The Phenomenon of Political Brokers in Electoral Commision


  • Anindita Pratitaswari Universitas Indonesia
  • Sri Budi Eko Wardani Universitas Indonesia



Broker Politics, Election Fraud, Electoral Officer


One of the norms for elections with integrity requires that election administrators behave neutral and impartial. However, since the election period in the reformation era, the integrity issue of the election administrators is still crucial. In practice, there are still cases of electoral fraud involving election administrators. Based on pre-existing cases, the election organizer has become the main actor (broker) in moving several other election administrators to commit crimes that destroy the integrity of the Election by taking sides and accepting bribes from one of the candidates. By using qualitative research methods, this study will understand and analyze a particular social reality of electoral officer events as a political intermediary. As well as conducting a documentary study containing the decision document for violating the code of ethics of the election organizers as well as the 2019 legislative election criminal decision document. The results of this study show that the role of the election organizer broker is different from previous research, namely, the task of connecting candidates with other election administrators to help the candidate's electoral interests by means of a cheat. Meanwhile, if based on previous election criminal cases, the use of election administrators is usually used to manipulate election results.


Download data is not yet available.


Alvarez, R., Atkeson, L., & Hall, T. (2012). Evaluating Elections: A Handbook of Methods and Standards. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Aspinall, E. (2014). When Brokers Betray: Clientelism, Social Networks, and Electoral Politics in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 46(4), 545–570.

Aspinall, E. (2005). Elections and The Normalization of Politics in Indonesia. Southeast Asia Research, 13(2), 117-156.

Aspinall, E., Rohman, N., Hamdi, A., Rubaidi, & Triantini, Z. (2017). Vote Buying in Indonesia: Candidate Strategies, Market Logic, and Effectiveness. Journal of East Asian Studies, 17 (1), 1-27. 10.1017/jea.2016.31. Doi: 10.1017/jea.2016.31.

Aspinall, E., & Hicken, A., (2020). Guns for Hire and Enduring Machines: Clientelism Beyond Parties in Indonesia and the Philippines. Democratization, 27(1), 137-156. Doi: 10.1080/13510347.2019.1590816

Asshidiqie, J. (2006). Konstitusi dan Konstitusionalisme Indonesia. Konstitusi Press.

Auyero, J. (2000). The Logic of Clientelism in Argentina: An Ethnographic Account. Latin Studies American Studies Association, 35(3), 55-81. Doi: 10.1080/13510347.2019.1590816.

Birch, S. (2007). Electoral System and Electoral Misconduct. Comparative Political Studies, 40, 1533-1556. Doi: 10.1177/0010414006292886

Biklen, R. C. B. & S. K. (2006). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and method. Pearson Education, Inc.

Blaydes, L. (2008). Authoritarian Elections and Elite Management: Theory and Evidence From Egypt. Conference on Dictatorships. Princeton University.

Buehler, M., & Tan, P. (2007). Party-Candidate Relationships in Indonesian Local Politics: A Case Study of the 2005 Regional Elections in Gowa, South Sulawesi Province. Southeast Asia Program Publications at Cornell University. (84), 41-69.

Bochsler, L. L. (2014). A systematic approach to study electoral fraud. Electoral Studies, 35(3), 33-47.

Chaidar, A. (1999). Pemilu 1999 Pertarungan Ideologi Partai-Partai Islam Versus Partai-Partai Sekuler. Darul Falah.

Electoral fraud in the UK Final report and. (2014). January.

Fandi A. S, Wahab Tuanaya, M. W. (2020). Kaderisasi dan Penetapan Calon Legislatif Pada Partai Politik (Studi DPD Partai Nasional Demokrat Seram Bagian Barat 2019. Nakhoda: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan, 19(1), 75–90. 10.35967/jipn.v19i1.7848.

Gaffar, J. M. (2013). Demokrasi dan Pemilu di Indonesia (Konstitusi).

Hasanuddin. (2018). Peran Partai Politik dalam Menggerakkan Partisipasi Politik Rakyat. Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan Nakhoda, 17(30), 94–100.

James, T. S. (2010). Researching electoral administration in America: Insights from the “post-Florida” era. Political Studies Review, 8(3), 357–367.

Kramon, E. (2016). Electoral handouts as information: Explaining unmonitored vote-buying. World Politics, 68(3), 454–498.

Larreguy, H., Marshall, J., & Querubín, P. (2016). Parties, brokers, and voter mobilization: How turnout buying depends upon the party’s capacity to monitor brokers. American Political Science Review, 110(1), 160–179.

Liddle, R. W. (1992). Pemilu-Pemilu Orde Baru Pasang Surut Kekuasaan Politik. Jakarta: LPS3ES.

Norris, P. (2015). Why Do Elections Fail? In Why Elections Fail. Cambridge University Press. (2019, Juni 21). November 30, 2020,

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publication.

Payne, G. P. & J. (2004). Key Concepts in Social Research. SAGE Publications. Payne%2C Judy Payne Key Concepts in Social Research SAGE Key Concepts series 2004.pdf.

Rahman, K. (2017). Pelayanan Pemerintahan Yang Bertanggung Jawab. Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan Nakhoda, 16(28), 34–42.

Saydam, G. (1999). Dari Bilik Suara ke Masa Depan Indonesia Potret Konflik Politik Pasca Pemilu dan Nasib Reformasi. PT Raja Grafindo Persada.

Stokes, S., Dunning, T., Nazareno, M., & Brusco, V. (2013). Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics (Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107324909.

Suhelmi, A. (2001). Pemikiran Politik Barat. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Sukmajati, E. A. & M. (2015). Politik Uang di Indonesia Patronase dan Klientelisme pada Pemilu Legislatif 2014le. Penerbit PolGov.

Tawakkal, G. T. I., Damayanti, R., Subekti, T., Alfian, F., & Garner, A. D. (2020). Social networks and brokerage behavior in Indonesian elections: Evidence from Central Java. Asian Affairs(UK), 47(3), 226–243.



How to Cite

Pratitaswari, A., & Wardani , S. B. E. (2020). The Phenomenon of Political Brokers in Electoral Commision. Nakhoda: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan, 19(2), 217-228.