Political Sociology for Economic Students: A Brief Introduction

By: Satrio Wahono, M. Hum

I. Introduction

Etimologically speaking, political sociology consists of two words: sociology and

politics. Sociology is a discipline that studies society. Society itself is social interactions
that constitute patterns and interweave a system. System, in the meantime, has three key
features: (1) it is interdependent, (2) it involves more than one party, and (3) it is oriented
toward one goal.

Politics, on the other hand, is a discipline that studies the art of seizing power.
Thus, the keywords to understand sociology and poltics, respectively are society and power.

When we combine the two disciplines, we have political sociology as a discipline

that studies how sociological factors (e.g. gender, social economic status, religion, etc)
influence politics in terms, for instance, political ordering, political policies, political
stability, etc.

As part of social science, sociology belongs to what we call das Sein (“is”) science. It
is a science that focuses on concrete reality (“is”) as opposed to das Sollen (“ought”) science
that preoccupies itself with abstract, ideal matter (what should be). In addition, sociology has
two distinctive objects: social statics, which means functions of social institutions (ex.
School, bank, neighborhood, etc), and social dynamics, which refer to changes in social
landscape (ex. Changes from autocratic to democratic system, shift from socialistic economy
to capitalistic one, and others).

Up to this point, we may be facing one question: what differentiates political

sociology from, say, political anthropology, political economics, etc? The answer, again, lies
on the fact that political sociology focuses on how sociological factors influence politics.
However, those disciplines may intersect. For example, in the political anthropology, Clifford
Geertz in The Religion of Java found that Indonesia’s politics can be analyzed based on three
types of religious attitudes: santri (represents pious Moslem or religious followers, as showed
by PPP, PKS, etc), priyayi (those referring to Javanese values in perceiving politics), and
abangan (those who set aside religious factors in determining their political stances as
showed by, say, PDIP). These findings intersect with political sociology since both can be
interchangeably used by either discipline.

Another important question is what can you, as the students of political sociology,
benefit from the discipline? For students of economic-related discipline, in particular,
studying political sociology may help them predicting changes in political condition, which
will likely affect economic indicators. For example, political instability may lead to wobbly
economic condition that can result in plunging economic indicators, such as the Composite
Stock Index (IHSG), the rupiah exchange rate against the US dollar, etc.
II. Sociological Paradigms/Theories/Perspectives

Paradigm is a mental model for scholar to analyze his or her object of study.
Sociology is familiar with three popular paradigms. First, structural-functionalist
(Durkheimian, coming from Emile Durkheim) paradigm. This paradigm assumes that
society consists of complementary different functions. Therefore, a problem in society should
be traced to a possible dysfunction in one or more social functions. For example, an increase
in school brawl (tawuran) can be attributed to the dysfunction in our educational system. One
popular theory of the paradigm is AGIL theory from renowned sosiologist Talcott Parsons.
AGIL stands for four functions pivotal for one social system to work properly: adaptation
(representing economic function), goal attainment (representing political function),
Integration (representing societal and legal functions), and Latent pattern maintenance
(representing educational function).

Second, symbolic interaction (Weberian, coming from Max Weber) paradigm. It

assumes that society is shaped in accordance with the web of shared meanings. Therefore, a
social problem should be traced to a possible dysfunction in social meaning of one symbol.
For example, our current polarization in today’s politics may be attributed to the fact that
many political actors interpret power as something that has to be achieved in every means
possible. The end justifies the means.

Third, conflict (Marxian, coming from Karl Marx) paradigm. This paradigm
assumes that society consistse of two classes: the bourgeous or capitalistic class that wants to
exploit the other class with any instrument possible (religious doctrine, minimum wage, etc)
for their own convenience or benefits, on the one hand. And, on the other hand, the proletariat
or working class who has been exploited and marginalized. The ideal that this paradigm
wants to achieve is a praxis: the revolution by the working class to topple the capitalistic
class. Under this paradigm, social problems shoold be traced back to the evil, suspicious
practices of the capitalistic class. For example, a school curriculum that is oriented more
toward practical field of study and less toward fields requiring more abstract-thinking (e.g.
philosophy, logics, etc) has an objective to prevent the working class from being critical and
skeptical of the current opressive system.

