MASTER THESIS
The Case of Indonesia’s 2014 Legislative External Voting in Netherlands: “What mobilizes political participation in diaspora?”
Name: Nyoman Widia Anggreni (nyoman.anggreni@student.uva.nl) Student ID: 10583351
Supervisor: Anouk van Drunen (a.s.vandrunen@uva.nl) Date: 27 June 2014
Purposes: Master Thesis
The Case of Indonesia’s 2014 Legislative External Voting in Netherlands: “What mobilizes political participation in diaspora?”
Abstracts
This study examined the relationship between Internet used, online exposures on political information about Indonesian legislative election, political knowledge, political efficacy and political discussion with political participations within the Indonesian diaspora that resides in Netherlands. The result shows that external political efficacy has significant positive association with political participation. Meanwhile, the two different Internet used showed a contradicting result. Moreover, although the rest of the variables although it showed positive relations to political participation as expected, the study did not any find significant association. Education level was detectable to have a significant relation with political
participation. However, the associations only showed after internal political efficacy, external political efficacy variables were taken into account.
Key words: Indonesian diaspora, Internet usages, online exposure, political knowledge, internal efficacy, external efficacy, and political discussions.
Everybody has the right to vote. Through the election process, citizens have the opportunity to select their representatives in Indonesia’s government. If the turnout is low, then it could weaken the democracy. In order to constitute a
democratic government, citizens who are eligible to vote should participate in their countries elections, including those who reside outside of their country’s borders. More than 150 years ago, the US state of Wisconsin passed the first law that enabled ‘out-of-country’ or external voting to their citizens residing abroad (Ellis, Navarro, Morales, & Wall, 2007). According to the International IDEA handbook (2007), nowadays there are 115 countries, including Indonesia, that offer external voting to their citizens who live outside of their home country to vote at their national elections, including legislative elections and presidential elections. Having the right to vote is essential and is important for any country with a democratic political system.
However, external voting is not easy to implement and poses considerable challenges. It has been a general trend that the external voting turnout across all countries is low and lower than the home country voter turnout (Lafleur, 2010).
External voting has always been a part of the Indonesian elections, since the first post-independent election in September 1955. The right of external voting is written in the 1953 Election Law. This law stated that Indonesians who live in another country, in which Indonesia has a diplomatic representation and meet the
qualifications to vote, could register to vote for a national election at the relevant embassy (Ellis et al., 2007). In order to manage the electoral registration, voting, and counting the ballot papers for this external voting, each Indonesian embassy needs an Overseas Voting Committee (Panitia Pemilihan Luar Negeri – PPLN).
While the Indonesians who live in the home country are exposed to campaign material such as media advertisements, banners, billboards, and rallies during the
election period, the Indonesians who live outside the border are hardly exposed to any of these forms of political marketing. Therefore, in order to find information about the general election, Indonesian diaspora have no choice except to be proactively
educating themselves online (Ong, 2013). In this regard, the Internet or online media may be the main portal to obtain information regarding the upcoming election. Although there is tons of information on the Internet, not all potential voters have the time and interest in searching for information that they need about the election and the candidates. Hence this could possibly lead to a lack of awareness and a growing concern regarding the general election that might also be linked to voting participation.
Accurate figures of Indonesian external voters are not available. However, according to the Global Indonesian Voices website, it is estimated that there are 6 million Indonesian diaspora who are eligible to vote, but only a third of them registered for the 2014 election (Ong, 2013). According to the Ambassador of the Indonesian Embassy of the Netherlands (2014), there are 16,920 Indonesians that are still registered in the embassy. However, the data may not be fully accurate since some Indonesians may have changed their nationalities, passed away, returned to their home country, or moved to other countries but neglect to report it to the embassy.
Months before the voting date, the Overseas Election Committee (Panitia Pemilihan Luar Negeri – PPLN) along with the Election Supervisory Committees (Badan Pengawas Pemilu – Bawaslu) advertised the general election information via their website, embassy events, through group meetings, and also via the Indonesian Student Associations (Persatuan Pelajar Indonesia – PPI). Indonesian Diaspora Group in respective countries were also involved in helping to create awareness for the Indonesian diaspora society. Nevertheless, the participation level was still very
low. In 2009, there was only a 22.3 per cent voting turnout from the registered external voters (Amri, 2013).
Compared to the percentage for regular voting, the low turnout for external voting seems to be inevitable. Despite the fact that the diaspora society lives in a country with a high Internet penetration as the Netherlands, the physical distance seems to cause disengagement of citizens to their home country. This argument leads to the question of how the Indonesian diaspora receives information about their home country’s general election. Also, does it affect their turnout? This is then formulized into a research question: “Which factors mobilise the Indonesian diaspora to vote in the legislative election?”
Literature Review
Why do some citizens’ vote and others not? Previous studies show that turnout can be affected by media exposure and political information (e.g., Boomgaarden, Vliegenthart & de Vreese, 2012; de Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2006; Kaye & Johnson, 2002; Kenski & Stroud, 2006; Lassen, 2005) as well as political discussion (e.g., Eveland, 2004; Kenski & Stroud, 2006). Political information voters receive through the media or from interpersonal discussion affect their political knowledge and political efficacy (e.g., Eveland & Thompson, 2006; de Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2006; Kenski & Stroud, 2006; Mcleod, Scheufele & Moy, 1999), which then determine their political participation and voting behaviour.
