The dangers of patronage in Indonesian democracy

August 23, 2024

Patronage, a practice where political leaders distribute resources, favors or opportunities in exchange for political support, undermines democratic principles by entrenching corruption, weakening institutions and distorting the political process.

Patronage politics in Indonesia is nothing new and deeply rooted in its history. During the New Order era under Soeharto, a complex system of patron-client relationships was established, with the president at the center. This system allowed Soeharto to maintain control by distributing resources to loyal supporters, creating a network of dependents who were bound to him for their survival and success.

Although Indonesia has transitioned to a more democratic system, these patterns of patronage have persisted and evolved, permeating various levels of government and political parties. One of the most visible dangers of patronage is its close relationship with corruption.

Patronage creates opportunities for politicians to misuse public funds to secure political support, whether through vote-buying, nepotism or kickbacks. In Indonesia, corruption cases often reveal networks of patronage where local elites, bureaucrats and business interests are intertwined in mutually beneficial relationships.

These practices erode public trust in government institutions and contribute to a culture of impunity, where accountability is sacrificed for political expediency.

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has made significant efforts to combat corruption in Indonesia, but its work has been hampered by the very system it seeks to reform. Politicians with vested interests in maintaining patronage networks have repeatedly sought to weaken the KPK’s powers, illustrating how deeply entrenched these practices are in the political landscape.

President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo came to power in 2014 on a platform of reform and clean governance, positioning himself as a leader from outside the traditional elite. However, as his presidency has progressed, Jokowi has increasingly relied on patronage to maintain political stability and ensure the passage of key initiatives. This shift in approach has sparked concerns about the erosion of democratic values and the rise of political dynasties.

One of the most significant examples of Jokowi’s use of patronage is the political ascent of his son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka. Gibran’s nomination as the running mate of Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto in the 2024 presidential election underscores Jokowi’s deepening engagement with patronage politics.

This development highlights how Jokowi, once seen as an outsider and reformer, has embraced traditional patronage methods to secure his legacy and maintain influence beyond his presidency by working to provide roles for his family across top government and political roles.

More recently, allegations have surfaced linking Jokowi’s family to a bribery case involving mining permits in North Maluku. The case implicates Jokowi’s son-in-law, Medan Mayor Muhammad Bobby Afif Nasution, and his wife, Kahiyang Ayu, in a scandal involving the issuance of mining business permits (IUPs) under the former North Maluku governor Abdul Ghani Kasuba.

This controversy further fuels concerns about Jokowi’s reliance on patronage and the expansion of his family’s influence within Indonesia’s political and economic spheres.

In a related development, recent discussions within the Golkar Party have raised the possibility of Jokowi running for the party’s chief patron post. Dave Laksono, a prominent member of Golkar’s leadership, said there was no prohibition against anyone, including Jokowi, from seeking the position.

This speculation adds another layer to the concerns about the growing entrenchment of Jokowi’s family in Indonesian politics, signaling a potential shift in power dynamics within one of the country’s most influential political parties. Dave questioned what problems there would be if Jokowi were to become Golkar’s chief patron, further indicating the normalization of such moves within the Indonesian political landscape.

Critics argue that these actions are eroding the democratic principles Jokowi once championed. The strategic alliance with Prabowo, a former son-in-law of Soeharto, and the orchestration of Gibran’s political ascent are seen as moves to entrench Jokowi’s family within Indonesia’s political elite. This shift reflects a broader trend in Indonesian politics where personal clout and family ties often outweigh party loyalty or ideological consistency and certainly don’t support basic democratic principles and clean governance.

Patronage politics undermines the development and effectiveness of democratic institutions. When political leaders prioritize loyalty over merit, it leads to the appointment of unqualified individuals to key positions within government agencies, the judiciary and state-owned enterprises. This weakens the capacity of these institutions to function effectively, as decisions are made based on political calculations rather than the public interest.

Moreover, patronage distorts the legislative process. House of Representatives members, for instance, may be more inclined to support policies and laws that benefit their patrons rather than their constituents. This creates a legislative environment where laws are crafted to serve the interests of a few rather than the broader population, undermining the principle of representative democracy.

In a healthy democracy, elections are the primary mechanism through which citizens can hold their leaders accountable. However, in a system dominated by patronage, elections can become mere formalities, as the distribution of resources and favors skews the playing field. Candidates with access to patronage networks are often able to secure electoral victories not based on their platforms or competence, but on their ability to provide material benefits to voters.

This dynamic disenfranchises voters, particularly those who are economically disadvantaged, as they may feel compelled to vote for candidates who offer short-term benefits rather than those who genuinely represent their interests. Over time, this erodes the democratic process, as elections become less about competing ideas and more about the distribution of spoils.

The perpetuation of patronage politics in Indonesia also exacerbates social and economic inequality. Resources that should be allocated based on need and efficiency are instead distributed based on political loyalty. This leads to the concentration of wealth and opportunities in the hands of a few, while large segments of the population remain marginalized.

The gap between the political elite and ordinary citizens widens, leading to resentment of government and undermining social cohesion. In regions where patronage is particularly entrenched, development is often skewed to benefit those who are connected to the political elite, while rural areas and marginalized communities are left behind.

Addressing the dangers of patronage in Indonesian democracy requires a multifaceted approach. Strengthening the rule of law and the independence of institutions like the KPK is crucial. Efforts to reform political party financing and ensure greater transparency in government contracts and procurement processes can help reduce the opportunities for patronage.

Civil society organizations and the media also play a critical role in exposing and challenging patronage networks, but proposed laws even threaten that. By raising public awareness and developing a culture of accountability, they can help build pressure for reform.

Ultimately, Indonesia’s journey toward a fully consolidated democracy will require dismantling the entrenched systems of patronage. While the challenges are significant, the resilience and determination of Indonesia’s democratic institutions and civil society offer hope that the country can overcome these obstacles and build a more equitable and representative political system.