Journal of Government and Civil Society

Articles

Vol. 10 No. 1 (2026): Journal of Government and Civil Society (April)

Money Matters: From the Power of Capital to Political Power in the City of Tasikmalaya, Indonesia

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31000/39bv5f14
Submitted
11 September 2025
Published
30 April 2026

Abstract

Since the 1998 Reformation, Indonesian politics has experienced major institutional transformation toward electoral democracy. One crucial change is the direct election of regional heads, including mayors, who were previously appointed by governors with central government approval. However, this shift also brings new challenges. This article examines the case of PT. Mayasari Bakti Utama (MBU) as an example of a capital-based political dynasty. The family owning this large transportation company has utilized its economic resources to build political power in Tasikmalaya, Indonesia. The study aims to explain how both informal actors (such as kyai) and formal actors (political party elites) are mobilized for family political interests. Using field observations, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and library research, this study finds that, first, the MBU family employs kyai networks to build legitimacy among Tasikmalaya's religious population. The charisma of the kyai shapes voter behavior in favor of the MBU family. Second, political elites use their positions to support the family's electoral ambitions. Third, unequal capital distribution enables the MBU family to "buy" influence and secure political power. Thus, economic capital strongly determines the political configuration in Tasikmalaya, reinforcing previous studies that political power in Indonesia often originates from economic strength

Sejak Reformasi 1998, politik Indonesia telah mengalami transformasi institusional besar menuju demokrasi elektoral. Salah satu perubahan penting adalah pelaksanaan pemilihan kepala daerah secara langsung, termasuk pemilihan wali kota, yang sebelumnya diangkat oleh gubernur dengan persetujuan pemerintah pusat. Namun, perubahan ini juga membawa tantangan baru. Artikel ini mengkaji kasus PT. Mayasari Bakti Utama (MBU) sebagai contoh dinasti politik berbasis modal. Keluarga pemilik perusahaan transportasi besar ini memanfaatkan sumber daya ekonominya untuk membangun kekuatan politik di Tasikmalaya, Indonesia. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah menjelaskan bagaimana aktor informal (seperti kyai) dan aktor formal (seperti elit partai politik) dimobilisasi untuk kepentingan politik keluarga. Dengan menggunakan observasi lapangan, wawancara mendalam, diskusi kelompok terarah (FGD), dan studi pustaka, penelitian ini menemukan bahwa: pertama, keluarga MBU memanfaatkan jaringan kyai untuk membangun legitimasi di tengah masyarakat Tasikmalaya yang religius. Karisma kyai berpengaruh besar terhadap perilaku pemilih yang mendukung keluarga MBU. Kedua, elit politik menggunakan posisinya untuk mendukung ambisi elektoral keluarga tersebut. Ketiga, ketimpangan distribusi modal memungkinkan keluarga MBU untuk "membeli" pengaruh dan mengamankan kekuasaan politik. Dengan demikian, kekuatan ekonomi sangat menentukan konfigurasi politik di Tasikmalaya, sekaligus memperkuat temuan penelitian sebelumnya bahwa kekuasaan politik di Indonesia sering kali berakar dari kekuatan modal ekonomi.

