The Dynamics of Identity Politics and Patron-Client Relationships in Post-Reformasi Indonesia
Abstract
Since the democratic transition in 1998, Indonesia has experienced significant structural changes, shifting from a centralized authoritarian regime to a decentralized democracy. However, the formal adoption of democratic institutions has not entirely erased traditional sociological structures. This paper explores the contemporary political sociology of Indonesian society, specifically focusing on the persistence of patron-client relationships and the mobilization of identity politics. Utilizing a qualitative approach based on a comprehensive literature review and secondary sociological data, the study examines how traditional patronage has transformed into transactional politics (often manifested as politik uang or money politics) in the digital era. Furthermore, it analyzes how religious and ethnic identities are commodified by political elites to consolidate power at the grassroots level. The findings suggest that while Indonesian civil society is becoming more digitally engaged, informal social hierarchies and identity-based polarization continue to complicate democratic consolidation.
Keywords
POLITICAL SOCIOLOGYINDONESIAPATRON-CLIENTIDENTITY POLITICSDEMOCRATIZATIONDECENTRALIZATION.
References
Aspinall, E., & Sukmajati, M. (Eds.). (2016). Electoral Dynamics in Indonesia: Money Politics, Patronage and Clientelism
at the Grassroots*. NUS Press.
Hadiz, V. R. (2010). *Localising Power in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia: A Southeast Asian Perspective*. Stanford
University Press.
Mietzner, M. (2015). *Reinventing Asian Populism: Jokowi’s Rise, Democracy, and Political Contestation in Indonesia*.
Policy Studies, 72, 1-74.
Tapsell, R. (2017). *Media Power in Indonesia: Oligarchs, Citizens and the Digital Revolution*. Rowman & Littlefield.
Van Klinken, G. (2009). Patronage Democracy in Indonesian Provinces. In *Democratisation in Post-Suharto Indonesia*
(pp. 141-159). Routledge.
Aspinall & Sukmajati (2016) – Used to explain the shift towards transactional politics/money politics at the grassroots
level.
Hadiz (2010) – Used to explain post-authoritarian expectations and the decentralisation of power.
Mietzner (2015) – Used to cite the use of populism and political contestation.
Tapsell (2017) – Used to explain the role of social/digital media in reinforcing identity polarisation.
Van Klinken (2009) – Used to highlight the emergence of "patronage democracy" at the local/provincial level.
at the Grassroots*. NUS Press.
Hadiz, V. R. (2010). *Localising Power in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia: A Southeast Asian Perspective*. Stanford
University Press.
Mietzner, M. (2015). *Reinventing Asian Populism: Jokowi’s Rise, Democracy, and Political Contestation in Indonesia*.
Policy Studies, 72, 1-74.
Tapsell, R. (2017). *Media Power in Indonesia: Oligarchs, Citizens and the Digital Revolution*. Rowman & Littlefield.
Van Klinken, G. (2009). Patronage Democracy in Indonesian Provinces. In *Democratisation in Post-Suharto Indonesia*
(pp. 141-159). Routledge.
Aspinall & Sukmajati (2016) – Used to explain the shift towards transactional politics/money politics at the grassroots
level.
Hadiz (2010) – Used to explain post-authoritarian expectations and the decentralisation of power.
Mietzner (2015) – Used to cite the use of populism and political contestation.
Tapsell (2017) – Used to explain the role of social/digital media in reinforcing identity polarisation.
Van Klinken (2009) – Used to highlight the emergence of "patronage democracy" at the local/provincial level.
