Stories from the Sunflower: Lucy (11)

"At the end of semester assessment, a Philosophy Professor gave one-question exam. In the classroom, he lifted his chair, put it on his desk, and wrote on the white board, 'Using everything we have learned this semester, prove that this chair does not exist.'

The students began energetically writing their answers at length enough. However, one member of the class finished in less than a minute. He turned his paper in and left the room.

When the grades were posted, the rest of the class wondered how he or she could have gotten an A+ when he had barely written anything at all.

It turned out that his answer consisted of two words, 'What chair?'"

"The famous American statesman Henry Kissinger noted that peace and war are the core business of world politics," sunflower went on while looking at a hundred thousand rupiah red note. "Even if the international agenda has been broadened by environmental issues and matters as trivial as geogebra 'the curve of bananas', it is still diplomacy that bears an enormous responsibility when situations of great peril arise. This explains why diplomacy has remained such a weighty business, mystical almost, dignified by protocol and shrouded in secrecy. It also explains why young people remain attracted to it, says Jonathan Holslag.

World politics is again poised precariously at a tipping point, added Holslag. At one end of the balance sits a large crowd of cosmopolitans, the airborne elite that hops from one city to another and considers the success of diplomacy to be measured by the number of dialogues established or the flocks of cameramen present at international conferences. It insists that the bloody history of great power politics has ended and that major wars have become much less likely. Competition, such reasoning continues, is much less likely to spark major wars because of economic interdependence. This opinion was particularly dominant in politics after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991: in Europe, which has aspired to lead by example rather than by force; in China, which has designed the doctrine of peaceful rise; and in the United States of America, where conservatives and progressives alike have championed a foreign policy premised on liberal values.

The number of armed conflicts is also growing and other international disputes have become tenser. It is in this confusing world that a new generation has to chart its way and develop the wisdom to make the important decisions that face it. Therefore, the leaders of tomorrow should be guided by good understanding of the people’s wellbeing, of economics, of ethics – and of history. As the ancient Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero put it: ‘To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child.’

If theory and ideology give you a vantage point on the world much like that gained from a helicopter ride, history brings you to the same point only after a long and arduous mountain expedition. A journey through history strengthens the mind in the same way that an expedition in nature hardens body and soul. It requires perseverance and concentration to interpret the many events along the way. It develops the perceptiveness and awareness that are needed to detect and overcome hurdles. And it ultimately leads to great heights, from where one can look back, draw conclusions, and search for the best possible route towards the horizon ahead.

There is no shortcut for this voyage. However much we trust in the rigour of theory and the clarity of ideology, if we do not accept the challenge of coming to grips with history, it is like claiming to be religious without having read any sacred texts. Compared to ideology, history can be a moderating force. It reveals not only how much progress the world has made in improving living conditions, but also how hard-fought such progress–and its preservation–has been. From this perspective, world history can be viewed as an upward curve; but it has experienced dramatic setbacks along the way, which need to be understood in order to help prevent–or at least ameliorate–new crises in the future.

Talking about history, who do you think the most beautiful woman in course of world history? Is it Cleopatra VII Thea Philopator? It seems likely that Cleopatra’s physical appearance was not more or less attractive than the next woman. Legend ascribed much of her success to her beauty and sexuality, but the ancient sources emphasize her intelligence and charm rather than her physical beauty, which they claim was average, says Stanley M. Burstein. She was reputed to understand eight languages and to be the first of her Ptolemaic dynasty to speak Egyptian, the language of her subjects. She was also supposed to have 12 written books on a variety of subjects including weights and measures, cosmetics, and even magic. This suggests that, like her ancestors, Cleopatra received a good education. Rather than physical appearance, the beauty of character, this radiating 'inner beauty' was the most renowned beauty in human history, which could be a valuable lesson for our modern fixation.

Perhaps, Helen of Troy, also known as beautiful Helen, Helen of Argos, or Helen of Sparta was said to have been the most beautiful woman in the world. Historian Bettany Hughes, in her search for the identity behind this mythic figure, uses Homer’s account of Helen’s life to frame her own investigation. Helen, says Hughes, has been known for millennia as a symbol of beauty, and also as a reminder of the terrible power that beauty can wield. Images of Helen start appearing in the 7th century BC. Her beauty inspired artists of all times to represent her, frequently as the personification of ideal human beauty.