References

  1. Abus, M. (2022). Clientelism and Voting Behavior: Empirical Evidence from Turkey. In SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssm.4137781.
  2. Agustino, L. (2019). The Roots and Actors of Corruption in the Political Realm. In M. Lane (Ed.), Continuity and Change After Indonesia's Reforms: Contribution to an Ongoing Assessment (pp. 171-194). ISEAS.
  3. Agustino, L. (2020). Corruption Eradication Efforts and its Actors' Resistance in the Era of Reformation of Indonesia. In M. C. Hoadley & N. Hatti (Eds.), Understanding Corruption: Traditional and Legal Rational Norms (pp. 132-163). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003130086.
  4. Alhamidi, R. (2022). Santri di Jabar Hampir 1 Juta Jiwa. Terbanyak di Tasikmalaya. Detik.Com. https://www.detik.com/jabar/berita/d-6305401/santri-di-jabar hampir-1- juta-jiwa-terbanyak-di-tasikmalaya.
  5. Andoh, R. (2021). Theoretical Perspectives and Explanations of Political Corruption in Ghana. Journal of Economics, Business & Political Studies, 8(1), 23-45.
  6. Aspinall, E. (2005). Opposing Suharto: Compromise, Resistance, and Regime Change in Indonesia. Stanford University Press.
  7. Aspinall, E., & Berenschot, W. (2019). Democracy for Sale: Elections, Clientelism, and the State in Indonesia. Cornell University Press.
  8. Aspinall, E., Fossati, D., Muhtadi, B., & Warburton, E. (2020). Elites, masses, and democratic decline in Indonesia. Democratization, 27(4), 505-526. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1680971
  9. Aspinall, E., & Hicken, A. (2020). Guns for hire and enduring machines: clientelism beyond parties in Indonesia and the Philippines. Democratization,27(1).137-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1590816
  10. Aspinall, E., & Sukmajati, M. (2017). Patronage and Clientelism in Indonesian Electoral Politics. In E. Aspinall & M. Sukmajati (Eds.), Electoral Dynamics in Indonesia; Money Politics, Patronage and Clientelism at the Grassroots (pp. 1-37). NUS Press.
  11. Aspinall, E., & Warburton, E. (2018). Indonesia: The Dangers of Democratic Regression. 129, 1-4, https://doi.org/10.2991/icsps-17.2018.1
  12. Babbie, E. R. (2021). The Practice of Social Research (15th Edition). Cengage. https://doi.org/10.2307/2062956
  13. Berenschot, W. (2018). The Political Economy of Clientelism: A Comparative Study of Indonesia's Patronage Democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 51(12), 1563- 1593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018758756
  14. Berenschot. W., & Aspinall, E. (2020). How clientelism varies: comparing patronage democracies. Democratization, 27(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1645129
  15. Budd, J. W., Lamare, J. R., & Timming. A. R. (2018). Learning about Democracy at Work: Cross-National Evidence on Individual Employee Voice Influencing Political Participation in Civil Society. ILR Review, 71(4), 956-985. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793917746619
  16. Buehler, M., Nataatmadja. R., & Anugrah, 1. (2021). Limitations to Subnational Authoritarianism: Indonesian Local Government Head Elections in Comparative Perspective. Regional and Federal Studies, 31(3).381-404. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2021.1918388
  17. Cox, G. W., & Thies, M. F. (2000). How Much Does Money Matter?: "Buying" Votes in Japan, 1967-1990. Comparative Political Studies, 33(1), 37-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414000033001002
  18. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd Editio). SAGE Publications.
  19. Cruz, C. (2019). Social Networks and the Targeting of Vote Buying. Comparative Political Studies, 52(3), 382-411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018784062
  20. Davidson, J. S. (2018). Indonesia: Twenty Years of Democracy. Cambridge University Press.
  21. Deni Permana, Ulfiah, Deti Rostini, & Sayid M. Rifki Noval. (2022). Kiai's Leadership In Empowerment Of People (Case Study At Al-Hidayah Islamic Boarding School Cikalong Tasikmalaya). IJGIE (International Journal of Graduate of Islamic Education),3(2),274-293. https://doi.org/10.37567/ijgie.v3i2.1298
  22. Dewan, T., Kam, C., Meriläinen, J., & Tukiainen, J. (2021). Class, Social Mobility, and Voting: Evidence from Historical Voting Records. SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3773746
  23. Diamond, L. (1999). Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  24. Diamond, L. (2020). Breaking Out of the Democratic Slump. Journal of Democracy,31(1), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2020.0003
  25. Driscoll, B. (2020). Democratization, Parties Systems, and the Endogenous Roots of Ghanaian Clientelism. Democratization, 27(1), 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1666265
  26. Flick, U. (2022). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Design. Sage Publications.