Internet and Political Information
In a decision making process, media information has an important role in order for individuals’ to make an informed decision. Being or feeling better informed
may reduce the chance in making the wrong decision (Lassen, 2005). During an election, citizens need to have sufficient political knowledge in order to cast an informed vote (Grolund, 2007). Information in the media determines what the voters know and do not know about the candidates during the election period, which then determines whom they decide to vote for (Alvarez, 1998). Hence voters require relevant information about the candidates’ background, history and also the political party to ensure that they select representatives in the government that are accountable and credible. Having the information about politics, political parties and candidates is a basic necessity for voting or any other form of political participations (Grolund, 2007). Moreover, during the election period, mass media also play an important role as an agent of socialization (Moeller & de Vreese, 2013). As a source of information and an agent of socialization, whether it is intended or not, media have the ability to attract people’s attention and influence their opinion and also their behaviour. Media has the potential to be a mobilizer or de-mobilizer (Esser & de Vreese, 2007).
One of the most convenient tools in searching for information nowadays is the Internet. One of the main reasons for that compared to traditional media is that the Internet can reduce the cost of time and effort to get any kind of information including information about politics (Boulianne, 2009). According to Blais (2000), the cost of acquiring information in order to get the necessary knowledge to vote is important to take into account. Cost is not only about the money that they spent to get the
information, but cost can also be understand as the time that they spend to get the information about the candidates and the election. Hence, if getting the information about the political party and the candidate’s cost too much time and effort it may affect voters to be more unlikely to vote.
For Indonesian citizens who live outside the border, Internet is one of the most important sources of information during the election period. The geographical
circumstance causes them to be highly unlikely to get information about the Indonesian legislative candidates trough offline media in the country where they reside. Therefore, to get the information they need to base their vote choice on, they have to be proactive when searching for information.
However, finding the accurate and relevant information about politics online can be challenging. The amount of political information that can be found on the Internet, for example when one tries to Google “legislative candidates”, can be overwhelming. Then, how does one process such enormous amounts of political information? According to Graber (1988), people tend to ignore old and unnecessary information. Since Internet is a medium where the individual select their own
exposure, only individuals who are interested in politics will search for politics on the Internet, while those who are not choose to avoid it (Graber, 1996; Norris, 2001). Only the information that citizens find interesting is processed and then integrated with their prior knowledge about politics. And since news is often repetitive, hence the learning process occurs.
Internet and Political Participation
Consuming news through the Internet has positive relations to political
participation (i.e Boulianne, 2009; Tolbert & McNeal, 2003). According to Boulianne (2009) using online news is positively related to political engagement. Furthermore, Tolbert and McNeal (2003) also found that people who get their election news from Internet are more likely to participate in politics and vote. Information seeking is the first step in encouraging citizens to take political action. Citizens who actively seek
for relevant issues about politics on their own are more likely to be persuaded to support a cause or the campaign (Scheneider & Foot, 2002).
Furthermore, online exposure to political information also has positive effects on political knowledge and political efficacy (Cornfield, 2003; Kenski & Stroud, 2006). Particularly during a campaign period, news on Internet can increase voter knowledge about the candidates and election, which also increase their likeliness to vote (Tolbert & McNeal, 2003). Knowledge is important in influencing voters’ tendency to vote (Marquis, 2010). Lassen’s (2005) natural experiment also shows the same result. His study showed that being informed has a significant causal effect on the propensity to vote. Being or feeling better informed can reduce the risk to make the wrong decision (Lassen, 2005). Knowledge of information on politics and election are important for citizens to make an informed decision (Shah, Cho, Eveland, & Kwak, 2005). According to Prior (2005) and Laccinese (2007), people who are often searching for information through media are more knowledgeable and also more likely to go to the polls. Hence, people who use Internet to search for political information are prone to be more knowledgeable and engaged in politic.
Moreover, Internet can increase one’s political efficacy (Tedesco, 2007; Kushin & Yamamoto, 2010). Political efficacy is one’s belief that he or she
understands and can influence the decision making in politics. It has two dimensions; internal efficacy and external efficacy”. Internal efficacy is one’s belief of their own competence in understanding and participating in politics, while external efficacy is one’s beliefs about the governments responsiveness to citizens’ demands (Niemi, Craig, Mattei, 1991). Political efficacy can establish one’s political behaviour. If for example, someone does not feel competent and they feel that their action would not bring any change, they will be less likely to participate in politics (Abramson &
Aldrich, 1982). A study by Pinkleton, Austin, and Fortman (1998) showed similar results that mass media use has a positive relation to efficacy and also has a positive relation to voting behaviour. Hence, due to its impact on voting behaviour, the study on political efficacy and knowledge is crucial in this research.
Political Discussion and Political Participation
Besides Internet, the Indonesian diaspora also get their information about the election and politics from the election socialization that is organized by the overseas election committee (PPLN) and also from political discussion with friends and family. Exchanging information or discussing politics with friends and family through offline or online channels also plays an important part in mobilizing political participation (Hardy & Scheufele, 2005). Interpersonal discussion about politics is known for being able to boost individual’s knowledge and participation in politics. Some studies found that discussing politics through online mediums have a significant positive relation to offline political participation (Hwang, Schmierbach, Paek, Zuniga, & Shah, 2006).
A higher frequency of political discussion results in a more informed and active citizen compared to individuals who less often discuss politics (Eveland & Hively, 2009). However, the likelihood of any individual gaining knowledge from interpersonal discussion depend to the discussion partner. Their political knowledge should be increased when the discussion partner is well informed, whereas if the discussion partner is poorly informed it is more likely to be decreased (Eveland, 2004). Nevertheless, disregarding the quality of the discussion, the frequency of interpersonal political discussion still has a positive impact on political participation (Scheufele & Moy 1999).
