonesia: A Hard Way to Democracy. Croissant/Bruns/John: 75–100.
  51. Syafruddin; Putra. 2019. Efektivitas Reses Anggota DPRD Dalam Menyerap Aspirasi Masyarakat Tahun Anggaran 2018. Politicon 8(2): 53–65.
  52. Trantidis, Aris, and Vasiliki Tsagkroni. 2017. Clientelism and Corruption: Institutional Adaptation of State Capture Strategies in View of Resource Scarcity in Greece. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 19(2): 263–81.
  53. Trijono, Rachmat. 2018. Is the Republic of Indonesia As a Democratic State? (Case Study the Republic of Indonesia Representative Democracy Model in Perspective of Law Making Process). PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences 4(3): 44–56.
  54. Vicente, Pedro C., and Leonard Wantchekon. 2009. Clientelism and Vote Buying: Lessons from Field Experiments in African Elections. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 25(2): 292–305.
  55. Wantchekon, Leonard. 2003. Clientelism and Voting Behavior: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Benin. World Politics 55(3): 399–422.
  56. Webber, Douglas. 2006. A Consolidated Patrimonial Democracy? Democratization in Post-Suharto Indonesia. Democratization 13(3): 396–420.
  57. Williams, Martin J. 2017. The Political Economy of Unfinished Development Projects: Corruption, Clientelism, or Collective Choice? American Political Science Review 111(4): 705–23.

Open Access Copyright (c) 2021 International Journal Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

International Journal Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din 
published by Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Walisongo Semarang, Indonesia

Jl. Walisongo No.3-5, Tambakaji, Kec. Ngaliyan, Kota Semarang, Jawa Tengah 50185
Phone: +62 857-3303-6860

ISSN: 1411-3708 (Print)
ISSN: 2580-5983 (Online)
DOI : 10.21580/ihya

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

View My Stats