STRUGGLE IN THE LEGISLATIVE ELECTION 2014
3. DICUSSION
3.1. Institutionalization of the Party, Strong Party Leadership and Jokowi's
- 7,45 20,85 10,19
National Awakening Party
12,6 10,57 4,94 9,04
There were two things that became the political setting of PDIP's victory in the 2014 election compared to the previous elections after the direct presidential election was held in 2004.
First, for the first time in the 2014 election it was ensured that there was no incumbent going forward in the presidential election with the end of the second government period SBY. This situation relatively provides a more "balanced"
contestation space between parties and key party figures in contesting elections. Second, even though the parliamentary threshold is getting bigger compared to the 2009 Election, the number of parties that qualify for the parliament actually increases in the 2014 election. This situation illustrates the increasingly competitive contestation map in the 2014 Election compared to the 2009 Election.
3.1. Institutionalization of the Party, Strong Party Leadership and Jokowi's Leadership
Increasing PDIP's electoral strength in the 2014 Election is inseparable from several internal factors. First is the factor of party institu-tionalization. Samuel P. Huntington said that survival political parties must have strong
institutionalization.3 The level of institutionalize-tion of the party is measured by the level of adaptability, complexity, autonomy and cohe-rence. According to him, the easier the party adjusts to, the higher the degree of institutionali-zation. Likewise, the more challenges that arise the older the party's age, the greater the ability to adapt to the environment (adapt). Meanwhile Vicky Randall and Lars Svasand said the institutionalization of parties was a process of strengthening political parties both structurally in order to pattern behavior and culturally in patterning attitudes or culture.4 This institu-tionalization process contains two aspects, namely internal-external aspects, and structural-cultural aspects. If these two aspects are crossed, a table of four cells will be produced, namely (1) degree of system (systemnes) as a result of the crossing of internal and structural aspects. (2) the degree of value infusion of a party as a result of crossing internal and cultural aspects. (3) the degree of autonomy of a party in decisionional autonomy as a result of crossing external and
3 Samuel P.Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies, (New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1968), hal. 8-31.
4 Vicky Randall dan Lars Svasand, ―Party Institutionalization In New Democracies‖, jurnal Party Politics, Vol. 8, no 1. January 2002, hal 12.
2nd ICSTCSD 2018 Proceeding Magelang, 16 – 17 November 2018
29 structural aspects. (4) the degree of knowledge or
public image (reification) as a result of crossing external and cultural aspects.5
If the institutionalization of the PDIP is assessed based on the terminology of institutio-nalizing the party, several things can be explained. In terms of systemism, PDIP has succeeded in rooting its party in the community.
The high age of PDIP is based on its history which is a historical continuation of the Indonesian Democratic Party (Partai Demokrasi Indonesia, PDI) during the New Order and the Indonesian Nationalist Party (Partai Nasional Indonesia, PNI) during the Old Order. This has become an important capital of the PDIP known by voters. In addition, the broad power of PDIP's reach was marked by party stewardship up to the branch level, indicating the good level of the PDIP system. In this case the PDIP is one of the parties that has a broad management reach.
Meanwhile, in terms of organizational resources, PDIP has good potential human resources. PDIP's internal regeneration process is relatively good.
PDIP also shows itself as a political party that recruits many activists who are certainly potential human resources in raising the party. Even most members of the DPR RI PDIP for the period 2009-2014 (64 out of 94, or 68%) are cadres with a long track record in party organizations. The footsteps of their activism can often be traced back to the Indonesian Nationalist Student Movement (Gerakan Mahasiwa Nasioanal Indonesia, GMNI). The existence of activists in the PDIP has played a significant role in the articulation and aggregation of political interests.6 Meanwhile, in terms of the degree of identity of values, PDIP is a party known as a party that has a secular-nationalist ideology. PDIP is also a fusion of five political parties namely
5 Ibid
6 Marcus Mietzner , Ideology, money and dynastic leadership: the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle 1998–2012, Journal South East Asia Research, 2012,Vol 4, hal 524.
PNI, Murba, IPKI, Parkindo and the Catholic Party in the New Order era. The voters' base of the five sides is the traditional mass base of PDIP voters or also becomes the main constituent of PDIP. Their existence can be identified on the traditional PNI base in the 1955 elections in Java as well as electoral Hindu, Christian and Catholic voters in eastern Indonesia. The mass group is believed to have an emotional bond with PDIP which is infatuated with nationalism.7 It is undeniable that political support from this mass base in Central Java, East Java, DIY, Bali, North Sulawesi and NTT has become an important factor in PDIP's electoral increase in the 2014 election. PDIP's sectoral powers have increased significantly in this area which has implications for the percentage of electors nationally.