Following her double marriage–first to the Greek king Menelaus and then to the Trojan prince Paris– Helen came to be held responsible for an enduring enmity between East and West. For nearly three thousand years, she has been upheld as an exquisite agent of extermination. As soon as men in the West began to write, they made Helen their subject. Hesiod, one of the earliest named authors in history, was the first to chronicle her ‘wide renown stretching over all the earth’; the poet Sappho described ‘her beauty surpassing all mankind’. The epithets endured; it is how Helen is remembered today.

Helen was married to Menelaus, King of Sparta, yet Aphrodite promised her to Paris of Troy. Paris supposedly seduced her and took her back to Troy, although some say he kidnapped her. As a result of Paris took Helen back to Troy, many Greek men took their own ships and formed an army to fight against the Trojans, alongside Menelaus, in order to return Helen to her husband. It is not known how the goddess died. Three ideas surface again and again, says Hughes. The first is that she, trailing a past that drips with gore, ends up not tormented in the underworld but as one of the blessed, in Elysium. The second is that Helen gets some kind of retribution for all the suffering she has caused, before her final journey to meet her makers. And the third finds her attaining sparkling immortality–no one wants to lose Helen, no one wants her to die.

Christopher Marlowe,in his play 'The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus'. Marlowe is talking about Helen of Troy, 'Was this the face that launch’d a thousand ships. And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?'

Today, we might use this quote to say that a woman is stunningly beautiful. This saying can also be used in other contexts, for example, to say that somebody started a trend and became 'the face of a thousand (something).'

We would be living in an intellectual utopia that provided material comfort to all, a solution to climate change and a convenient alternative to dental floss, Bernard Keane and Helen Razer write. Instead, we exist in an era of 'the face of a thousands blunders'. In chess, a blunder happens when a player makes a move that negatively affects his position, it causes a player to be checkmated. In politics, Barack Obama writes, 'My staff’s biggest fear was that I’d make a 'gaffe,' the expression used by the press to describe any maladroit phrase by the candidate that reveals ignorance, carelessness, fuzzy thinking, insensitivity, malice, boorishness, falsehood, or hypocrisy—or is simply deemed to veer sufficiently far from conventional wisdom to make said candidate vulnerable to attack. By this definition, most humans will commit five to ten gaffes a day, each of us counting on the forbearance and goodwill of our family, co-workers, and friends to fill in the blanks, catch our drift, and generally assume the best rather than the worst in us.

As a result, my initial instincts were to dismiss some of my team’s warnings. [...] It didn’t take long, though, to appreciate that the minute you announced your candidacy for president, the normal rules of speech no longer applied; that microphones were everywhere, and every word coming out of your mouth was recorded, amplified, scrutinized, and dissected. [...] By nature I’m a deliberate speaker, which, by the standards of presidential candidates, helped keep my gaffe quotient relatively low.'

Back to the topic of beautiful women, for Indonesians, perhaps, Rara Mendut—apart from Rara Jonggrang and Siti Nurbaya—is one of the many beautiful women in this maritime land. This girl, who was a loot of fight between Ki Tumenggung Wiraguna and Adipati Pragula, refused to marry Ki Tumenggung for the shake of Pranacitra, her lover, son of Nyai Simobarong, a wealthy merchant. Long before, she had also rejected Adipati Pragula's proposal.

Raised in a fishermen village on the north coast of Java, a village called Teluk Cikal, she grew up to be an agile girl who never hesitated to speak her mind. Ki Tumenggung was furious, Rara Mendut was forced to pay taxes that had not being paid by Adipati Pragulo. Ki Tumenggung's threat was greeted by Roro Mendut and she tried to sell cigarettes. Her merchandises were so popular, some people even willing to pay cigarettes left over from Rara Mendut.

Pranacitra was captured and killed by Ki Tumengggung using Kyai Jikjo, a nine-shaped keris. This keris was also used to kill Duke Pragulo. Seeing her lover killed, Rara Mendut immediately jumped towards Kyai Jikjo which was still covered in blood. The keris had just been removed from Pranacitra's chest and was held by Ki Tumenggung, and he did not realized that Rara Mendut hit the tip of his keris. She died near Pranacitra's body, for her, it was better to die than to live as a concubine and betrayed her love.

