General elections are one form of democracy that provides an opportunity for the people to directly determine their leaders. However, the phenomenon of money politics often becomes a shadow in this process. Money politics can damage the essence of democracy because it leads voting behavior based on material incentives, not on the quality or work programs of the candidates.
Money politics refers to the act of giving money or goods to voters with the aim of influencing their choices. The form can be cash, basic necessities, to promises of providing certain facilities. Although prohibited by law, this practice is still often found in various stages of general elections.
The following are the effects of money politics on voting behavior. First, reducing voter rationality. Money politics tends to make voters ignore rational assessments of the quality of candidates. Voters often choose candidates who provide material incentives, without considering the vision, mission, or track record of the candidate.
Second, increasing transactional practices. Money politics changes the relationship between voters and candidates into economic transactions. Voters only give support to candidates who “pay” more, and this can weaken the integrity of democracy.
Third, reducing long-term political participation. Voters who are influenced by money politics tend not to feel responsible for being actively involved in monitoring the performance of elected leaders. As a result, the public accountability process becomes weak.
Fourth, reducing the quality of elected leaders. Money politics often supports candidates who have large financial resources, not qualified candidates. This has the potential to produce incompetent leaders who focus more on returning “political capital” than public service.
Factors causing money politics include, first, culture and habits. In some societies, giving money is considered a tradition or a form of “reward” to voters.
Second, poverty and economic dependency. Voters who are economically weak are more vulnerable to money politics because of their urgent needs.
Third, minimal law enforcement. The lack of strict supervision of money politics practices often provides space for perpetrators to continue doing this without serious legal consequences.
Here are some solutions to reduce money politics. First, increasing political education. Providing an understanding to the public about the importance of choosing based on the quality of candidates, not material incentives.
Second, strengthening law enforcement. The application of strict sanctions to perpetrators of money politics, both givers and recipients, can be an effective step to reduce this practice.
Third, improving public welfare. Improving the economic conditions of the community can reduce vulnerability to money politics.
Fourth, transparency and election supervision. Involving the community and independent institutions in supervising the regional elections can narrow the scope for money politics practices.
In conclusion, money politics has a destructive impact on democracy, especially in the context of general elections. The community must be encouraged to become smart and independent voters, while the government and related institutions need to improve supervision and law enforcement. Only with this collective step can the quality of democracy and leadership in Indonesia be maintained.