III. Components in Political System

We may call this a trinity of political system consisting of state, civil society, and
market. State represents political force, civil society represents societal force, and market
represents economic force. State is the only institution that has the monopoly for the use of
power and also an association of voluntary citizens aimed at solving mutual problems. Civil
society is rational, critical society that corrects the deviant practices of either the state or the
market. Market is a mechanism in creating price based on supply and demand dedicated to
one goal in mind: profit. These three components should create a healthy balance
(equilibrium). The dominance of state will lead to dictatorial political system. The dominance
of civil society may create anarchy. Last, the dominance of state will lead to the
marginalization of poor people and the collapsing economic-social system due to
overexploitation that will create unsustainable practices.
IV. Power

We have discussed earlier that the essence of politics is power. Therefore, it is

important for us to know more about this element. One of the simple definitions of power is
the capacity to dominate/influence other people to do something. If such a capacity is
acquired through legitimate channels we call that power as authority, but if the same capacity
is acquired through the use of physical force, we call it as coerction.

Authority has several types. According to Max Weber, there are three types of
authority: (1) traditional authority, which is authority based on tradition. For example: the
authority of kyai (traditional religious scholar) is acquired through long-held religious
tradition. Gus Dur as the son and grandson of two prominent kyais, K.H Wahid Hasyim and
NU founder K.H. Hasyim Asy’ari, is one towering example as a figure who holds such a
traditional authority. (2) Charismatic authority, which is authority acquired through one’s
strong, charismatic personality. President Soekarno is one example of this. (3) Legal-rational
authority, which is authority based on rational considerations. Example: presidential authority
acquired through a victory in the presidential election.

V. Political Communication and Political Socialization

One of the key components to understand political dynamics is political

communication. First of all, please bear in mind that political communication is parti of
political socialization. The definition of political socialization is the process if instilling and
internalizing political values/culture (values related to power issues) into society. On the
other hand, political communication can be defined as reciprocal process of delivering
meaningful political messages involving communicator, content, communicant (the ones
receiving messages), and channel (4Cs).

Political communication plays several important functions, namely to provide

political information, education, instruction, persuasion, and entertainment. It also has two
main models, which are:

a) Linier Model. This involves who (the actor), what (the content/messages), channel (the
means, such as social media, lectures, etc), whom (the recipients of the messages), and effect.

b) Interaction Model. This model is a virtous cycle that starts from the political message,
which will be interpreted by the recipient, who will provide feedback, which in turn will
make the communicator have to reconsider whether to modify the message or not.

In terms of the political communication actors, they comprise the following:

politician, professional, activist, public figure, bureacracy elite, and word-of mouth actors
(such as housewifes, ordinary workers, hawkers, etc).

To socialize and communicate their programs, visions, and missions, political actors
(especially the elites) have a routine political communication activity called campaign.
Political campaign can be defined as a process in which political contestants try to
communincate their ideologies, work programs, vision, mission, political platforms, etc to
potential constituents or voters. We also have election campaign, which is the campaign that
is only allowed to run during the general election period.

Another important part of political communication is political marketing, which is the

process of selling political ideas, programs, achievements, etc to potential consumers, in this
case to potential voters. Political marketing certainly involves the process called political
branding: the process of packaging political products (be it gobernatorial candidate,
presidential candidate, political party, and so on) with use-value and symbolical-value to
attract voters and create voters’ loyalty. The branding process in marketing theory
constitutes two popular acronyms. First, 4P (political product, political price, place where we
are campaigning our product, and promotional method). Second, PDB (positioning as the
promise that one product made to its potential customers, differentiation as the values
differentiating the product from competitors, and branding).

To illustrate PDB, we can refer to the 2014 presidential race. Jokowi at that time
branded himself as a populistic and humble (merakyat) candidate. His positioning is to
elevate the welfare of poor people as he is nominated by PDIP, while his differentiation is his
frequent impromptu visits (blusukan or turba that stands for turun ke bawah) to the people.

VI. Political Hoax

This issue is considered the latest development in political landscape and belongs to
political communication. Hoax is simply defined as false, erroneous misleading
information/news. There are numerous types of hoaxs as described below:

a) Misinformation: False, misleading, erroneus information disseminated without any

particular goal. A simple jest, for example, can become a motivation.
b) Disinformation: False, misleading, erroneus information disseminated to make the
original idea less valid. Usually, the disseminator has one or more goals in mind, such
as to create chaos in stock market for the disseminator to reap up profit.
c) Propaganda: False, misleading, erroneus information disseminated to stir up peoples
emotions. Example: Hitler’s propaganda about the superiority of Aryan people
leading to the genocide of Jews and fascistic government in Germany.
d) Agitation (hasutan): Efforts to stimulate people’s rage and negative sentiment.
e) Satire: Literary style to subtly criticize a condition or someone, usually in form of
parody.
f) Framing: Communication strategy to lead publi perception of one event.
g) Slander (fitnah): False, misleading, erroneus information disseminated to tarnish other
people’s image. Example: Jokowi is accused of being a descendant of PKI cadre or
Prabowo is accused of orchestrating the May 1998 riot.

