Penelitian ini dilatarbelakangi penurunan perolehan suara Partai Golkar di Pemilu 2009 yang cukup signifikan (7,13 persen), yaitu dari 21,58 persen di 2004 menjadi 14,45 persen di 2009. Padahal Partai Golkar di Pemilu 2009 juga mewarisi infrastruktur dan jaringan organisasi yang sangat kuat seperti pada pemilu sebelumnya (Pemilu 2004). Potensi-potensi itu mestinya dapat menjadi modal dasar bagi Partai Golkar di Pemilu 2009 untuk mempertahankan kemenangan 2004. Karena itu, penelitian ini dilakukan untuk mencari jawaban mengapa perolehan suara Golkar menurun signifikan di Pemilu 2009, kendatipun mewarisi jaringan infrastruktur organisasi yang kuat dan tingkat institusionalisasi yang baik, dan faktor-faktor apa yang menyebabkan penurunan itu.Untuk menganalisa penyebab penurunan perolehan suara Golkar tnt, menggunakan teori institusionalisasi partai dari Vicky Randall dan Lars Svasand; faksionalisme partai menurut Paul G Lewis, Belloni dan Andrew Nathan; teori oligarki Robert Michels, partai terkartelisasi dari Kartz dan Mair, serta teori kepemimpinan dari Andrew Hedrewood. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif, sedangkan teknik pengumpulan data melalui kajian literatur, analisis dokumen resmi organisasi Partai Golkar dan hasil survei lembaga independen, serta wawancara mendalam dengan sembilan narasumber dari internal dan ekstemal Partai Golkar yang mengetahui dan memahami dinamika internal Golkar. Sementara teknik analisis data menggunakan deskriptif analitis.Temuan dari penelitian ini menunjukkan tingkat institusionalisasi Partai Golkar diukur dari empat dimensi Randall dan Svasand cukup baik dan relatif kuat. Kekuatan Golkar dalam beberapa dimensi institusionalisasi yang selama ini diyakini menjadi faktor penyebab kemenangan Golkar di Pemilu 2004, ternyata gagal mengantarkan Golkar sebagai pemenang di Pemilu 2009, dan justru mengalami penurunan suara cukup siginifikan. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan ada empat faktor internal penyebab penurunan perolehan suara Partai Golkar itu: (1) kegagalan Partai Golkar mengelola faksionalisme internal; (2) problem kaderisasi dan penyimpangan dalam rekrutmen internal; (3) kepemimpinan internal yang kurang mengakar ke bawah dan dampak kekeliruan komunikasi politik; serta (4) krisis identitas ideologi partai. Keempat faktor internal inilah menjadi penyebab utamanya. Selain itu juga dipengaruhi faktor ekstemal yang gagal diantisipasi Golkar: (1) rasionalitas dan persepsi publik yang merugikan posisi politik Golkar sebagai bagian dari pemerintahan; (2) efek strategi politik pencitraan yang massif dilakukan Partai Demokrat; (3) kehadiran Gerindra dan Hanura sebagai partai pecahan Golkar; serta (4) sistem suara terbanyak yang gagal diantisipasi Golkar.Implikasi teoretis menunjukkan bahwa tingkat institusionalisasi yang baik menurut Randall dan Svasand memang mendukung daya tahan suatu partai untuk tetap hidup dalam jangka panjang, tetapi dalam konteks jangka pendek tidak otomatis menjadi faktor penentu kinerja elektoral dan kemenangan suatu partai di pemilu, jika partai tersebut gagal mengelolanya. Dinamika dan karakteristik faksionalisme di Golkar, serta dampaknya terhadap soliditas internal berimplikasi pada penurunan perolehan suara di Pemilu 2009 mengokohkan teori Paul G Lewis, Belloni, dan Andrew J. Nathan tentang faksionalisme.
The background of this particular research was that the decline in the number of votes secured by the Golkar Party in the 2009 elections was quite significant (7.13 percent), from 21.58 percent in 2004 to 14.45 percent in 2009, even though the Golkar Party in the 2009 elections also inherited the organizational infrastructure and network that were still very strong as in the previous elections (the 2004 elections). The Golkar Party actually had the potential to capitalize on these to retain the 2004 victory. There upon, this research was conducted to seek answers as to why Golkar's number of votes significantly dropped in the 2009 elections, despite the fact that it inherited the organizational infrastructure and network that were strong and it had a good level of institutionalization. The research was conducted to find what factors that had caused the downturn.To analyze the causes of this decline in the number of Golkar's votes, the author utilizes the theories of party institutionalization by Vicky Randall and Lars Svasand; of party factionalism by Paul G Lewis, Belloni and Andrew Nathan; of party oligarchy by Robert Michels; of party cartel by Kartz and Mair, and of leadership from Andrew Hedrewood . This research applied qualitative methods. Data collections were conducted through a literature review, the analysis on official documents of the Golkar Party and independent surveys, as well as in depth interviews with nine internal and external resource persons who know and understand the internal dynamics of the Golkar Party. The data analysis technique was descriptive analysis.The findings of this study indicate the level of institutionalization of the Golkar Party that was measured using the four dimensions introduced by Randall and Svasand. The institutionalization was well and relatively strong. The Golkar's strength in some dimensions of institutionalization was believed to have been a victorious factor in the 2004 elections, but it had failed to deliver Golkar as the winner in the 2009 elections. It had even experienced a significant decline in the number of votes. The results of this study indicate that there were four internal factors causing a decrease in number of votes garnered by the Golkar Party: (1) the failure of the Golkar Party to manage internal factionalism, (2) the problems of caderization and internal recruitment, (3) the internal leadership that was less rooted at the grassroots level stemming from the impact of erronious political communications; and (4) the ideological identity crisis within the party. The four internal factors were the main causes. The decline in the number of votes was also influenced by sundry external factors that were failed to be anticipated by Golkar: ( 1) rationality and public perception that the Golkar Party was part of the ruling government, (2) the effect of the massive strategy of political imaging by the Democratic Party, (3) the presence of Gerindra and Hanura as Golkar's splinter parties, and (4) the most number of votes system that was failed to be anticipates by Golkar.The theoretical implications indicate that the level of institutionalization according to both Randall and Svasand will indeed support the durability of a party to survive in the long run, but in the context of the short term it will not automatically become the deciding factor of electoral performance and the victorious factor of a party in elections, if the party fails to manage it. The dynamics and characteristics of factionalism in the Golkar party had an impact on the internal solidity, thereby causing the decline in the number of votes in the 2009 elections. This fact confirmed the theory of Paul G Lewis, Belloni, and Andrew J. Nathan about party factionalism. |
T44144-Hanta Yuda AR.pdf :: Unduh