Everyday participation and procedural safeguards in neighbourhood elections in Padaleu Indonesia
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Neighbourhood elections show how residents and local officials organise political participation through institutions. This qualitative study examines Rukun Tetangga and Rukun Warga leadership selection in Padaleu, Kendari, Indonesia. The analysis draws on five role-labelled interview summaries and observations from a field record. Thematic analysis examined procedures, candidates, contributions, and documentation. Findings indicate deliberative committee formation, exclusion of committee members from candidacy, administrative coordination through the kelurahan office, and announcements through mosques and WhatsApp groups. Candidates emphasised service and resident encouragement; one RW candidate reported spending IDR 600,000 on a campaign banner. Observations recorded food and financial contributions, venues, unpaid counting witnesses, and smartphone photography during voting. These accounts suggest that election implementation combined administrative coordination with residents’ resources and social networks, but do not establish fairness, inclusion, or effects on trust. The study proposes clearer funding records, accessible announcements, defined witness roles, and privacy-conscious documentation as safeguards requiring further research.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Aspinall, E. (2014). When brokers betray: Clientelism, social networks, and electoral politics in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 46(4), 545–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2014.960706
Aspinall, E., Berenschot, W., Savirani, A., & Ruhyanto, A. (2025). Analysing and explaining variation in village governance regimes across Indonesia. South East Asia Research, 33(1), 12–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/0967828x.2025.2483168
Aspinall, E., Rohman, N., Hamdi, A. Z., Rubaidi, & Triantini, Z. E. (2017). Vote buying in Indonesia: Candidate strategies, market logic and effectiveness. Journal of East Asian Studies, 17(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/jea.2016.31
Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/qrj0902027
Bowen, J. R. (1986). On the political construction of tradition: Gotong royong in Indonesia. The Journal of Asian Studies, 45(3), 545–561. https://doi.org/10.2307/2056530
Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2016). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12465
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023). Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health, 24(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597
Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56(3), 1391–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y
Callen, M., Gibson, C. C., Jung, D. F., & Long, J. D. (2016). Improving electoral integrity with information and communications technology. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 3(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2015.14
Dowling, C. M., Doherty, D., Hill, S. J., Gerber, A. S., & Huber, G. A. (2019). The voting experience and beliefs about ballot secrecy. PLOS ONE, 14(1), Article e0209765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209765
Edelenbos, J., van Meerkerk, I., & Schenk, T. (2018). The evolution of community self-organization in interaction with government institutions: Cross-case insights from three countries. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016651142
Evans, S. D., & Fernandez-Burgos, M. (2023). From empowerment to community power in participatory budgeting. American Behavioral Scientist, 67(4), 578–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642221086947
Fajri, M. N., & Pradoto, W. (2023). Community self-organisation in neighbourhood parks in Perumnas Mojosongo, Surakarta. Jurnal Pembangunan Wilayah dan Kota, 19(2), 264–281. https://doi.org/10.14710/pwk.v19i2.51643
Frederiksen, M., & Grubb, A. (2023). The politics of insufficiency: Ambivalence and boundary work in the co-production of welfare services. Public Management Review, 25(3), 501–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1978759
Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl. 1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2004). Informal institutions and comparative politics: A research agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 725–740. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592704040472
Hicken, A. (2011). Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science, 14(1), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.031908.220508
Jakobsen, M. (2013). Can government initiatives increase citizen coproduction? Results of a randomized field experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus036
Jakobsen, M., & Andersen, S. C. (2013). Coproduction and equity in public service delivery. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 704–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12094
Jensen, U. T., & Thomsen, M. K. (2023). Can managerial communication reduce ambiguity among service professionals about volunteer roles in coproduction? An experimental test. The American Review of Public Administration Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740231191286
Kiss, B., Sekulova, F., Hörschelmann, K., Salk, C. F., Takahashi, W., & Wamsler, C. (2022). Citizen participation in the governance of nature-based solutions. Environmental Policy and Governance, 32(3), 247–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1987
Koopman, J. (2021). The restoration of gotong royong as a form of post-disaster solidarity in Lombok, Indonesia. South East Asia Research, 29(3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/0967828x.2021.1966318
Kuriwaki, S., Lewis, J. B., & Morse, M. (2025). Privacy violations in election results. Science Advances, 11(11), Article eadt1512. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adt1512
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765
O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000388
Olken, B. A. (2007). Monitoring corruption: Evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. Journal of Political Economy, 115(2), 200–249. https://doi.org/10.1086/517935
Olken, B. A. (2010). Direct democracy and local public goods: Evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. American Political Science Review, 104(2), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055410000079
Orbawati, E. B., Fadlurrahman, Mukti, A., & Nugraha, J. T. (2026). The neighborhood association model as a mechanism for participatory governance and economic empowerment in urban communities. Changing Societies & Personalities, 10(3), 628–648. https://doi.org/10.15826/csp.2026.10.3.403
Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750x(96)00023-x
Sidik, F., & Habibi, M. (2024). A prize for the village ruling class: “Village Funds” and class dynamics in rural Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 54(3), 387–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2023.2193968
Small, M. L. (2009). “How many cases do I need?” On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography, 10(1), 5–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138108099586
Steiner, A., Farmer, J., Yates, S., Moran, M., & Carlisle, K. (2023). How to systematically analyze co-production to inform future policies? Introducing 5Ws of co-production. Public Administration Review, 83(3), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13571
Suwignyo, A. (2019). Gotong royong as social citizenship in Indonesia, 1940s to 1990s. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 50(3), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022463419000407
Syukri, M. (2024). Neglecting the poor and marginalized: Participatory village governance in Indonesia’s New Developmentalist state. Development Policy Review, 42(4), Article e12776. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12776
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357.