Hypotheses
The study aims to explore factors that affect the mobilization of Indonesian diaspora by looking at the correlation between Internet use, political discussion, political knowledge, political efficacy, and political participation Based on the previously reviewed findings, the hypotheses of this study are:
H1: Online exposure to political information is positively associated with political knowledge.
H2: Voters’ likelihood to talk about politics is positively associated with their political knowledge.
H3: Online exposure to political information is positively associated with internal political efficacy and external political efficacy.
H4: Online exposure to political information is positively associated with the likelihood to participate in politics.
H5: Voters’ political knowledge is positively associated with the likelihood to participate in politics.
H6: Voters’ political efficacy is positively associated with the likelihood to participate in politics.
H7: Voters’ likelihood to talk about politics is positively associated with their participation in politics.
Before continuing discussing methodology, the author would like to explain briefly about the Indonesian 2014 Legislative Election.
The case of Indonesian 2014 Legislative Election
With more than 170 million voters (Erricssen & Wijaya, 2014), including the Indonesian diaspora who are scattered all over the world, Indonesia is the third
biggest democracy after United States and India. According to Financial Times, it is one of the worlds most complicated and most expensive electoral systems (Bland, Nevitte & Carnie, 2014). In 2014, Indonesia has elected legislative candidates in both local and national level and also a new president. After being elected as president for two consecutive periods, Indonesia’s current President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, will have to step down in October 2014 and he is no longer able to run for the
presidency. Both legislative and presidential elections are held once every five years. According to the Election Commission (Komisi Pemilihan Umum - KPU) official website (2014), there are more than 6000 candidates in 77 electorates areas from 12 political parties that are competing for 560 seats in the House of the Representatives (DPR) in the legislative election. In particular, the Indonesian diaspora voters will only vote for the legislative candidates that are represent in Jakarta II electorate area, which also covers Central Jakarta and South Jakarta. Indonesian diaspora represents 46 per cent of the total amount of voters in Jakarta II. Therefore, diaspora voters play a critical role to vouch for 3 out of 7 contested seats in the DPR for Jakarta II (Erricssen & Wijaya 2014). Unfortunately, the turnout of overseas voters is known to be very low. According to Indonesian Overseas Election Committee in the Netherlands (2014), in 2009 there were 15.743 potential voters with 13.3 per cent of turnout (or 2.093 voters). While in 2014 there were 13.578 potential voters that are registered in the Netherlands and only 2.106 of them cast their vote or about 15.5 per cent of the turnout.
Unlike United States or European political system, Indonesia’s 12 political parties cannot be divided into left and right continuum. Indonesia holds a multi-party system that divided into two types of political: secular parties and Islamic parties. The secular parties in 2014 election are consists of: Democratic Party (Partai Demokrat),
Golkar (Party of the Functional Groups), PDI-P (Indonesian Democratic Party- Struggle), Gerindra (Great Indonesia Movement Party), Hanura (People’s Conscience Party), PKPI (Indonesian Justice and Unity Party), and NasDem (Nasional
Demokrat). While the Islamic parties are: PKS (Prosperous Justice Party), PAN (National Mandate Party), PPP (United Development Party), PKB (National Awakening Party), and PBB (Crescent Star Party).
The results of the legislative election are crucial. It will determine the president candidates for the presidential election. The new president and vice president candidates’ pair can be nominated by the political party if the party
threshold 20 per cent of the national vote. However, if the party could not achieve the requirement, they could form a coalition with another party. Then, the Indonesian citizens can vote directly the presidential pair in July 2014. Nevertheless, if there is no candidates achieve more than 50 per cent of the vote, the top two president candidates will compete again in the second round of the election in September 2014.
Research Methods
The purpose of this study is to explore factors that mobilize Indonesian diaspora in the Netherlands to participate politically, especially during the voting period of 2014 legislative election. In order to answer the research question and to test the hypotheses, this study used quantitative methods as research strategy using both an online and offline questionnaire. To maximize the respondent rate, the survey was kept relatively short.
The offline survey respondents were recruited at the Indonesian embassy in The Hague during the Election Day. Six members of PPI Belanda (Indonesian Student Association in Netherland) were employed to administrate the survey. Meanwhile, the
online survey was administrated using Qualtrics online survey application. The respondents were recruited using the link posted on several Indonesian Diaspora social media groups on Facebook, such as PPI Belanda, the Indonesian Diaspora Network – The Netherland, Indonesian Migrant Worker Union, Indonesian Living in Holland, and Indonesian Netherlands Youth Society page. The link was also posted on the Author personal twitter, PPI Belanda twitter, and Path. In order to get a larger sample, the respondent was asked to “share”, “re-tweet”, “repath”, or “forward” the link.
Both surveys were launched on the Election Day and closed one month after the Election Day (5 April – 5 May 2014), except for the offline, which was only a one-day survey. As the result, the offline survey managed to recruit 100 respondents. However, ten respondents (or 10 % of the offline respondents) decided to dropout from the survey after answering several questions. While online survey managed to gather a total of 108 responses. Although, 10 respondents (or 9.25 % of the online respondents) answered only few questions before then abandoning the rest of the questions, 38 respondents (or 35.18% of the offline respondent) look at the
instructions and decide not to continue with the survey at all, hence there are only 60 responses in the online survey that were usable to analyse in this study. Therefore, there are 150 responses in total that are analysed in this study.
