Published date: Mar 06 2023

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: IAPA 2022 International Conference and International Indonesia Conference on Interdisciplinary Studies (IICIS)

Pages: 474–498

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v8i5.13018

Eha Salehaehasaleha@ecampus.ut.ac.idUniversitas Terbuka

Florentina Ratih WulandariUniversitas Terbuka

Anticipating the low voter participation in elections, the General Elections Commission (KPU) of the Republic of Indonesia initiated a political education program for voters to increase voter participation by making a pilot project for the establishment of the Election Rumah Pintar Pemilu (RPP) with a target of 549 houses to be built including one in the central KPU, 34 RPP in provinces, and the rest in districts/cities throughout Indonesia. People, on the other hand, are more interested in learning about the election through other media rather than visiting the election smart house. How the implications of the dynamic capability of the smart home election program think again in increasing voter participation in the 2018 regional head election is interesting to examine using a case study method involving informants from the Public Relations and Technical Division of the Indonesian KPU and Regional KPU. The results showed that the implementation of the provision of RPP KPU RI throughout Indonesia starting from 2015 to 2018 had reached 514 RPP at the provincial, city, and district levels. Of the 8 RPPs that were observed directly, starting from the RPP KPU RI, RPP KPU Serang City, Lebak Regency, North Sumatra Province, Bogor City, Garut Regency and East Lombok Regency, and East Barito Regency RPP. Only the RPP of the KPU RI and the City of Bogor have sufficient complete facilities, while the 5 RPPs are still not in accordance with the standards of the Guidelines for the Provision of the KPU RI. In providing the RPP, the Indonesian KPU carried out top-down communication through official letters and meetings with the regional KPU in 2015, which was then realized in its establishment from 2016 to 2018 using the RI KPU budget taken from the voter education budget. The difficulty in providing KPU’s RPP is that the KPU building or office is borrowed from the local government, and there is no special staff for the regional KPU to handle the RPP and the activities in it. Willingness and skills of implementers who do not understand politics, democracy and voter education, and the bureaucratic structure in regional KPUs do not support the RPP as a means of voter education and as an effort to increase the number of voter participation in the 2018 direct regional head elections so that voter participation does not reach the target of the KPU RI. In the 2018 Pilkada, which had a target voter turnout of 77.5%; however, participation was only 73.24%. At 2015 regional election participation rate was 69%. The implementation of the election smart home program needs to be evaluated thoroughly because the amount of support issued does not increase voter participation and intelligence.

Keywords: implications, election smart house, participation, voters

[1] Nugroho R. The public policy; the dynamics of policy. Policy Analysis, Policy Management. Gramedia, Jakarta. 2012.

[2] Neo BS, Chen G. Dynamic governance: Embedding culture, capabilities and change in Singapore (English version). World Scientific; 2007 Jul 3.

[3] Siagian SP. Organisasi kepemimpinan dan perilaku administrasi. Gunung Agung; 1985 Dec 31.

[4] Handayaningrat S. Pengantar Studi Ilmu Administrasi Negara dan Manajemen. Jakarta: NV. Sapdodadi. 1980.