THE FACTORS DETERMINE VOTER'S PARTICIPATION IN BANTUL REGENCY ELECTIONS
MetadataShow full item record
Election is an important element of democracy. As a consequence of a democracy, post-New Order Indonesia held four legislative elections regularly that were held in 1999, 2004, 2009, and 2014 and presidential elections in 2004, 2009, and 2014. In order to strengthen the legitimacy of local government head, Indonesia also held direct local executive election since 2005 onward. World have nevertheless admitted that the first Post-New Order 1999 was a peaceful, fair and free election, met the global democracy standard with an impressive voter’s participation, reaching 92,7% of voter’s turnout. The subsequent elections also performed alike, strengthen assumption that Indonesia has remarkably succeeded in making a democratic leap. (Soebagio, 2008). Unfortunately, election in Indonesia still faces challenges to tackle, which one of those is the decline in voter participation. But in the middle of national trend, Bantul booked an anomaly. Participation level in Bantul also always higher compared to the national average. Nevertheless Bantul still face a problem of participation discrepancy. For instance, Triwidadi village booked 87.7% voter’s turn out in 2014 legislative election, but in Banguntapan village only booked 74.3% of participation within the election. Considering the fact, it is important to figure out factors influencing electoral participation among the Bantulese. By identifying the factors we might draw a certain pattern that could be a recommendation to the Bantul electoral commission to develop a right policy. The factors determine high level of voter’s participation in Bantul Regency are as follows: (1) political affiliation of closest relations; (2) participation stimulus; (3) tight social control; (4) voter’s mobilization; (5) The concern of societal institution. Meanwhile the factors hamper voter’s participation are as follows: (1) The saturation of voters toward elections; (2) Less-frequent and less-innovative socialization; (3) less-accurate voter data gathering; (4) the lack of social bond and control; (5) pragmatism.