Data and Measurement
All respondents are Indonesian diaspora who are residing in Netherlands and meet all the voting requirements for the 2014 Indonesian external legislative election. Therefore the study represented Indonesian citizens aged 17 and older (the minimum
voting age in Indonesia is 17 years old), hold a valid Indonesian passport or SPLP, and reside in Netherlands.
Socio-demographic. Standard demographic items were measured including gender (male = 1, female = 2), age (in years), and education (total years of schooling).
Political Interest. Two statements were used to measure political interest: “I most of the time follow what is going on in the government and public affairs” (Kenski & Stroud, 2006) and “I am interested in politics” (Eveland, Hayes, Shah, & Kwak, 2005). Respondent were asked whether they 1 (strongly disagree), 2
(disagree), 3 (neither disagree or agree), 4 (agree) and 5 (strongly agree) with each of the statements. Agreement with the statements indicated that the respondent was interested in politics. All responses were added together to create a total of 10-point scale.
Online Media Use. To assess type of media the respondent consumes, a set of detailed questions was asked. Due to the fact that the geographical circumstance causes them to be highly unlikely to get information about the Indonesian legislative candidates through offline media in the country where they reside, only online media exposure is taken into account in this study. These online media are including online news sites, streaming TV, streaming radio, social media, forum sites, and other websites. Respondents were asked to estimate how often they use the Internet in a week; how much time they spend on the Internet in a day; how many days in the past week they were exposed to information that is related to Indonesian legislative election; which online media they rely on the most to get information about the Indonesian legislative election; and how difficult do they feels in order to get the information about the legislative election.
Political Discussion. Interpersonal political discussion was measured using five-point scale that ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 is equal to never discussing politics and 5 is equal to very often discussing politics. Interpersonal discussion was divided into five categories of discussion partner that ranging from (1) co-worker; (2) neighbours; (3) friends; (4) family; and (5) acquaintance. All responses were added together to create a total of 25-point scale.
Political knowledge. Ten questions about Indonesian politics and the political system are used to create an index of political knowledge. Two questions have two correct answers while the rest of the questions only have one correct answer. Correct answer is coded as 1 and otherwise coded as 0 (including non-responses). All correct responses were added together to create a total of 12-item political knowledge scale. Political efficacy. Political efficacy is divided into two dimensions: external efficacy and internal efficacy. External efficacy was measured by using two
statements previously used by Kaid, McKinney, and Tedesco (2007): “Public officials don’t care about what we think” and “People like me have no say in the government” and also one statement that was used by Blais (2000): “It does not make any much difference who wins the legislative election”. Whereas internal efficacy measured using three statements that was used in Tedesco (2007) study: “I think I am better informed about politics and government than most people”, “I feel that I have pretty good understanding of the important political issues facing our country” and “If someone ask me about the election, I feel I would have enough information to help them figure out who to vote for”. Respondent were asked whether they strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree or agree, agree and strongly agree with each of the statements. Disagreement with the external efficacy statements indicated that the respondent was efficacious (where 1 for strongly agree to 5 for strongly disagree),
whereas agreement with the internal efficacy statements indicated that the respondent was efficacious (where 1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree). All responses were added together to create a total of 15-point scale in each dimension of the political efficacy.
Political Participation. General political participation was measured by combining seven items measuring whether in the past year respondents had (1) attended any meeting that was related to politics, (2) contacted a public official, (3) work for a political campaign, (4) contributed money to a political organization or candidate (Hardy & Scheufele, 2005; Kenski & Stroud, 2006), (5) vote in the Indonesian 2009 legislative election, (6) vote in the Indonesian 2009 presidential election and (7) vote in the Indonesian 2014 legislative election. “Yes” responses to these items were added together to create a 7-item political participation index.
Results and Findings
As mentioned earlier, previous studies has suggested that political
participation is dependent on media exposure (e.g., Boomgaarden, Vliegenthart & de Vreese, 2012; de Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2006; Kaye & Johnson, 2002; Kenski & Stroud, 2006; Lassen, 2005) and political discussion (e.g., Eveland, 2004; Kenski & Stroud, 2006), which moderated by political knowledge and political efficacy (e.g., Eveland & Thompson, 2006; de Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2006; Kenski & Stroud, 2006; Mcleod, Scheufele & Moy, 1999). This study examined factors that mobilises Indonesian diaspora in Netherlands to participate in politics. Particularly, this study interested to examine the impact of media exposure and political discussion on levels of political participation moderated by political knowledge and political efficacy, both internal and external efficacy.
The general overview of the respondents is provided in table 1 (see appendix 1). Genders were nearly represented equally in the survey; 47.3% of the respondents were male and 52.7% respondents were female. The respondent age ranged from 17 to 55 years old, with the average age of 28.77 (SD = 7.89). Meanwhile, education ranged from 11 to 26 years, with average years of schooling is 16.05 (SD = 2.19). Moreover, survey participants on average using the Internet on a daily basis (M = 6.84 days). The majority of the respondents (32.7%) use the Internet for 2 to 4 hours a day, the other 29.3% used 5 to 7 hours per day for internet and 26.7% of the
respondent used internet for more than 10 hours a day. Only 1.3% claimed to use the Internet for less than 1 hour.
On searching for political information, the average of respondents’ relies on more than one online media (M = 1.63). The most of the respondents (67.1%) relies on online news. Meanwhile, social media is the second alternative online media for political information about the legislative election (48.6%). However, for online sites weekly usage, social media is used more frequently compared to any other online media sites (M = 4.45, SD = 0.80).
Turning on to the political knowledge scale, respondents answered correctly on average 8.21 items (Mdn = 9, SD = 2.01). When the respondent was asked the difficulties in gathering political information about the legislative candidate, 28.7% answered neither easy nor difficult. Meanwhile 24.7% answered easy and another 24.7% answered difficult.
