A Kidney for Your Vote: Money Politics in Indonesia’s 2024 Elections

In the run-up to Indonesia’s elections, the presidential race received the most attention. On the same day, Indonesians voted for their legislators at the district, provincial, and national levels: almost 10,000 candidates competed for the national legislature (House of Representatives, DPR) alone. The electoral dynamics for legislative elections, particularly the practice of money politics — which this author defines as the exchange of material benefits (given to potential voters) for or in the expectation of receiving votes — has received less attention from the mainstream media and academia.

Erfin Sudanto, a PAN legislative candidate in Bondowoso, recently caused a stir on social media with the revelation that he intended to sell one of his kidneys to finance his campaign expenses. He admitted that he needed up to US$50,000 for his campaign, disclosing that a significant portion of that sum would be spent on what he called “tips” to gain the support of potential voters. 

Under Indonesian law, purchasing votes is illegal. Nevertheless, vote buying has become increasingly commonplace and is rarely dealt with by law enforcement. Some voters no longer see elections as windows of opportunity to express their political preferences but rather see them as a “season of money”.

Money politics has long been a part of Indonesian electoral politics, particularly in legislative elections where tens of thousands of candidates compete for limited seats. Most politicians lament the increased pressure on them to engage in vote buying, claiming that such transactions have become part of everyday politics. They admit that voters believed that whoever is elected would quickly forget their constituents after the election. Most politicians and voters openly discussed vote-buying practices – pre-election, terms such as “NPWP”, “golput” (spoiled vote or abstention), and berjuang (“struggle”) were widely circulated. In ordinary usage, NPWP is the acronym for Indonesians’ tax filing numbers but in the context of electoral speak, it stands for “Nomer Piro, Wani Piro”, which translates to “What (candidate) number are you and how much do you dare to give (a voter to vote for you)?” Golput in this context means “Golongan penerima uang tunai”, a phrase describing voters who are willing to vote if given cash (literally, “the group that receives cash”). Meanwhile, berjuang is used as an abbreviation for Beras (rice), Baju (clothes), and Uang (money).

An exit poll conducted by Indikator Politik on 14 February 2024 of 2,975 voters who had just voted found that 46.9 per cent of them considered money politics as “normal” (biasa). The relevant question was: “As an effort to win the presidential/legislative/local executive elections, certain candidates or brokers typically give money or gifts for people to influence their vote. In your opinion, is the money/gift considered acceptable or unacceptable?” Forty-nine point six (49.6) per cent of respondents considered this practice unacceptable.

Demographically, this exit poll found that women, young voters, the lower middle class, and Muslim respondents were more inclined to consider vote buying acceptable. Youths were more likely to find vote buying acceptable because of their economic reliance on their parents, and tended to be more politically non-committal, which could mean they are good targets for politicians seeking to entice them with benefits. Some studies suggest that under certain circumstances, women may be more susceptible to vote buying, for instance, if they have lower educational attainment and economic standing in comparison to men.

Lower-income and less educated people are more likely to sell their votes because they are risk-averse and value a bag of goodies in hand today over the promise of redistributive government policies tomorrow. They discount future benefits because they are less certain about their futures. From the elite’s perspective, poor people’s votes are more ‘affordable’ to buy, as small amounts of money mean more to poor voters than rich politicians. Low education also increases citizens’ susceptibility to vote buying because they are unaware that money politics can harm political representation.

Consequently, these candidates’ cash recipients (potential voters) might not perceive the candidates’ cash handouts during campaigning as ethically dubious money politics.

Muslim voters may tend to normalise money politics, as numerous Indonesian Muslim candidates and recipients have invoked religious justifications to accept vote buying. Many candidates cloaked their offerings in religious terminology, such as designating them as sedekah (alms). Almsgiving is an important Islamic teaching. While true charitable giving is highly regarded, vote buying is justified as being done with good intentions to assist the poor. Those who buy votes hide behind a fiqh precept that states, “All actions are based on intentions”, claiming that they truly want to give to charity.

Consequently, these candidates’ cash recipients (potential voters) might not perceive the candidates’ cash handouts during campaigning as ethically dubious money politics. The prevalence of traditional patron-client networks in Indonesia, which facilitate politicians’ or patrons’ provision of benefits to voters, is greater within Indonesia’s Muslim communities. They utilise informal social institutions that are firmly established, including religious gatherings (majelis taklim). Candidates usually approach the leaders of such gatherings to get their assistance to distribute money or gifts to their members.

Compared to 2019, there has been a substantial surge in the proportion of Indonesians who deem vote buying permissible. Indikator’s 2019 post-election survey revealed that 32.1 per cent of respondents deemed this practice acceptable, while nearly half of respondents in the 2024 survey (with different respondents) held this view. In 2019, 67.2 per cent of respondents deemed money politics as unacceptable but in 2024, this dropped to 49.6 per cent.

The 2024 exit polls revealed a strong link between citizens who tolerate vote buying and the practice of vote selling. For those who believed vote buying was acceptable, a follow-up question was, “Will you accept that money or gift?”. The modal response was that they would accept money but vote according to their conscience (48.4 per cent), while 35.1 per cent would accept money and vote for that candidate. Where more than one candidate offered money, 7.3 per cent would accept and vote for the one who gave more money; only 8 per cent would “not accept” any bribe. This finding supports the perception that vote buying is an uncertain business.

However, if vote buying is not a reliable strategy, why then do Indonesia’s legislative candidates invest so much in it? In Indonesia, where candidates may require narrow margins to defeat co-partisans (that is, politicians from their own parties contesting the same seat) in a highly competitive open-list system, even small numbers of voters can be the deciding factor. Accordingly, numerous candidates actively pursue vote buying, as this could significantly alter the outcome of the election for them.

2024/78