VII. Political Participation

Without doubt, politics requires participation. Therefore, it matters for us to discuss

about political participation. Per definition, political participation is voluntary actions of
citizens to influence policy-making process. David Roth and Frank Wilson in their
pyramidal model break down political participation into four types based on their degrees of
participation, with the lowest or the first being those contributing least participation:
apolitical (those have no interest whatsoever in politics), observer (develop an interest in
politics, but only with a bird-eye watch attitude), participant (frequent participation such as
during election, campaign, etc), and activist (full-time participants, such as politicians,
senators, etc).

In addition, Gabriel Almond contributes his classification regarding forms of political

participation. He divides political participation into two forms. First, conventional forms,
such as voting during election, participating in political campaign, establishing NGOs to
influence policy-making, writing columns or readers’ opinion in newspaper or blogs, etc).
Second, non-conventional forms, such as rally/protest/demonstration, vandalism,
assassination, revolution/coup-d-e-tat, etc).

VIII. Ideologies and Political Party

Ideology is highly correlated with political party since the former should have an
ideological platform. Ideology itself is a set of beliefs followed by a group people as a
reference for their behaviors. Ideology can be classified into “left” and “right” ideologies.
The features of both ideologies can be seen below:

Left Ideology Right Ideology

Progress, change Status quo, conservative
Equality for the poor Privilege (for elite and the haves)
State intervention Free market
Emphasize on rights Emphasize on obligations.

One prime example of left ideology is socialism, while the example for right ideology is
capitalism.

In the meantime, political party is defined as an organized group whose members

share the same orientation, value, and ideals to seize power through general election in order
to execute their programs. It has several functions, namely as a channel for political
communication, political socialization, conflict management, political recruitment, interest
aggregation, and interest articulation.

Worldwide, there are three major political party systems. First, single-party system
like in China and North Korea. Second, dual-party system like in England and US. Third,
multi-party system like in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Netherlands, etc.

In terms of the characteristics of its followers, political party can be differentiated into
two categories. First, cadre party whose membership relies of bottom-up laddership of career
based on merit (meritocracy). Examples of this party in Indonesia are Golkar, PKS, PPP.
Second, mass party whose membership relies on grass root mass. This kind of party is usually
highly dependent on charismatic figure, e.g: PDIP that relies on Megawati, PKB that relies on
Gus Dur, Gerindra that relies on Prabowo, and so on.
 After discussing types as well as categories of political party, we now shift our
attention to one necessity in Indonesia’s political system: coalition, which is a partnership
among political parties to establish a political bloc in order to seize power. In Indonesia,
coalition is necessary due to the country’s presidential threshold (a minimum number of seats
in parliament or a minimum number of votes required to nominate a presidential candidate)
of 20 percent (parliamentary seats) or 25 percent (popular vote).

To analyze the formation of coalition in a much clearer way, we can divide coalition
into three types in terms of the scale of the coalition as proposed by Italian political theorist
Sartori and Lipjt:

1. Oversized coalition. This is a type of coalition that garners a number of partners

more than necessary (60% < ). This has a plus side of creating political stability, but
often leads to a negative consequence of horse-trading politics.
2. Undersized coalition. Different from the oversized counterpart, this type of coalition
can only garner a minimum number of partners (slightly more than 20 percent). The
negative consequence of this coalition is it has a stronger potential to create political
instability.
3. Minimal-winning coalition. This is a type of coalition that garners minimum
majority in terms of the number of partners involved (slightly more than 50 percent).
This is considered an ideal type of coalition provided that there is no coalition
member crossing over to the opposite side.

We can also view coalition based on its common platform, namely an ideological
coalition based on ideology (ideological affiliation) and the pragmatic one based on narrow
interests to secure power. For the sake of democracy, the former is considered better than the
latter since democracy is about the rational struggle of ideas to ascend to power.