Indonesia itself, a country with a thousand islands, can be likened to a beautiful girl. Even without the 'mining product' make-up, she still looks attractive. This innocent girl will be fought over because of her strategic location. However, similar with Ni Rara Mendut, she is not in good health, especially when we are talking about her recent politics situation.

Over the last decade or so, analysts and policy makers have recognized that across large swaths of the world, clientelism is both more common and more entrenched than was once thought, Edward Aspinall and Ward Berenschot write. Not long ago, scholars expected that modernization, economic growth, and democratization would gradually force politicians to shed clientelistic practices and focus on the propagation of policy proposals as the principal means of wooing voters.

The term 'patronage democracy' has gained currency to describe democracies where electoral mobilization primarily takes a clientelistic form, with the word 'patronage,' referring to the goods and favors that politicians provide in exchange for electoral support. According to Aspinall and Berenschot, Indonesia’s democratized political system is saturated with clientelism. At every level, formal political institutions are shadowed by informal, personalized networks through which material benefits and favors flow. Politicians win power, often, by distributing small-scale projects, cash, or other goods to voters or community groups; they gain the funds they need to campaign by trading contracts, licenses, and other favors with businesspeople; and they engage in constant battles with each other and with bureaucrats in order to wrest control over state resources and turn them to their personal political advantage.

Patronage is 'a divisible benefit that politicians distribute to individual voters, campaign workers, or contributors in exchange for political support'. Patronage thus includes cash, goods, services and other economic benefits (such as jobs or contracts) that politicians distribute to supporters or potential supporters. Such gifts can be distributed to individuals (an envelope containing cash, for example) or to groups.

Patronage refers to the material or other benefits that might be distributed by a politician to a voter or supporter, whilst clientelism, refers to the nature of the relationship between them. Clientelism is a 'personalistic relationship of power' within which a material benefit (patronage) is exchanged for political support.

Patronage might also be derived from programmatic goods, in a 'pork barrel projects'—a metaphor for the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to direct spending—which are benefits that a person receives by belonging to a broad social category targeted by a general government programme—for example, 'Healthcare Cards', offering free treatment, or ' Direct Cash Assistance', to poor households.

According to Aspinall dan Berenschot, Indonesia’s democratized political system is saturated with patronage and clientelism. The so-called 'oligarchy literature', in which Richard Robison and Vedi Hadiz, as well as Jeffrey Winters, argue that extremely wealthy actors dominate Indonesia’s democracy, also emphasises the role of patronage as a political glue, even if these scholars devote relatively little attention to detailing the mechanisms through which such rule is exercised. At every level, formal political institutions are shadowed by informal, personalized networks through which material benefits and favors flow. Politicians win power, often, by distributing small-scale projects, cash, or other goods to voters or community groups; they gain the funds they need to campaign by trading contracts, licenses, and other favors with businesspeople; and they engage in constant battles with each other and with bureaucrats in order to wrest control over state resources and turn them to their personal political advantage. Of course, in Indonesia, as in other countries, this is not how politicians present their election victories. Politicians and their supporters generally prefer to claim they win because voters prefer their persona or program over those of their competitors, rather than because they outbid them. And, of course, sometimes they are right. Candidate quality and programmatic offerings do count a great deal in at least some Indonesian elections, most obviously in presidential polls.

For many commentators and participants, the legislative elections of 2014 and 2019 were the 'money politics' election. The term 'money politics' has been widely used to describe such practices since Indonesia’s new democratic era began in the late 1990s. In the early years of the democratic transition, people often described bribery within legislative bodies—for example, in elections to choose governors, mayors or district heads (a procedure that was replaced by direct popular elections in 2005)—as a form of money politics. Others have used the term when discussing vote buying within party congresses, or political corruption more broadly, such as when legislators skim money from government projects or receive kickbacks from businesspeople. However, usage of the term has tended to narrow. When people talk about money politics now, more often than not they are referring to the practice of distributing cash (and sometimes goods) to voters during general elections.

A striking feature of Indonesia’s democracy is that its winners—the elites who derive power, prestige, and wealth from engaging in politics—harbor considerable misgivings about how it is practiced, Aspinall and Berenschot concluded. During their interviews throughout Indonesia, politicians regularly harped on the expense, uncertainty, moral failings, and destructive effects of the 'money politics' they engage in when they run for office. Politicians had 'to play two games'—they had to be 'idealistic,' by which it meant sticking to rules and procedures, but also 'tolerant,' by which it meant breaking them in order to gain illicit funds. Once they were elected, their main concern was to 'balik modal'—recoup the capital they had expended on campaign expenses, and so pay back their creditors and accumulate enough money for the next election.