Furthermore, on the political attachment, only 18% respondents claimed to be attached to a certain political party and only very few (8,67%) are willing to mention the political party that they were supporting. Meanwhile, the rest of 88% claimed that they cannot identify them self to a certain political party. This low percentage of
political party attachment might be caused by the constant changing amount of
political party, particularly after the authoritarian era of Soeharto. From 1965 to 1998, Indonesia only have three political parties: Golkar (Party of the Functional Groups), PDI-P (Indonesian Democratic Party- Struggle) and PPP (United Development Party). The number of the political parties then increased to 48 parties right after Soeharto fall in 1999. It later drops to 24 political parties in 2004 and increased again in 2009 to 38 parties. Where as it afterward drop again to 12 political parties in 2014. Hence, it is problematic for Indonesian citizen to be attached to a certain political party.
Before analysing the data using the regression, the reliability of indices was tested using factor analysis and the computation of Cronbach’s alpha. The factor analysis in Table 2 (see appendix 2) suggested that political participation index were split in three factors. One factor represented voting behaviour, one other factors represented political party engagement, and the other factor related to political information seeking. These results might be caused for the fact that there is not much variance due to the yes or no answer option. However considering that political participation is a behaviour that related to political institutions and the work of political institutions, which is includes voting, donating money to campaign, political parties, or politicians, working for political campaign or political party, and attending meetings that are related to politics (Boulianne, 2009). Therefore it is important for the study to continue to use all items in one index in order to get the best illustration of the political participation level.
Meanwhile, the factor analysis in Table 3 (see appendix 2) on the political efficacy index showed satisfactory results. The results confirmed that the items load on two different factors: internal efficacy and external efficacy.
In Table 4 (see appendix 3), the political participation index has a mean of 3.25 (SD = 1.32) and an alpha of .43. Since the Cronbach’s alpha result is less than .60, hence the scale is considered unreliable. This low alpha result might because of the fact that there is not so much variance in the answer option. Meanwhile the political efficacy index showed more reliable scale. The results also showed that respondents had a higher mean on external efficacy than internal efficacy. The mean in internal efficacy is 8.79 and an alpha of .79, while the mean of external efficacy is 9.41 and an alpha of .66. For the political interest index mean is 6.49 (SD = 1.95) and an alpha of .77.
The exposure to Indonesian legislative election index showed the respondents are mostly exposed to political information though social media (M = 4.70) compared to online news (M = 3.70). Meanwhile they are least likely exposed to the information via online radio (M = .47). This is unsurprising, since the respondents are using social media the most compared to any other online sites. Overall, the average exposure to Indonesian legislative election news is M = 13.92. Furthermore, the political
discussion index showed a mean of 11.63. The majority of respondents are more prone to discuss politics with friends (M = 3.04) rather than discussing politics with family (M = 2.72). Meanwhile discussing about politics with their neighbours has the lowest mean (M = 1.63).
Moving on to the hypotheses testing. The regression analysis in table 5 (see appendix) confirmed that online exposure to political information regarding
legislative election is positively associated to their political knowledge. The bivariate correlation also confirmed the same results (r = .37, p < .001). Therefore the results is supporting hypothesis 1 is supported. Furthermore, although the result is not
very weak negative association with political knowledge (B = -.01, p = .90). Meanwhile the bivariate correlation test showed a contradicting result to the regression analysis (r = .18, p < .05). However the result is also showed a weak association. Hence, it is problematic to determine whether hypothesis 2 can be rejected or not.
Furthermore, both bivariate correlation and the regression analysis on table 6 (see appendix 4) showed a similar result. Both test showed that online exposure on political information about the legislative election has a significant positive
association to the internal political efficacy. Although the results showed a weak association, but the relationship between online exposure and external efficacy showed the opposite result (B = -.09, p =.37). Therefore hypothesis 3 can only be partially supported.
To test the hypotheses on political participation, it was necessary to construct a regression model that enters demographic, political interests, political identification, and online media use as first control variables, followed by political information exposure, and then political knowledge, and finally internal and external political efficacy. In the first block of the political participation regression table (Table 7, appendix 4) showed that gender, age, education, political identification, and political interest show a positive association to political participation, however none of these variables showed significant results. Meanwhile, weekly Internet usages also showed a positive and its association to political participation is significant. On the contrary, although the result is not statistically significant, the Internet daily usage showed a negative association with political information. In some sense, the results seems to show that the duration of Internet usage are able to mobilize and also demobilize people to participate in politics.
Furthermore, the second block of Table 7 showed that online exposure on political information about the legislative election has a positive association with participation in politics. However the relation has a p value of .49, which indicates that it is not statistically significant. The bivariate correlation test also showed the same result (r = 15, p = .08). Hence hypothesis 4 is not strongly supported. Correspondingly, in the difficulties in searching for the information showed a negative relation. In other words, those who find it easy to get information about the legislative election are more likely to participate in politics. Nevertheless, the relationship is not statistically significant (p = .18).
As expected, the results in block 3 of Table 7 showed that political knowledge contribute a positive association with political participation. Unfortunately the p value for this relationship is not statistically significant (p = .19). Meanwhile, in the
bivariate correlation, the correlation a significant result at the 0.05 level. Therefore the hypothesis 5 is also not fully supported.