IX. General Election System

To secure power, those aspiring parties should establish political parties and compete
in a general election. In general, there are two general election systems:

1. District system. Under the system, each electoral region is divided into districts that
offer a particular number of parliamentary seats. The winner of one district will take
all the seats available in that district (the winner takes all or the first pass the post
principle). There are the pluses and minuses of the system. The pluses are the system
will force politicians to form a stronger bond with voters or their constituents; the
system is easier to implemet; it is cheaper; and it has more potential to create political
stability since the system will force naturally the system to only consist of few (not
more than three) political parties, such as what we see iin the US for example. On the
other hand, the major weakness of the system that many votes will be lost due to the
winner takes all principle.
2. Proportional system. Under the system, each electoral region is allotted a particular
dividing number (or ratio) to calculate the number of parliamentary seats. As a
consequence, the number of seats will be divided equally with the number of votes
 gained in accordiance with the specified ratio. Indonesia under New Order and
Holland are two countries applying the system. The strength of the system is that it is
more democratic and there are no votes lost. Meanwhile, the weaknesses are the
system will lead to party fragmentation (there are a high number of parties),; give too
much power to party leaders; it will make the representatives have more distant
relationship with their constituents; and it will be difficult to create a majority party,
which further may lead to potential political instability.

Indonesia itself today is practicing open-proportional system, under which voters can vote
either the party symbol or the representative nominated by the party, but not representatives
nominated by other political parties. The so-called middle-way, though, has one serious flaw:
Indonesian voters have not yet been accustomed to monitor the track record of legislative
candidates, making the voters at the end vote only for party symbol for the sake of simplicity.

XI. Political Forces in Indonesia

Other than struggle for power, politics also involve the management of power
balances among political forces in Indonesia. Here, political forces can be identified as
follows:

1. Press. The media is called the fourth pillar of democracy. There are several theories
regarding to the role of press. First, press should become a watchdog that criticizes
goverment policies. In other words, press is the loyal opposition that always takes side
with public voice. Second, press as a partisan media that affiliates with one political
party (such as Media Indonesia with Jokowi, TVOne with Golkar, etc.). Third, press
should play its educational role by becoming a high-integrity public institution that
provide a balanced coverage on one particular issue.
2. Military. There are three theories on the role of military in politics. First, praetorian
army, which means military should return to barrack and be professional in only
playing a defense role without any ambition to intervene in politics. Second, political
army that controls politics, such as military junta or regimes in Myanmar and
Thailand. Third, dual function army that is ready to intervene politics whenever the
situation necessitates them to do so. Indonesia under New Order once adhered to the
third theory (Dwi Fungsi).
3. Political parties. See above explanation in political party Chapter.
4. Religion. The role of organized protest (such as 411, 212, Tanjung Priok protest in
1984, etc.), religious figures (kyai, habib, romo, etc.), and Islamic organizations are
highly significant.
5. Pressure groups led by NGOs (LSM).
6. Students. Demonstrations, seminars, articles in mass media and social media are their
powers.
7. Entrepreneurs.
8. Workers/Professional Groups. Labors, for example, are revolutionary force that has
strong pressure power.
 9. Intellectuals. They are cognitariat (workers of ideas) whose critical thinking put
significant pressures on the government. There are two types of intellectuals:
traditional who are only preoccupied with academic discourses and works as opposed
to organic intellectuals who affiliate themselves with other political forces to
propagate for change (theories from Italian sociologist, Antonio Gramsci).

XII. Political Revolution

Change in politics is usually identical with revolution: a change in power structure

done through abrupt, sudden, often violent, measures. Denny JA in his doctoral dissertation
on political science at Ohio University, Democratization from Below, identifies factors
triggering political revolution as follows:

1. Economic crisis triggering mass demonstration.

2. The existence of political entrepreneurs.

3. Division among political elites.

4. Conflict between civil leaders and military commanders.

5. Accumulated blunders committed by the ruling regime.

The story of Indonesia may better illustrate the above-mentioned theory. Prior to
Reformasi in 1998, there was an acute economic crisis in 1997 that triggered mass hysteria
and waves of demonstrations. At the time, political enterpreneurs had already came into
existence, such as Amien Rais, Nurcholish Madjid, Goenawan Muhammad, Emha Ainun
Nadjib (Cak Nun), etc. Even one of Soeharto’s seasoned ministers, Emil Salim, once ran for
vice president, which was a political taboo at the time. The condition was exacerbated by
division between political elite and army commanders, such as the notorious conflict between
LB Moerdani and Soeharto, Ali Moertopo vs Sumitro due to Malari, and so on. Division
among elites were also on the air, such as the debate between Habibienomics and
Widjojonomics (economic policies outlined by Widjojo Nitisastro). Last but not least,
Soeharto during 1997-1998 period had made accumulated blunders, such as the case of
national car Timor developed by youngest son, Tommy Suharto, the appointment of eldest
daughter Tutut as Social Minister, the shut-down of 16 banks due to deal signing with the
IMF, and so on. Those factors then converged and culminated in bouts of demonstrations
leading to the shooting of four Trisakti students during rallies, the May 12-14 riots, and the
resignation of Soeharto as President to be replaced by Vice President BJ Habibie.

We also have another example in a regional phenomenon called Arab Spring, which
began with the resignation of Tunisian President Ben Ali after holding power more than 20
years. The seemingly small ripple—which later turned into a huge tide—was triggered by
economic crisis leading to a self-immolation act of one desperate hawker, which snowballed
into military-civilian elite tension and culminated into revolution. The seed later spread into
Egypt, which also had its fair share of economic crisis. Military in Egypy later took over
situation by staging a silent coup-d-etat, which gained support from political enterpreneurs
introducing ideas of change, one most important actor of which is Ikhwanum Muslimin. In
Libya, the accumulated blunder of Moammar Qaddafi that brutally shot thousands of
demonstrators from his chopper led to the Colonel’s tragic demise in sewer, marking the
similar political revolution in Tripoli.

XIII. Successes and Failures of Revolution

However, Arab Spring also spelled the tragic mid-story of political revolution as the
democratization process in Arab turned into nightmare and, we can say, total failure. Based
on various theories, there are several factors underlying the failure of political
revolution/reform.

1. Fragmented society after revolution. There is usually lack of civil society support,
probably due to the new regime’s failure to address post-dictatorship problems. Examples of
the absence of strong civil society can be found in Egypt, Libya or Afghanistan (Salim Said,
Ini Bukan Kudeta, Mizan, 2018).

2. Transplacement. This theory from Samuel Huntington says that a conditon where the so-
called new system is dominated by some figures of the old regime instead only leads to new
political oligarchy.

3. Consolidation of pro-status quo forces. This is related to the absence of strong civil
society, thus, creating rooms for the old forces to regroup and launch a counter-attack on
democract.

4. Lack of courage (audacity) from political elites to capitalize on/mobilize civilian

support. The success story where the courage is abundant is South Korea, in which the new
political elite has sufficient skill and courage to reform military.

5. Lack of institutionalization of democratic values. Democracy is only a make-up or

cosmetics in nature. It leads to pseudo-democracy (theory from political theorist Larry
Diamond).

6. Structural forces are called fortuna, while micro/individual factors are called virtu.
Therefore, the failure of political revolution is the combination between fortuna and virtu.

Let’s turn into some case studies to corroborate those above-mentioned factors:

1. Indonesia.

At first, professional military was drawn into politics by Sukarno, who was appalled at the
bigger role of political parties. As a result, military was included into Golkar, which marked
the emergence of Dual Function (Dwi Fungsi) that would be abused by Suharto to preserve
his power for more than three decades. Habibie later was on some degree able to reform
miitary, only to be ruined by Gus Dur who intervened much in military recruitment and
promotional process. As a result, Indonesian military is able to consolidate some of its forces
and secure its grip on Indonesia’s politics.
2. Egypt

After economic crisis toppled Husni Mubarak from his throne, thanks to military’s
policy of turning back against Mubarak, Ikhwanul Muslimin’s Mursi instead played the role
of stubborn leader who refused to form a coalition with other political forces. This resulted in
a condition of fragmented society that opened doors for military intervention. As a
consequence, the Arab Spring in Egypt has become the Arab Winter. The political actor
(virtu) could not take full advantage of civilian support (Egypt)

3.Thailand

Thailand’s politics has been dominated by royalist (aristocrat), military, bureucrat,

and capitalistic classes. The emergence of populist tycoon Thaksin Shiniwatra posed a threat
to the dominance of the old elite, resulting again in a fragmented society: pro-Thaksin vs anti-
Thaksinh, which invited military to make intervention.

4. South Korea

The success story is constituted in part by the ability of President Kim Young Sam
(the virtu factor) to mobilize massive support of civil society into concrete action to reform
military. Strong civil society is part of the fortuna, along with the homogenous society and its
relatively well-educated people.

