• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Bulletin
  • Privacy policy

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
  • Social Development
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
  • M&E
    • Indicators
    • Learning
    • M&E approaches
Home»GSDRC Publications»Voting behaviour of marginalised groups in Indonesia

Voting behaviour of marginalised groups in Indonesia

Helpdesk Report
  • Anna Strachan
February 2014

Question

Do voters from marginalised groups choose candidates for subnational executive and legislative positions on the basis of performance or anticipated performance in public service delivery that are relevant to their particular needs? In what ways, if any, have successful strategies been used by marginalised groups to ensure candidates for election and elected officials pay attention to their concerns, and how have these differed from strategies used by non-marginalised groups?

Summary

While there is limited evidence on the voting behaviour of individual groups living in conflict-afflicted provinces, the literature provides some information about the voting behaviour of people living in ethnically and religiously diverse conflict-afflicted/post-conflict provinces in Indonesia.

This rapid literature review found very little evidence on whether other marginalised groups vote on the basis of performance in service delivery in subnational elections. Contacting experts in this field also produced very little evidence on this subject, although there is some work currently being undertaken which is relevant to the topic of this review. In the Indonesian case the lack of evidence could possibly be attributed to the fact that, as one expert notes, election campaigns in Indonesia tend to be run on populist issues, rather than on the basis of service delivery issues (Expert comment – Claire Smith). The expert notes that this is due to the fact that Indonesia has “a relatively immature party and electoral system” (Expert comment – Claire Smith).

There also appears to be limited evidence to suggest that marginalised groups use different strategies to non-marginalised groups in order to ensure candidates for election and elected officials pay attention to their concerns. Here the search was also broadened to include examples from other countries which may be relevant to the situation in Indonesia. Many members of marginalised groups may have multiple identities, and as a result their voting behaviour and strategies will depend on what they consider to be their primary identity. It will also depend on whether they opt for a middle path between their competing needs or priorities.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • Australian Government

Related Content

Donor Support to Electoral Cycles
Helpdesk Report
2021
Donor support for post-conflict elections
Helpdesk Report
2017
Religious leaders and the prevention of electoral violence
Helpdesk Report
2016
Voluntary voter registration
Helpdesk Report
2015
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022