Furthermore, in block 4 (Table 7), both external and internal efficacy showed positive associations with participation in politics. The addition of internal efficacy and external efficacy increased the R2
by 7.3%. Unfortunately, only external efficacy showed a significant result (p<.001), while internal efficacy result is statistically insignificant (p = .80). Meanwhile, the bivariate correlation showed that both efficacy dimensions showed significant results. The correlation of external efficacy and
political participation is significant at the 0.01 level, where as the correlation between internal efficacy and political participation is significant at 0.05 level. Therefore, hypothesis 6 can only be partially supported.
Comparing the R2
contributions of the various blocks, the addition of political discussion in block 5 did not increase the R2
discussion did not make a significant contribution to political participation. Although the relationship of political discussion and political participation in block 5 also showed a positive association but unfortunately the association was not significant (p = .76). Hence hypothesis 7 is not supported.
With regard to the research question, based on the findings in this study, the most significant factor that mobilizes Indonesian diaspora to participate in politics is external efficacy. Although other factors like education level showed a significant result, but the relationship only become significant after external efficacy variable is taken into account. Meanwhile, the number of days that people use Internet in a week also showed a positive significant association to political participation, however the more hours they spend on Internet per day produces a conflicting results. Hence it is problematic to conclude from this study that the duration of using the Internet in general is also positively associated to political participation.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study is not without limitations. There are several issues that need to be addressed. Although most of the results showed a positive correlation as expected but the relationship mostly showed a non-significant result. Hence, most of the
hypotheses that are proposed in this study were not strongly supported, except for hypothesis 1. Regardless its significant level, the findings also showed that the amount of time that spend on the Internet could contribute both positive and negative effect on political participation. One of the possible explanations is that the total amount of time that people spend on the Internet does not contribute any effect to one’s political participations.
Moreover, these non-significant results might be caused due to many factors. First of all, this might be caused due to the fact that the sampling was not random. Since there is no actual number of the Indonesian diaspora population in Netherlands exists and also the available data was confidential, hence the difficulties to conduct a random sampling research. Moreover, due to this matter the results of this study almost certainly do not fully represent the Indonesian diaspora society in Netherlands. Therefore the result cannot be generalized.
Secondly, although the sample in this study was collected using two methods, offline survey and online survey, the population of the voters and abstainers were not equally represented in this study. The data in this study mainly represent the
Indonesian diaspora population who actively participating in the 2014 legislative election. This is likely due to the fact that the data of the offline survey was a single point in time survey and was taken during the legislative election close by to the polling station. Moreover, there is a possibility that abstainers were not only having less interest in participating in politics but also less interested to participate in the survey.
Although online survey has a number of major strength like low
administration cost, time efficient, convenient, possible respondent anonymity, less respondent time pressure, and also the ability to access difficult populations, however online surveys have major potential weaknesses. There is a possibility that not all the target samples are Internet savvy or connected to Internet, disregard the high Internet penetration condition in Netherlands. Other potential disadvantage is since online survey is self-administered, some people may leave incomplete answers or exit the survey without finishing the entire questionnaire. Moreover, since the data is
dependent on self-report, there is a possibility that the respondents may be underrepresented or over reported on their activities and exposures.
The study could be improved by interviewing the participants. A great depth of information may have been obtained by conducting personal interviews. Through personal interviews, the study could obtain a more detail information regarding the respondents’ knowledge and attitude. Another possible improvement to the study is by doing cross-national analysis, for example a cross-national analysis on Indonesian diaspora in Denmark, Malaysia, Arab countries, etc. The relationship of Internet use and political participation may change from time to time. Examined the changing effect through time or comparing the effect from one election to another may also be an alternative way to improve the study.
There are many other aspects that the study did not take into account, such as the respondent income, how often the respondents spend time on the internet for entertainment purposes, the number of years of using the internet and the respondent opinion about how the media frame the politics situation in Indonesia. These aspects may as well affect the respondent likeliness to participate in politics.
The author hopes that the findings in this study will encourage other scholars to look further on political participation in the diaspora society.
References:
Abramson, P. R., & Aldrich, J. H. (1982). The decline of electoral participation in America. The American Political Science Review, 502-521.
Amri, A. B. (2013, March 05). Pemilu: Pemilih di luar negeri memilih lebih awal. Viva News. Retrieved from
http://us.politik.news.viva.co.id/news/read/395139-pemilu--pemilih-di-luar-negeri-memilih-lebih-awal
Alvarez, R. M. (1998). Information and elections. University of Michigan Press. Baubock, R. (2007). Stakeholder citizenship and transnational political
participation: a normative evaluation of external voting. Fordham L. Rev., 75, 2393.
Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J. S. (2010). MyFaceTube politics social networking Web sites and political engagement of young adults. Social Science
Computer Review, 28(1), 24-44.
Baran, S., & Davis, D. (2006). Mass communication theory: Foundations, ferment, and future (4th Edition). Thompson Learning Academic Resource Center. Blais, A. (2000). To vote or not to vote?: The merits and limits of rational choice
theory. University of Pittsburgh Pre.
Blais, A. (2006). What affects voter turnout?. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 9, 111-125. Bland, B., Nevitte, C., & Carnie, K. (2014) Making sense of the Indonesian
elections [Web]. Retrieved April 10 2014, from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d791998-bc28-11e3-831f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2yU73gRSJ
Boomgaarden, Hajo G., Vliegenhart, Rens., and de Vreese, Claes H. (2012). ‘A worldwide presidential election: the impact of the media on candidate and campaign evaluations’. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24 (1), 42-61.
Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet politics: States, citizens, and new communication technologies. Oxford University Press.
