Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Journal of Social and Political

Sciences

ISSN 2615-3718 (Online)

ISSN 2621-5675 (Print)

asia insitute of research, journal of social and political sciences, jsp, aior, journal publication, humanities journal, social journa
asia insitute of research, journal of social and political sciences, jsp, aior, journal publication, humanities journal, social journa
asia insitute of research, journal of social and political sciences, jsp, aior, journal publication, humanities journal, social journa
asia insitute of research, journal of social and political sciences, jsp, aior, journal publication, humanities journal, social journa
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 07 August 2020

The Multi-Party System in Indonesia: Reviewing the Number of Electoral Parties from the Aspects of the National Defense and Security

A. Farid Wadjdi, Mistiani, Nebula F. Hasani

Ministry of Defense (Indonesia), University of UPN Jakarta (Indonesia)

journal of social and political sciences
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1991.03.03.204

Pages: 711-724

Keywords: Effective Number of Electoral Parties, Multi-Party System, National Defense and Security, Social Engineering Policy

Abstract

This paper aims to investigate the effect of the multi-party system on national security stability in Indonesia. There are two questions related to national defense and security aspects, namely how many political parties are suitable, and how do the election and the number of parties influences the stability of national security? The research approach is a mixed method. For quantitative methods, we use inferential statistical analysis based on statistical data from the 1955 to 2019 elections and the 2005-2018 local elections. From the Effective Number of Election Parties (ENEP), the total Crime, and the Indonesian Democratic Index, we find that all national voters in each election in Indonesia will accumulate significantly in the range of five to ten parties, regardless of the number of political parties participating in the election. For qualitative methods, we formed a two-session FGD that discussed ENEP and its risks to national defense and security and how to recommend related policies. We conclude that the 4-5% Electoral threshold is sufficient to be enforced as a rule in the next election. Local elections (pilkada) outside Java and Bali have a more significant influence on national security stability than national legislative elections. The implications of this study encourage policymakers in the field of national defense and security to take anticipatory steps towards differences in the risks of holding elections and local elections (pilkada), as well as the direction and focus of pilkada research, especially in the perspective of national defense and security.

References

  1. Amorós, P., & Puy, M. S. (2010). Indicators of electoral victory. Public Choice, 144(1), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-009-9514-z

  2. Aspinall, E., & Berenschot, W. (2019). DEMOCRACY FOR SALE Elections, Clientalism, and the State in Indonesia. Cornell University Press (Vol. 52).

  3. Balitbang Kemhan. (2017). Analisa Politik Multi Partai terhadap Stabilitas Pemerintahan di Indonesia dalam Konteks Pertahanan Nirmiliter TA. 2017. Jakarta-Indonesia.

  4. Berenschot, W. (2020). Patterned pogroms: Patronage networks as infrastructure for electoral violence in India and Indonesia. Journal of Peace Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319889678

  5. Bhattacharya, S., & Smarandache, F. (2006). Effective Number of Parties in A Multi-Party Democracy Under an Entropic Political Equilibrium with Floating Voters. Computational Modeling in Applied Problems: Collected Papers on Econometrics, Operations Research, Game Theory and Simulation, (September), 63– 72.

  6. BPS. (2019). Statistik Politik 2019. (Subdirektorat Statistik Politik dan Keamanan, Ed.). Jakarta, Indonesia: Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia. Retrieved from bps.go.id

  7. Braithwaite, A., Kucik, J., & Maves, J. (2014). The Costs of Domestic Political Unrest. International Studies Quarterly, 58(3), 489–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12061

  8. Colomer, J. M. (2004). Handbook of Electoral System Choice. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522749

  9. Ellman, M., & Wantchekon, L. (2000). Electoral Competition under the Threat of Political Unrest. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(2), 499–531. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2587001

  10. Felsenthal, D. S., & Machover, M. (2012). Electoral Systems Paradoxes, Assumptions, and Procedures. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20441-8

  11. Flesken, A. (2018). Ethnic Parties, Ethnic Tensions? Results of an Original Election Panel Study. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12385

  12. Ford, R., & Jennings, W. (2020). The Changing Cleavage Politics of Western Europe. Annual Review of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052217-104957

  13. Fukuoka, Y. (2012). Politics , Business and the State in Post-Soeharto Indonesia. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 34(1), 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1355/cs34-ld

  14. Golosov, G. V. (2010). The effective number of parties: A new approach. Party Politics, 16(2), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068809339538

  15. Grofman, B., & Kline, R. (2012). How many political parties are there, really? A new measure of the ideologically cognizable number of parties/party groupings. Party Politics. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068810386838

  16. Hafner-Burton, E. M., Hyde, S. D., & Jablonski, R. S. (2018). Surviving elections: Election violence, incumbent victory and post-election repercussions. British Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712341600020X

  17. Harish, S. P., & Toha, R. (2017). A New Typology of Electoral Violence: Insights from Indonesia. Terrorism and Political Violence, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2016.1277208

  18. Höglund, K. (2009). Electoral violence in conflict-ridden societies: Concepts, causes, and consequences. Terrorism and Political Violence. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546550902950290