As the end of our many episodes of conversation, allow me to ask: If money talks, what does it say?

Money is multi-lingual. Money can speak the languages of pragmatism or ideology, and its fluency varies from country to country. A democracy argues about what is the proper use of politics, and what is its abuse, or its corruption. Corruption is the abuse of the political system. Thus, corruption is a matter of political values, and contested values at that, says Iain Mcmenamin. This is very different to a legal approach to corruption that seeks to adjudicate on which behaviours are, or are not corrupt, but assumes that the definition of corruption is self-evident and politically uncontested. And Allah knows best."

Even though there are still many stories can be presented with martabak dishes or in an abstract form, it is time to say goodbye, sunflower waves her leaves, while singing low,

If a picture paints a thousand words

then why can't I paint you?

The words will never show the you I've come to know

If a face could launch a thousand ships

then where am I to go? *)

Citations & References:
- Jonathan Holslag, A Political History of the World: Three Thousand Years of War and Peace, 2018, Pelican
- Stanley M. Burstein, The Reign of Cleopatra, 2004, Greenwood Press
- Bernard Keane & Helen Razer, A Short History of Stupid, 2014, Allen & Unwin
- Bettany Hughes, Helen of Troy: The Story Behind the Most Beautiful Woman in the World, 2009, Vintage
- David Graeber, The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy, 2015, Melville House
- Barack Obama, A Promised Land, 2020, Crown
- Edward Aspinall & Mada Sukmajati (Ed.), Electoral Dynamics in Indonesia: Money Politics, Patronage and Clientelism at the Grassroots, 2016, NUS Press
- Edward Aspinall & Ward Berenschot, Democracy for Sale: Elections, Clientelism, and the State in Indonesia, 2019, Cornell University Press
- Ajip Rosidi, Roro Mendut: Sebuah Cerita Klasik Jawa, 1985, Gunung Agung
- Iain Mcmenamin, If Money Talks What Does it Say? Corruption and Business Financing of Political Parties, 2013, Oxford University Press
*) "If" written by David Gates
[Session 1]
[Session 10]

Bahasa

Stories from the Sunflower: Lucy (10)

"It is said that historians have found a manuscript, which is also said to be a relic from the fall of Majapahit Empire era. This manuscript is still being researched further, because, again, it is said, the manuscript tells: One day, the king was riding his white horse, while distributing 'plain rice' to his people (it is said that nowadays, it can be interpreted as 'throwing T-shirts'), then suddenly fell. The 'Hulubalangs' immediately approached 'sang prabu' and helped him up, even though he limped a little. An ambassador from a distant land who was said to be present, asked if 'his majesty' was okay. The 'Bupala', who was said to be better at speaking English than Sanskrit, answered, 'I want to test my minister'."

"When ancient ruler who is believed to have been the richest person in human history, Mansa Musa, ruled the Mali Empire, he led the Empire to its zenith from 1312 to 1337. While it's difficult to estimate his wealth with absolute certainty, estimates range up to $400 billion. It’s accepted that his gifts of gold to whomever he met during his pilgrimage to Mecca led to hyper-inflation and an Egyptian recession lasting a decade," said sunflower while paying attention to the spinning Million Dollar Cube.

"We all want money—some of us dangerously so, says Laurence Kotlikoff. He then gives two examples: King Midas begged Dionysus for the golden touch and got his wish, starving to death as even the food he touched turned to gold. Imelda Marcos, the infamous First Lady of the Philippines, had very little as she was growing up. When her husband took power and started plundering the country, shoes topped her shopping list. Twenty-one years and almost three thousand pairs of footwear later, the people revolted. The couple escaped with their lives, but not with Imelda’s shoes. Hundreds of them are still tastefully displayed at the Marikina Shoe Museum near Manila [seven hundred twenty pairs of shoes are at the Marikina Shoe Museum in Metro Manila. Of that, 253 are on display, while 467 are in storage. Imelda left over 3000 pairs of shoes upon leaving the palace]. The vast majority of us aren’t money hungry out of sheer greed. We want money for a good reason: we need it.