  27. Freedom House. (2010). Freedom in the World 2010: The Annual Survey of Political Rights & Civil Liberties (A. Puddington (ed.)). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
  28. Gherghina, S., & Tap. P. (2022). Buying Loyalty: Volatile Voters and Electoral Clientelism, Politics, July, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957221132707
  29. Guardado, J., & Wantchekon, L. (2021). Do Gifts Buy Votes? Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa (Issue July).
  30. Hasbullah, M. H. (2020). Harmonizing the Community: An Intellectual Role of Ulama in Modern Indonesia. TEMALI: Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial, 3(1), 260-280. https://doi.org/10.15575/jt.v3i1.7733
  31. Kusmayadi, E., Agung, S., & Andrias, M. A. (2016). Pergeseran Sikap Politik Massa Nahdlatul Ulama, PKB dan PPP: Pada Pemilu Legislatif 2014 di Kota Tasikmalaya.
  32. Landemore, H. (2020). Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century. Pricenton University Press.
  33. Loughlin, N. (2020). Reassessing Cambodia's Patronage System(s) and the End of Competitive Authoritarianism: Electoral Clientelism in the Shadow of Coercion. Pacific Affairs, 93(3), 497-518. https://doi.org/10.5509/2020933497
  34. Martinez i Coma, F., & Morgenbesser. L. (2020). Election Turnout in Authoritarian Regimes. Electoral Studies, 68, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud 2020.102222.
  35. Maunah, B. (2022). Position And Role Of "Kiai" In The Community Paternalistics In Indonesia. Baltic Journal Of Law & Politics. 15(2), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2022-001003
  36. Muhtadi, B. (2019). Vote Buying in Indonesia: The Mechanics of Electoral Bribery. Palgrave Macmillan.
  37. Nasir, N. (2015). Kyai Dan Islam Dalam Mempengaruhi Perilaku Memilih Masyarakat Kota Tasikmalaya. Jurnal Politik Profetik, 6(2), 26-49.
  38. Nichter, S. C. (2010), Politics and Poverty: Electoral Clientelism in Latin America. University of California, Berkeley.
  39. Nichter, S. C., & Peress, M. (2017). Request Fulfilling: When Citizens Demand Clientelist Benefits. Comparative Political Studies, 50(8), 1086-1117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016666838
  40. Nwagwu, E. J., Uwaechia, O. G., Udegbunam, K. C., & Naamani, R. (2022). Vote Buying During 2015 And 2019 General Elections: Manifestation and Implications on Democratic Development in Nigeria. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886-2021.1995237
  41. O'Rourke, K. (2002). Reformasi: The Struggle for Power in Post-Soeharto Indonesia 479.
  42. Power, T., & Warburton, E. (2020). The Decline of Indonesian Democracy. In T. Power & E. Warburton (Eds.), Democracy in Indonesia from Stagnation to Regression (1 20). ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, https://doi.org/10.1.355/978981-4881534-015.
  43. Ravanilla, N., Haim, D., & Hicken, A. (2022). Brokers, Social Networks, Reciprocity.al Clientelism. American Journal of Political Science, 664), 795-812 https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12604
  44. Rosyad, R., Mardani. D. A., & Ali, W. Z. K. W. (2022) Living Work Ethics of Muslim Entrepreneurs in Tasikmalaya City, Indonesia. Religious: Jurnal Studi Agama-Agama Dan Lintas Budaya, 6(1), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.15575/rjsalb.vbi1.16739
  45. Scott, J. C. (1972), Patron-Client Politics and Political Change in Southeast Asia. American Political Science Review, 66(1), 91-113. https://doi.org/10.2307/1959280.
  46. Stoke, S. C., Dunning, T., Nazarena, M., & Brusco, V. (2013). Brokers. Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics, Cambridge University Press.
  47. Timmermans, S., & Tavory, 1. (2022). Data Analysis in Qualitative Research: Theorizing with Abductive Analysis. Chicago University Press.
  48. Tindage, J., Setiaman, A., Fauzi, Chauhan, R., & Patriani, Y. (2020), The Phenomenon Of Centralization In Political Parties In Regional Head Election. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 7(11), 1870-1876. https://ejmcm.com/article_5721 html
  49. Wa-Mbaleka, S., & Rosario. A. H. (2022), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in the Asian Context. Sage Publications.
  50. Woodward, K. E. (2002). Violent Masses, Elites, and Democratization: The Indonesian Case. The Ohio State University.
  51. Yudha, T. (2022). 10 PO Bus Terkaya di Indonesia Punya Aset Rp3 Triliun, Ini Daftarnya.Detik.Com.https://economy.okezone.com/read/2022/12/22/455/2731931/10-po-bus- terkaya-di-indonesia-punya-aset-rp3-triliun-ini-daftarnya
  52. Hicken, A., Leider, S., Ravanilla, N., & Yang, D. (2015). Temptation in vote-selling: Evidence from a field experiment in the Philippines (NBER Working Paper No. 21875). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w21875