Chaffee, S. H., & Kanihan, S. F. (1997). Learning about politics from the mass media. Political Communication, 14(4), 421-430.
age. The civic web: Online politics and democratic values, 97-112.
Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (2001). Voter learning and interest in the 2000 presidential election: Did the media matter?. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 78(4), 787-798.
Ellis, A., Navarro, C., Morales, I., & Wall, A. (2007). Voting from abroad: the International IDEA handbook. International Idea.
Eurostat. (2012). Life Online. Retrieved June 7, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/scoreboard_life_online.pdf
EVELAND, JR, W. P. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and
elaboration.Political Communication,, 21(2), 177-193.
Eveland, W. P., & Hively, M. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 205-224.
Eveland Jr, W. P., & Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17(3), 215-237. Eveland, W. P., & Thomson, T. (2006). Is it talking, thinking, or both? A lagged
dependent variable model of discussion effects on political knowledge. Journal of Communication, 56(3), 523-542.
Erricssen. , & Wijaya, M. T. (2014, February 25). ‘diaspora memilih’ portal for overseas voters in 2014 indonesian elections. Jakarta Globe. Retrieved from http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/blogs/diaspora-memilih-portal-for-overseas-voters-in-2014-indonesian-election Esser, F., & De Vreese, C. H. (2007). Comparing young voters' political
engagement in the United States and Europe. American Behavioral Scientist,50(9), 1195-1213.
Graber, D. A. (1996). The 'new' media and politics: What does the future hold? PS, Political Science & Politics, 29(1), 33. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/224955549?accountid=14468 Grönlund, K. (2007). Knowing and not knowing: The internet and political
information. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(3), 397-418.
Hardy, B. W., & Scheufele, D. A. (2005). Examining differential gains from Internet use: Comparing the moderating role of talk and online
interactions.Journal of Communication, 55(1), 71-84.
Hwang, H., Schmierbach, M., Paek, H. J., Gil de Zuniga, H., & Shah, D. (2006). Media dissociation, Internet use, and antiwar political
participation: A case study of political dissent and action against the war in Iraq. Mass Communication & Society, 9(4), 461-483.
Hobolt, S. B. (2005). When Europe matters: The impact of political information on voting behaviour in EU referendums. Journal of elections, public opinion & parties, 15(1), 85-109.
Karp, J. A., & Banducci, S. A. (2008). Political efficacy and participation in twenty-seven democracies: How electoral systems shape political behaviour.British Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 311.
Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 173-192.
Kraus, S., & Davis, D. (1991). The effects of mass communication on political behavior. México.
Kushin, M. J., & Yamamoto, M. (2010). Did social media really matter? College students' use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election.Mass Communication and Society, 13(5), 608-630. Lafleur, J. M. (2010). External Voting and Voter Turnout: A Discussion on
Migrants Decisions to Register and Vote in Home Country Elections. CEDEM Working Paper Series.
Larcinese, V. (2007). Does political knowledge increase turnout? Evidence from the 1997 British general election. Public Choice, 131(3-4), 387-411.
Lassen, D. D. (2005). The effect of information on voter turnout: Evidence from a natural experiment. American Journal of Political
Science, 49(1), 103-118.
Marquis, L. (2010). Understanding political knowledge and its influence on voting preferences in the 2007 federal election. Swiss Political Science Review,16(3), 425-456.
Moeller, J., & de Vreese, C. (2013). The differential role of the media as an agent of political socialization in Europe. European Journal of
Communication,28(3), 309-325.
Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. The American Political Science Review, 1407-1413.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
Ong, A. Y. (2013, September 16). Overseas voters in indonesian 2014 general election. Retrieved from
http://www.globalindonesianvoices.com/9831/overseas-voters-in-indonesian-2014-general-election/
Pattie, C., & Johnston, R. (1998). Voter turnout at the British General
Election of 1992: Rational choice, social standing or political efficacy?. European Journal of Political Research, 33(2), 263-283.
Pinkleton, B. E., Austin, E. W., & Fortman, K. K. (1998). Relationships of media use and political disaffection to political efficacy and voting behavior.Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(1), 34-49. Prior, M. (2005). News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice
widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science,49(3), 577-592
McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 16(3), 315-336.
Schneider, S. M., & Foot, K. A. (2002). Online structure for political action: Exploring presidential campaign Web sites from the 2000 American election.Javnost-The Public, 9(2), 43-59.
Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age modeling Internet effects on civic
participation.communication research, 32(5), 531-565.
Tedesco, J. C. (2007). Examining Internet interactivity effects on young adult political information efficacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9), 1183-1194.