There are good reasons for believing that modern money means much more today to many more people throughout the world than it has ever meant before in human history, Glyn Davies concluded. Money begins with barter. The history of barter is as old, indeed in some respects very much older, than the recorded history of man himself. Cattle–a vague term variously meaning cows, buffalo, goats, sheep and camels, and usually but not always excluding horses–historically precede the use of grain as money for the simple reason that the taming of animals preceded agriculture.

To primitive man emerging from the Stone Age, any metal was precious: the distinction between base and precious metals became of significance only after his skill as a metallurgist had improved and supplies of various metals had increased sufficiently to reflect their relative abundance or scarcity. Thus copper, bronze, gold, silver and electrum were known and used before iron, while aluminium, the most common metal in the earth’s crust, became available for use only in the nineteenth century.

The world’s first coins were made of gold around 700 BC and that a number of Greek city-states established their own forms of ‘gold standard’ which concept was extended empire-wide by Alexander and later by Roman and Byzantine emperors. Paper currency came about as a result of one (and perhaps, later, two) of the Four Great Inventions: papermaking, printing, gunpowder and the compass. Ancient China led the way, although it wasn’t until the Tang dynasty during the 7th century that merchants began using paper in the form of what would these days be called promissory notes. By the 17th century, London’s goldsmith bankers were issuing receipts as payable to the bearer of the document, as opposed to the depositor (a sentiment echoed on contemporary banknotes with the sentence 'I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of X pounds'), while 1661 saw Sweden’s Stockholms Banco become the first central bank to attempt to issue banknotes.

Steve Forbes and Elizabeth Ames suggest that government did not invent money. Money originated in the marketplace as a solution to a problem. It arose spontaneously, like the spoon or the personal computer, in response to a need. In this case, the need was for a stable unit of value to facilitate trade. Money has three roles in an economy: as a measure of value; as an instrument of trust that permits transactions to take place between strangers; and it provides a system of communication throughout a society. In order to function in these roles, money, above all, must be stable. When it isn’t, it becomes impaired, and an economy suffers. In the worst instances, when money stops working altogether, a society can be destroyed. Money is a tool that facilitates transactions. It does not create them. And money, in and of itself, is not wealth—nor does increasing the supply of money by the whims of central bankers mean that wealth will be created. In fact, the opposite is the case.

It's the people, not government, invented money. If expanding the monetary base was the way to economic vitality, Zimbabwe would be the richest country in the world, according to Forbes and Ames. When that country first became independent in 1980, the Zimbabwe dollar was worth more than the U.S. dollar. In the early 2000s, after redistributionist reforms led to the destruction of the country’s agricultural economy, the Zimbabwe government responded to the crisis with a manic printing of money. The result was a hyperinflation second only to that of Hungary after World War II.

We need food to live. But too much food leads to unhealthy obesity. The same applies to money. We need money for commerce. But just as too much food can be bad for your health, an oversupply of money can undermine the health of an economy. The story of monetary expansion is not a story of wealth creation but rather of wealth destruction. History contains countless examples: from the eighteenth-century French debacle of the Mississippi Bubble to the wild colonial inflations preceding the American Revolution to the German hyperinflations of the early 1920s and after World War II to the 1970s U.S. stagflation. Reckless monetary expansion has rocked countries like Venezuela and Argentina. In the United States, it led to the collapse of the housing market, the 2008 financial crisis, and subsequent global stagnation.

Every profession can be said, makes magic. Biologists cure plagues. Engineers build skyscrapers. Physicists split atoms. Geologists date rocks. Astronomers discover planets. Chemists decompose matter. Judges issue a ruling in the case based on their interpretation of the law and their own personal judgment. Lawyers have different functions and privileges: an advocate, attorney, barrister, canon lawyer, civil law notary, counsel, solicitor, legal executive, or public servant. Lawyers do not know enough about economics, and Economists do not know enough about law. According to Kotlikoff, despite the challenges of the field, but the Economists make marvelous magic.

Adam Smith, our first grand wizard, with the conjuring 'invisible hand,' which transforms individual greed into collective good. David Ricardo used Dr. Strange 'four mystical numbers' to explain why, what, and when countries trade. Alfred Marshall produced the numinous 'Avatar' supply-and-demand curves that rule all markets. And our belated great sorcerer Paul Samuelson transposed ancient economic laws into 'the Scream' mathematical runes.