  19. Ikrar Nusa Bakti. (2004). The Transition to Democracy in Indonesia: Some Outstanding Problems. In The Asia- Pacific: a region in transition (pp. 195–206). APCSS. Retrieved from https://apcss.org/Publications/Edited Volumes/RegionalFinal chapters/Chapter12Bhakti.pdf

  20. Indra, M. (2014). Gagasan Penyederhanaan Jumlah Partai Politik Dihubungkan Dengan Sistem Pemerintahan Republik Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 1(02), 75–83. Retrieved from https://ejournal.unri.ac.id/index.php/JIH/article/view/1155/1146

  21. Indrawan, J., & Aji, M. P. (2019). Political Party Simplification Through Parliamentary Threshold: Systematic Violation of People’s Sovereignty. Jurnal Penelitian Politik, 16(2), 155–166. Retrieved from http://ejournal.politik.lipi.go.id/index.php/jpp/article/view/802/546

  22. Inter-Parliamentary Union. (2008). Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections (Vol. 42). New York: PARLINE. Retrieved from http://www.ipu.org/parline

  23. Jean-FranCois, C., & Patrick, D. (2009). The effective number of relevant parties: how voting power improves Laakso-Taagepera’s index. MPRA, (17846).

  24. Klimczak, P., & Petersen, C. (2015). Amok: Framing Discourses on Political Violence by Means of Symbolic Logic. In Framing Excessive Violence (pp. 160–175). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  25. Laakso, M., & Taagepera, R. (1979). “Effective” number of parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041407901200101

  26. Laakso, M., & Taagepera, R. (2017). “Effective” Number of Parties. Comparative Political Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041407901200101

  27. Lijphart, A. (2012). Patterns of democracy : government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press book.

  28. Mietzner, M. (2016). Coercing Loyalty: Coalitional Presidentialism and Party Politics in Jokowi. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 38(2), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1355/cs38-2b

  29. Mietzner, M. (2018). Authoritarian elections, state capacity, and performance legitimacy: Phases of regime consolidation and decline in Suharto’s Indonesia. International Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512116687139

  30. Moser, R. G., Scheiner, E., & Stoll, H. (2018). Social Diversity, Electoral Systems, and the Party System. In E. S. Herron, R. J. Pekkanen, & M. S. Shugart (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.

  31. Muhtadi, B. (2019). Vote Buying in Indonesia: The Mechanics of Electoral Bribery. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 981-13-6779-3

  32. Nico Handani Siahan. (2016). Formula Penyederhanaan Jumlah Partai Politik Di Parlemen Pada Pemilihan Umum Indonesia Nico Handani Siahaan. Politica, 7(1).

  33. Passarelli, F., & Tabellini, G. (2017). Emotions and Political Unrest. Journal of Political Economy, 125(3), 903– 946. https://doi.org/10.1086/691700

  34. Pierskalla, J. H., & Sacks, A. (2017). Unpacking the Effect of Decentralized Governance on Routine Violence: Lessons from Indonesia. World Development. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.09.008

  35. Reilly, Ben. (2001). Democracy in divided societies: electoral engineering for conflict management. (Benjamin Reilly, Ed.). New York: cambridge university press.

  36. Romli, L. (2011). Reformasi partai politik dan sistem kepartaian di indonesia. Politica, 2(2), 199–220. Ruiz-Rufino, R. (2007). Aggregated threshold functions or how to measure the performance of an electoral system.

  37. Electoral Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2006.10.015
    Sambhi, N. (2019). Indonesia in 2018: The Calm before the Election Storm. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2019. https://doi.org/10.1355/9789814843164-010

  38. Sani, G., & Sartori, G. (1983). Polarization, fragmentation and competition in Western democracies. Western European Party Systems: Continuity and Change.

  39. Schwörer, J., & Romero-Vidal, X. (2020). Radical right populism and religion: mapping parties’ religious communication in Western Europe. Religion, State and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2019.1704611

  40. Singer, M. M. (2015). Does increasing district magnitude increase the number of parties? Evidence from Spain, 982-2011. Electoral Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.01.010

  41. Skaaning, S.-E., Jiménez, M., Institute for Democracy, I., & Assistance, E. (1975). The Global State of Democracy 2017 Exploring Democracy’s Resilience. Retrieved from http://www.michael-tompsett.pixels.com

  42. Supriyanto, D., & Mellaz, A. (2011). Ambang batas perwakilan. Jakarta. Retrieved from http://perludem.org/2012/02/09/ambang-batas-perwakilan-pengaruh-parliamentary-threshold-terhadap- sistem-penyederhanaan-partai-dan-proporsionalitas-hasil-pemilu/

  43. Taagepera, R. (2007). Predicting Party Sizes, The Logic of Simple Electoral Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.

  44. Taagepera, R. (2009). Predicting Party Sizes. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(2), 240–246.

  45. Ufen, A. (2008). Political party and party system institutionalization in Southeast Asia: Lessons for democratic consolidation in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. Pacific Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740802134174

  46. Wilkinson, S. I. (2004). Votes and Violence - Electoral Competition and Ethnic Riots in India. (M. Levi, Ed.), Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Cambridge: cambridge university press.

  47. Yamin, I. (2018). Indeks Kerawanan Pemilu. (Tim Editor Bawaslu RI, Ed.), BAWASLU (Pertama). Jakarta, Indonesia: BAWASLU RI.