Then in terms of the degree of public knowledge about the existence of a political party, PDIP is included in a very high degree of recognition. Almost all survey reports confirm that the level of public recognition of PDIP is above 90%, which is always in the top two positions of the party that is most known to the public.8 The introduction of the public towards PDIP itself was very strong and some had also been built in the era before reform. PDIP which has genealogical relations with the PNI and is seen as a continuation of the PNI founded by Soekarno in the era of the independence movement. Although the pressure of the New Order regime through a "fusion" policy in 1973 had eliminated the PNI name, but the figures and factions of PNI supporters continued to survive in the PDI. In the era of the Megawati leadership
"PNI attributes" increasingly thickened with personification of the continuation of the PNI Soekarno and its PDIP in various party attributes
7 Litbang Kompas, Partai Politik Indonesia 1999-2019: Konsentrasi dan Dekonsentrasi Kuasa, Penerbit Kompas, 2016. hal 367.
8 Data was obtained in the Poltracking survey report, Indonesian Political Indicators, Indonesian Survey Circle and Indobarometer in a survey conducted several times in the range 2012-2014.
The Role of Government on Sustainable Development
30
that regularly featured a young Sukarno as the founding father who towered from the party.
Three of the four measures of party institutionalization show PDIP as a party that has a fairly good degree of institutionalization compared to most other parties. The institutionali-zation of the party's capital is one of the internal factors which is the cause of the increasing electoral strength of PDIP in the 2014 election.
Second, a strong party leadership factor. It is undeniable that strong party leadership is the main key to organizational solidity. Meanwhile, the solidity of the organization becomes the party's important capital in facing the election.
The ability to control the negative effects of elite factionalism is an important factor that makes PDIP a competitive party in electoral contesta-tion. Although leading the PDIP for a very long time, the existence of Megawati as a charismatic leader in PDIP had a significant impact in maintaining party solidity. Kharisma owned by Megawati made the PDIP solid and able to minimize the adverse effects of party factionalism. Megawati is a symbol that unites party internal groups. So that party energy is more easily concentrated in the election winning agenda.
This situation is certainly different from the 2009 elections. At that time the solidity of the organization was disrupted by the release of several key PDIP cadres who later established a new party called the Democratic Renewal Party (Partai Demokrasi Pembaharuan, PDP). Initially this problem arose in the 2005 PDIP National Conference where several key cadres questioned Megawati's leadership in PDIP.9 Then the PDP then participated in the 2009 elections but did not make it to parliament. The conditions ahead of the 2009 election were different from the 2014 elections. Megawati's leadership was relatively
9 Marcus Mietzner , The Soekarno dynasty in Indonesia :Between Institutionalisation, ideological continuity and crises of succesion, Journal South East Asia Research, 2016,Vol 1, hal 7.
stronger so that party organizations were more solid.
Third is Jokowi's character. It cannot be denied that Jokowi has increased the popularity and electability of PDIP among voters. Jokowi's character has become an attractive magnet for the party's voters and even the identity of the PDIP party. Jokowi has become a voter attraction amid the waning of Megawati's popularity. Jokowi's name always tops the results of the 2014 presidential candidate survey.10 Jokowi's popularity and electability are always the highest compared to other figures both from internal parties and from external parties.
The influence of leadership is still a very important factor in explaining voting behavior in Indonesia along with the declining Party Id in Indonesia. The strong influence of figures is not only happening in developing countries like Indonesia. In some developed countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, where political parties are relatively institutio-nalized, the character of party leaders still has a strong influence in increasing electoral power.11
For PDIP, Jokowi's character became an important advantage to improve party identity in voters. So that the decision to nominate Jokowi during the legislative election campaign was an important strategy for the PDIP to strengthen voter support. Jokowi's nomination increasingly strengthens the identification of PDIP in voters in the 2014 election.
10 National surveys carried out by sharing survey institutions such as Poltracking, Indonesian Political Indicators, the Indonesian Survey Circle, Indobarometer and Kompas Research and Development in several surveys in the range 2013-2014 showed Jokowi excelled from names that had been known to the public such as Megawati, Prabowo, Aburizal Bakrie and others
11 Saiful Mujani, S, Liddle, R. William, dan Ambardi.
2012. Kuasa Rakyat: Analisis tentang Perilaku Memilih dalam Pemilihan Legislatif dan Presiden Indonesia Pasca Orde Baru. Jakarta : Mizan Publika.
hal 6
2nd ICSTCSD 2018 Proceeding Magelang, 16 – 17 November 2018
31 These internal factors have caused PDIP's
electoral strength to increase in the 2014 elections. The three factors make the PDIP organization's institutions relatively better prepared to contend in the 2014 election compared to the 2009 elections.
3.2. Internal Conflict Competitor’s Party and