Smith, Ricardo, Marshall, and Samuelson are the top economic Dumbledore of all time. But every economist is trained to solve mysteries using the tricks of our trade. This is why economics is so fascinating, surprising, important, and useful, whether applied to understanding global markets, taxing our emissions, or saving our jobs. Though the common conception of economics is that it’s focused on big, world-spanning issues, economists have, in fact, spent what is now a century studying personal finance.

Politicians, what about politics? According to Brian McNair, there three characteristics of a democratic regime: first, there must be an agreed set of procedures and rules governing the conduct of elections, such rules will typically take the form of a constitution; second, those who participate in the democratic process must comprise a ‘substantial’ proportion of the people; third, the availability of choice and the ability of citizens to exercise that choice rationally. This in turn, presupposes a knowledgeable, educated citizenry. The importance of an informed, knowledgeable electorate dictates that democratic politics must be pursued in the public arena (as distinct from the secrecy characteristic of autocratic regimes). The knowledge and information on the basis of which citizens will make their political choices must circulate freely and be available to all.The political process nevertheless demands that individuals act collectively in making decisions about who will govern them. The private political opinions of the individual become the public opinion of the people as a whole, which may be reflected in voting patterns and treated as advice by existing political leaders.

Democracy rests on a promise of equality, which too often shatters against the wall of money, says Julia Cagé. Money provides us with a sense of security and stability by allowing us to meet our basic needs, build a cushion for unexpected expenses, and invest in our future. By managing our money wisely, we can enjoy a greater sense of financial security and peace of mind. Money is a necessary component of any democracy: it enables political participation and representation. However, if not effectively regulated, it can undermine the integrity of political processes and institutions and jeopardize the quality of democracy.

We tend to forget that providing for democracy comes at a price, Cagé added. But if the costs are very unevenly distributed, and if the weight of private money in the total funding is not severely restricted, then the whole system is in danger. Regulations related to the funding of political parties and election campaigns (commonly known as political finance) and lobbying are critical to promote integrity, transparency and accountability in any democracy.

What is political party and what is its function? John Kenneth White suggests that defining political parties will produce a variety of opinions, but it can be described as ‘tripartite systems of interactions’: first, party as Organization or ‘the machine’, the formal machinery of party ranging from local committees (precinct, ward, or town) up to state central committees, and the people who man and direct there. Second, party as the Mass of Supporters. For some, this identification is strong, and they consistently back candidates running under the party label. For others, the attachment is relatively weak and casual. Here, party exists in the eyes of its beholder; it is a bundle of electoral loyalties. Third, Party as a Body of Notables. Most political leaders in government and outside it are identified by a party label. Party is sometimes used to refer to that collectivity of notables who accept the party label, and party policy then becomes the prevailing policy tendencies among this collectivity.

Political parties are a pervasive phenomenon in representative democracies, says Charles Boix. Although the coordination of politicians into parties, that is, into vote-seeking and governing teams of candidates and parliamentarians, has been a universal, almost lawlike phenomenon in contemporary democracies, the ways in which politicians' have organized and voters have responded to partisan appeals have varied widely over time and across countries. On the one hand, political parties differ in their internal architecture: how hierarchical they are; the strength of their parliamentary wing vis-a-vis the party apparatus; the number, extraction, and commitment of their membership; or their cohesiveness, ranging from loose, almost ad hoc coalitions of interests to tightly disciplined organizations whose members never deviate from the official position of the party.

Marjorie Randon Hershey suggests that political parties can act as 'social choice' mechanisms. Political environments have some unique qualities that affect individuals’ choices. Democracies need to recruit leaders as well as voters. Political leadership is a public good so, problems of collective choice arise in its selection. In a democracy, citizens must have some role in choosing important government personnel. When a democracy begins to expand, nascent party organizations have a straightforward incentive to selectively stimulate citizen participation. The more voters they are able to mobilize, the greater their likelihood of electing their candidates.

As a democracy matures and the franchise expands to approach its natural limits, the challenge then becomes the need to motivate qualified voters to go to the polls. The existence of parties in the electorate, or party identification, as a means of simplifying voters’ choices and therefore making it easier for them to choose to vote. In any of several ways, then, citizens can use party as a means of drawing inferences about the candidates’ characteristics and policy stands.

