By Delia Wildianti (Researcher at PUSKAPOL UI)
The dynamics of the 2018 regional head elections were marked by familiar issues, one of the most prominent being the practice of “political dowries” paid to parties endorsing candidates. This issue is not new in Indonesia’s post-reform elections, especially as political parties have become increasingly pragmatic and oriented toward securing victory. As a result, strategic calculations to ensure a candidate’s success take priority, particularly in response to the high political costs candidates must bear.
From this perspective, there are at least four main sources of expenditure that drive up the cost of regional elections. First, nomination costs, often referred to as “political dowries,” paid to secure party backing. Second, campaign expenses, which include campaign materials, campaign teams, and the use of electronic and print media. Third, the costs of hiring consultants and conducting surveys through various consulting and polling agencies. Fourth, the continued prevalence of vote buying, including practices such as last-minute cash distribution and direct financial incentives to voters. In addition, a significant amount of funding is allocated for witnesses present during vote counting.
Closed and merely procedural internal party mechanisms have created room for transactional “buying and selling” of support, ultimately leading to corrupt practices.
In taking part in political contests, it is almost inevitable for candidates to go through all selection mechanisms in a “democratic” manner, both within party structures and through external procedures in line with the law. However, internal party mechanisms for selecting regional head candidates are often difficult to monitor and lack transparency, as they remain internal or are treated as mere formalities. This creates room for transactional practices, where party elites and prospective candidates engage in informal “buying and selling” arrangements over nominations.
Recently, the issue of “political dowries” has drawn significant attention. One example came from La Nyalla Mattalitti, a prospective gubernatorial candidate in East Java from Gerindra, who claimed he was asked to provide 40 billion rupiah by the party’s leadership to cover witness costs and secure a recommendation. Similar allegations have also surfaced involving figures such as Dedi Mulyadi, Brigjen Siswandi, and John Kristi.
The problem of political dowries has contributed to delays in the nomination process. Many parties have registered candidates at the last possible moment with the election commission, suggesting intense bargaining over how much “dowry” is required. In some cases, candidates have even been dropped at the final stage. This situation highlights deeper structural issues within the electoral process, where political bargaining becomes dominant and opens the door to corrupt practices.
Political Dowries and Systemic Corruption
The high cost of politics, which far exceeds official income, has become a driver of corruption, allowing officials to siphon off public welfare for personal gain.
As a consequence of direct regional elections based on majority vote, it becomes clear that the cost of politics in today’s democratic system is extremely high. Research by FITRA shows that campaign spending in district-level elections ranges from 5 to 28 billion rupiah, while provincial elections can reach between 60 and 78 billion. These figures are far from proportional to the official income of elected officials. A governor, for instance, earns around 8.6 million rupiah per month, totaling roughly 516 million over a five-year term. This gap creates strong incentives for corruption, while collusive arrangements become a way to extract resources from public welfare.
With such a large initial investment, those in power are often driven by the need to recover what they have spent. Data from the Ministry of Home Affairs up to 2016 recorded 343 regents and mayors, along with 18 governors, implicated in corruption cases. This reflects a troubling reality within our democratic process. Ideally, democracy should not stop at procedural legitimacy, but also embody substantive values, including fairness from the nomination stage to the election itself, without compromising democratic principles.
According to the 2016 Indonesian Democracy Index, Indonesia was classified in the medium category with a score of 70.09, down from 72.82 in 2015. The role of political parties remains limited and falls into the “poor” category, scoring 52.29. As the main channel for recruiting regional leaders, political parties still face significant challenges, particularly in improving candidate selection systems and avoiding transactional practices in nominations.
Commitment from Political Parties and Government
The issue of political dowries often lingers without clear resolution. It is widely acknowledged, yet rarely addressed decisively. Ending such practices requires serious commitment from all stakeholders, including political parties, election oversight bodies, financial intelligence agencies, anti-corruption institutions, law enforcement, and the public. There are three key areas that deserve attention, especially from political parties and the government.
First, increasing public funding for political parties through the revision of Government Regulation No. 83 of 2012 into Regulation No. 1 of 2018, which raised state support from 108 rupiah to 1,078 rupiah per vote, should help reduce the incentive for transactional candidate endorsements. Transparency in reporting the use of these funds is essential. Candidate selection processes should also involve more party members, reducing the dominance of elite-driven decisions.
Second, stronger enforcement is needed from election supervisory bodies to follow up on allegations of political dowries. Better coordination with financial intelligence units, anti-corruption agencies, and special task forces is crucial to address these practices thoroughly. In addition, setting limits on campaign financing through electoral regulations can help reduce inequality and lower the financial burden on candidates.
Third, the idea of establishing party cadre schools deserves serious consideration. Such programs can prepare party members to become future leaders based on merit and dedication, rather than financial capacity alone. Equally important is sustained political education for the public, which remains an ongoing responsibility for all stakeholders.
Future leaders should not be those who simply have wealth, but those who are prepared and committed to serving the public.