political participation?. Political Research Quarterly, 56(2), 175-18 Xenos, M., & Moy, P. (2007). Direct and differential effects of the Internet on
Appendix 1
Table 1
Univariate Description of Sample
Variables N % M SD Mdn
Gender
Male 71 47.3
Female 79 52.7
Age 148 28.77 7.89 27
Education (in years) 149 16.05 2.19 16
Internet usage
In days on average week 142 6.84 0.74 7
In hours on average day 150
< 1 hour 2 1.3
2 – 4 hours 49 32.7
5 – 7 hours 44 29.3
8 – 10 hours 15 10
10 hours < 40 26.7
Media reliance for info about election 150 1.63 0.10 1
Online news 98 67.1 Online Radio 3 2.1 Online TV 19 13 Forum Sites 13 8.9 Social Media 71 48.6 Other Website 41 28.1
Online sites weekly usage
Online news 150 3.68 1.08 4 Online Radio 148 1.78 1.02 2 Online TV 150 2.27 0.92 2 Forum Sites 148 2.39 1.11 2 Social Media 150 4.45 0.80 5 Other Website 147 4.01 1.11 4 Political Knowledge 150 8.21 2.01 9
Difficulties in gathering political information 147 2.95 1.15 3
Very easy 17 11.3
Easy 37 24.7
Neither easy nor difficult 43 28.7
Difficult 37 24.7
Very difficult 13 8.7
Political party attachment 150
Yes 18 12 Gerindra 2 1.33 Golkar 1 0.67 PDI-P 8 5.33 PKS 2 1.33 Not Mentioned 5 3.33 No 132 88
Appendix 2
Table 2
Factor Analysis of Political Participation
Factor Loading Factor
1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Communality Attended any meeting that related to
politics
.791 .686
Contacted a public official .693 .635
Work for a political campaign .790 .637
Contribute money to a political organization or candidate
.784 .616
Vote in the Indonesian 2009 legislative election,
.938 .880
Vote in the Indonesian 2009 presidential election
.931 .873
Vote in the Indonesian 2014 legislative election .510 .359 Eigenvalue 1.83 1.54 1.31 % of total variance 26.18 22.06 18.68 Total variance 66.93 Table 3
Factor Analysis of Political Efficacy
Factor Loading Factor
1
Factor 2
Communality Index: Political Efficacy
Internal Efficacy (1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree)
I think I am better informed about politics and government than most people
.849 .721
I feel that I have pretty good understanding of the important political issues facing our country
.872 .768
If someone ask me about the election, I feel I would have enough information to help them figure out who to vote for
.785 .641
External Efficacy (1 for strongly agree to 5 for strongly disagree)
Public officials don’t care about what we think .772 .600 People like me have no say in the government .759 .584 It does not make any much difference who
wins the legislative election
.769 .626
Eigenvalue 2.35 1.59
% of total variance 39.24 26.42
Appendix 3
Table 4
Measures used to create the indices
N M SD α
Index: Political Participation 148 3.25 1.32 .43
Attended any meeting that related to politics 149 (yes=33.3%)
Contacted a public official 149 (yes=67.8%)
Work for a political campaign 150 (yes=3.3%)
Contribute money to a political org. or candidate 150 (yes=3.3%) Vote in the Indonesian 2009 legislative election, 150 (yes=65.3%) Vote in the Indonesian 2009 presidential election 150 (yes=71.3%) Vote in the Indonesian 2014 legislative election 150 (yes=81.3%) Index: Political Efficacy
Internal Efficacy (1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree)
150 8.79 2.47 .79 I think I am better informed about politics and
government than most people
150 2.75 .90 I feel that I have pretty good understanding of the
important political issues facing our country
150 3.15 .97 If someone ask me about the election, I feel I would
have enough information to help them figure out who to vote for
150 2.88 1.07
External Efficacy (1 for strongly agree to 5 for strongly disagree)
150 9.41 2.52 .66 Public officials don’t care about what we think 150 2.85 .99
People like me have no say in the government 150 3.35 1.07 It does not make any much difference who wins the
legislative election
150 3.21 1.20
Index: Political Interest
(1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree)
150 6.49 1.95 .77 I most of the times follow what is going on in the
government and public affairs
150 3.37 1.05
I am interested in politics 150 3.11 1.12
Index: Exposure to Indonesian legislative election news
Seen Indonesian legislative election information in the past week (Scale 0 to 7 days)
106 13.92 8.71 .74
Online News 143 3.70 2.47
Online Radio 122 .47 1.34
Online TV 124 1.47 1.81
Online Forum 118 1.59 2.06
Online Social media 142 4.70 2.50
Other Websites 136 2.49 2.51
(Scale 1 for never to 5 very often) 103 11.63 3.83 .69
Discussing politic with co-worker 122 2.23 1.19
Discussing politic with neighbors 110 1.63 .93
Discussing politic with friends 141 3.04 1.17
Discussing politic with family 133 2.72 1.34
Discussing politic with acquaintance 124 2.17 1.05
Appendix 4
Table 5
Regression Political Knowledge 1
Gender -.23
Age -.06*
Education -.01
Political Identification (yes/no) .01
Political Interest .02
Internet usage per week -.09 Internet usage per day .07 Seen political information about the legislative election online
.30*** Difficulties in searching information -.14 Political Discussion -.01 R2 % 19.1
Note: Standardized regression coefficients *<p.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
Table 6
Regression Political Participations Internal Efficacy External Efficacy Gender -.12 -.06 Age .00 -.09 Education -.10 -.17
Political Identification (yes/no) .01 .05 Political Interest .51*** .09 Internet usage per week -.00 .17 Internet usage per day -.07 -.05 Seen political information about
the legislative election online
.15* -.09 Difficulties in searching information -.14 -.15 R2 % 45.2 7.2
Table 7
Regression Political Participations
1 2 3 4 5
Gender .04 .05 .09 .11 .11
Age -.01 -.01 -.01 .02 .02
Education .14 .15 .15 .18* .19*
Political Identification (yes/no) .18 .15 .15 .14 .13
Political Interest .11 .09 .09 .06 .05
Internet usage per week .22* .19* .20* .19* .19*
Internet usage per day -.07 -.07 -.07 -.06 -.06
Seen political information about the legislative election online
.06 .03 .05 .04 Difficulties in searching information -.12 -.10 -.06 -.06 Political Knowledge .12 .12 .12 External Efficacy .28*** .27*** Internal Efficacy .03 .02 Political Discussion .03 R2 % 12.6 14.2 15.3 22.6 22.6
Note: Standardized regression coefficients *<p.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