XIV. Economy and Politics

Vicious Circle of Economic Crisis

It involves three factors: loss of confidence; plunging macro-economic indicators; and

financial problems for banks, companies, households, etc. For example, the worsening of
economic indicators may spell trouble for households and make consumers’ expectation
further decline, which contribute further to the nosediving economic indicators, and it will go
further move in a downward spiral.

To prevent crisis, a country has to focus on following factors: ease of doing business, market
confidence, business confidence, social safety net program, interest rate, business climate,
legal certainty, private loans, and education.

Economic stability plays a crucial role in creating a sustainable democracy. Former Vice
President Prof. Boediono explains there are several economic-related factors related to
democratic stability:

1. A country should have a per capita income of at least US$6.600. This economic
indicator theoretically will lead to a more prosperous society, high-income workers, better
educated people, thus, better democracy.

2. The emergence and existence of reformist groups (or established middle classes) that
uphold democratic values. Such a condition can be better facilitated by a broad-based
economic growth: a type of economic growth that also promotes equity, guarantees economic
access for all, and is created through a process that relies more on human resources creativity
instead of solely on natural resources sales.

3. Strong social cohesion. This is related to the way a nation maintain its integrity as a
whole. One most important factor to realize this is the statesmanship of the nation’s political
elites.

XV. Culture and Politics

According to Van Peursen, culture is patterned human expression of their ativities,

thinking (myth, ideology, science), communication (language), and working activities. In our
political landscape today, we can see the uses of cultural jargons, such as President Jokowi’s
recent use of politik genderuwo (genderuwo is a mythical fierce creature in Javanese culture)
to describe unethical politics.

In the meantime, according to Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, culture is created
through a triangular process involving three components:

1. Externalization: Individual subject/actor’s process of creating cultural expression. This is

similar to the concept of virtu. Individual agency and free will are dominant here. E.g.: the
process of a musician inventing new genre of music.

2. Objectivication. The reification (hardening/formation) of externalization process into an

imperative (something coercive in nature) that subjects have to obey. Ex: the new music
genre later has become popular trend that many are eager to follow. This is similar to fortuna
(structure that is imperative in nature and has to be obeyed by subjects)

3. Internalization. The process in which subjects internalize and obey the structure created
by objectivication. However, in the course of time, subjects or agencies can try to break
through the internalized culture and enter the process of externalization again, depending on
the later consequences that may be either intended or unintended (Anthony Giddens). For
example: The dominance of popular music has made several indie musicians try to escape
from routinity by seeking new way of playing music or writing lyric. E.g.: Lagu cinta melulu
by Efek Rumah Kaca created an unintended consequence of the booming of criticism-ladened
music in Indonesia.

Culture itself can be divided into two types:. First, pop culture or high culture: cultural
product oriented to deviate from the mainstream culture, thus, it is subversive in nature.
Second, popular culture, which is cultural product oriented to appeal to public taste.
Therefore, it is submissive in nature.

Culture has influenced politics over the course of history. For example, the
Woodstock Music Festival 1969 that hosted many would-be legendary musicians, such as
Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, etc., created anti-war, pro-peace movement that also formed a new
generation called the flower generation. This generation plays a pivotal role in influencing
US’ foreign politics, especially those related to Vietnam war.
XVI. Pathologies of Democracy

In this last chapter, we will address the fact that democracy, especially in practice,
also has its flaws or, using a more derogatory language, pathologies (ailments). Some of the
most prevalent pathologies are:

1. Cartel: In this situation, political producers (political parties/elites) coordinate and

conspire to minimize competition (pseudo-competition) to maximize profit (corruption, self-
enrichment, etc) and marginalize consumers (in this case, the people).

2. Political dynasty: Placement of political posts based on family connection (nepotism). We

can see this in Banten, Indramayu, Jambi, etc.

3. Bossism. Coined by political theorist John Sidel, this term refers to a kind of democracy
that is dominated by bosses who conspire with legal political elites (sometimes with
delinquent law enforcers or military personnel) to exploit natural resources and marginalize
the people. E.g. Violence against oil palm farmers in several plantation regions (Sumatra,
Riau, Lampung, etc) to secede their lands to big plantation companies. Sidel found this
phenomenon in the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia.

4. Oligarchy. Similar to bossisme, this situation involves delinquent polical elites that
conspire with predatory capitalism to loot resources.

End of Book