There are several factors that influence political spending. According to Shari Bryan and Denise Baer, in many developing democracies, accurate information about political spending practices is unavailable to the public. Reporting requirements are often non-existent, and where they do exist, enforcement agencies lack the skills and resources to collect the information. The results of the African Political Party Finance Initiative (APFI) study about the characteristics of party financing not only in African countries, but in other regions of the world—from Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, and Asia (22 countries). The research shows that most politicians are aware of the problems of money in politics and are prepared to address them. At the same time, the study highlighted many areas of concern, such as the role of wealthy business interests in funding campaigns in order to gain access to lucrative state contracts. It revealed the personal risk of bankruptcy that many candidates face as they attempt to raise money for elected positions, and the enticement to abandon political competition in exchange for money.

Corruption related to political party financing poses a grave threat to democratic development worldwide. Covert party funding streams, influence peddling, and leveraging state resources for party purposes all compromise the single greatest asset of democracy: the faith and support of ordinary citizens in the political process. The social and political costs of corruption are well known, and a majority of political and civic leaders recognize that many of the problems related to political corruption stem from deficiencies within political parties themselves. One of the great challenges facing political reformers is that little is known about the details of money in political parties or in campaigns. Political party financing patterns are extremely opaque, and the decisions about raising and spending money are usually controlled and managed by only a few individuals. Relatively few politicians could provide concrete details about party funding operations.

Vote-buying, or the use of money and direct benefits to influence voters is of concern to political elites around the globe. Business interests and wealthy individuals engaged in politics are stifling democratic participation, undermining the development of economies, and transforming the nature of government. Repeatedly, concerns were raised about the rising number of wealthy individuals who seek office in order to gain access to and control over lucrative contracts, and business contributors who demand paybacks from those whom they support politically. As a result, the political establishment is often seen as a circle of wealthy individuals who make policy decisions based on private interests, rather than the common good.

In many instances, political accountability is for sale to the highest bidder. Candidates, often financed by patrons or godfathers, may compromise their independence, neutrality, and platforms to serve as proxies for their benefactors. Political parties do the same by accepting funds from business interests that intentionally support campaigns as a way of ensuring lucrative contracts with the state, or possibly worse yet, for assurances that the state will turn a blind eye to their illegal business practices. In some cases, candidates are willing to forgo political competition or abandon their political parties in exchange for money.

In Indonesia, 'Money in Politics' is not as famous as 'Money Politics'. The term 'Money Politics' has been widely used to describe 'wani piro' [How much money are you willing to pay?] practices—and the response is 'piro-piro wani' [as much money as you can]—since Indonesia’s new democratic era began in the late 1990s. Although it is in common usage, the term is imprecise, and covers a wide range of phenomena.

We'll continue to discuss it on the last episode. Bi 'idhnillah."

As she moved towards the final session, the sunflower sang,

My father told me,

'Hold your head up high,

never give up and keep aiming for the sky,

and when darkness finds a way to tear you down,

take a closer look, there's hope right by your side.

Yeah, I know it's tough when nights are getting longer,

and doubts are creeping in' *)

Citations & References:

- Laurence Kotlikoff, Money Magic: An Economist's Secrets to More Money, Less Risk, and a Better Life, 2022, Little, Brown Spark

- Glyn Davies, History of Money: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, 2002, University of Wales Press

- Steve Forbes & Elizabeth Ames, Money: How the Destuction of the Dollars Threatens the Global Economy—and What We can Do about It, 2014, Itzy

- Brian McNair, An Introduction to Political Communication, 2011, Routledge

- Julia Cagé, The Price of Democracy: How Money Shapes Politics and What to Do about It, translated by Patrick Camiller, 2020, Harvard University Press

- Shari Bryan & Denise Baer (Ed.), Money in Politics: A Study of Party Financing Practices in 22 Countries, 2005, NDI

- Richard S. Katz and William Crotty (Ed.), Handbook of Party Politics, 2006, SAGE

- Carles Boix & Susan Stokes (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, 2007, Oxford University Press

*) "You Need to Know" written by Axel Johansson, Tormod Løkling & Iselin Solheim

[Session 11]

[Session 9]

Bahasa