$315,000 is 140 times the national median annual income in Indonesia. It is also the amount that, on average, people who stood in Indonesia’s 2024 elections told researchers they spent on running for office. That was a key finding of WFD’s most recent study on the cost of politics.
How high costs exclude and corrupt
The high and often growing costs of seeking and maintaining political office – costs incurred by candidates rather than the political parties they represent - are excluding people from politics, fuelling corruption, and fundamentally reshaping the way in which citizens and their elected representatives interact.
The impact on already frayed and fractured social contracts was one of the key focuses of WFD’s annual Democracy Action Partnership, which brought together politicians, civil society activists, researchers, election management officials, and other experts from across south and southeast Asia for two days of action-oriented discussion in December 2024.
Read more about the Democracy Action Partnership
The rise of transactional politics
Transactional politics is growing in prominence across the region – and both citizens and political aspirants agree it’s a problem. They are not, however, necessarily willing to change their behaviour. Voters increasingly expect offers from those seeking, or in, political office to provide direct financial support or to deliver community goods when making their decisions about how to cast their ballot. The majority of political aspirants respond to these personal or community demands from potential constituents knowing that a failure to do so could mean losing the election.
Money drives candidate selection
This reality is also determining who political parties select as their candidates, with many choosing those rich enough to meet these demands, leading to the exclusion of credible and diverse candidates who don’t have the same resources. Simultaneously, political parties themselves expect candidates to cover all campaign costs and, in some cases, to financially support the party.
Vote buying and selling: A vicious cycle
The monetisation of politics intensifies further around polling, where more overt efforts to “buy” votes are made, even in contexts where there are strict regulations prohibiting it. This is because citizens often are open to “selling” their vote – though they may do so after taking multiple offers and not always for the candidate that offers the most money – in large part because they see it as the only or most effective way of extracting something out of a system that does not change anything substantively for them, no matter who wins.
The decline of ideological politics
This is linked to, and fuels, what one participant from Pakistan described as “ideological bankruptcy” among many political parties and candidates. Those in office tend to be more focused on finding ways to maintain their status quo – and this means seeking to recoup what they spent in winning office, as well as distributing more resources to enhance their chances of successfully doing so again – than pursuing an approach with clear and well articulated principles and vision. The growing numbers of representatives from political dynasties and business across south and southeast Asia underscores how important it is for political aspirants to have access to resources.
Signs of change
This commercialisation of the social contract is not irreversible. Recent elections in Thailand (2023), Pakistan (2024), and Sri Lanka (2024), the latter following significant socio-political upheaval, have seen notable successes for independent candidates, or candidates attached to political parties that promise to “do things differently” by tackling socio-economic inequalities through systematic reforms, rather than personal handouts (such as Thailand’s Move Forward Party and Sri Lanka’s National People’s Party). As one candidate elected on such a platform said: “we have to show that there is a new and better way of doing politics, the current model in many countries is simply unsustainable”.
The path forward
The extent to which such narratives can continue to appeal across multiple election cycles will largely be determined by the extent to which these words are translated into action by these new and emerging political structures or movements. But they can also be reinforced by grassroots efforts, such as citizen assemblies and regular town hall debates on key development issues. These can increase people’s engagement with the policy and decision-making processes that affect them and the individual(s) that are elected to represent them. Regulating spending can play a role, but alongside shifting conceptions of how politics works and for who.
Whilst changes are unlikely to come quickly or by working alone, partnerships and a sustained (re)engagement with core democratic principles can help to unravel the unsustainable and unworkable cost of politics. There is optimism, and opportunity, to be taken from the fact that citizens and politicians, aspiring and current, broadly agree on this point. Recognising the embeddedness of the problem, and the need for holistic solutions that go beyond regulatory frameworks, no matter how well they are enforced, can create space for interlinked efforts to improve civic awareness and engagement, strengthen internal political party democracy and ultimately enhance transparency and accountability.
Search
Popular search terms:
Cashing out: Is the cost of politics unsustainable?
Cashing out: Is the cost of politics unsustainable?
$315,000 is 140 times the national median annual income in Indonesia. It is also the amount that, on average, people who stood in Indonesia’s 2024 elections told researchers they spent on running for office. That was a key finding of WFD’s most recent study on the cost of politics.
How high costs exclude and corrupt
The high and often growing costs of seeking and maintaining political office – costs incurred by candidates rather than the political parties they represent - are excluding people from politics, fuelling corruption, and fundamentally reshaping the way in which citizens and their elected representatives interact.
The impact on already frayed and fractured social contracts was one of the key focuses of WFD’s annual Democracy Action Partnership, which brought together politicians, civil society activists, researchers, election management officials, and other experts from across south and southeast Asia for two days of action-oriented discussion in December 2024.
Read more about the Democracy Action Partnership
The rise of transactional politics
Transactional politics is growing in prominence across the region – and both citizens and political aspirants agree it’s a problem. They are not, however, necessarily willing to change their behaviour. Voters increasingly expect offers from those seeking, or in, political office to provide direct financial support or to deliver community goods when making their decisions about how to cast their ballot. The majority of political aspirants respond to these personal or community demands from potential constituents knowing that a failure to do so could mean losing the election.
Money drives candidate selection
This reality is also determining who political parties select as their candidates, with many choosing those rich enough to meet these demands, leading to the exclusion of credible and diverse candidates who don’t have the same resources. Simultaneously, political parties themselves expect candidates to cover all campaign costs and, in some cases, to financially support the party.
Vote buying and selling: A vicious cycle
The monetisation of politics intensifies further around polling, where more overt efforts to “buy” votes are made, even in contexts where there are strict regulations prohibiting it. This is because citizens often are open to “selling” their vote – though they may do so after taking multiple offers and not always for the candidate that offers the most money – in large part because they see it as the only or most effective way of extracting something out of a system that does not change anything substantively for them, no matter who wins.
The decline of ideological politics
This is linked to, and fuels, what one participant from Pakistan described as “ideological bankruptcy” among many political parties and candidates. Those in office tend to be more focused on finding ways to maintain their status quo – and this means seeking to recoup what they spent in winning office, as well as distributing more resources to enhance their chances of successfully doing so again – than pursuing an approach with clear and well articulated principles and vision. The growing numbers of representatives from political dynasties and business across south and southeast Asia underscores how important it is for political aspirants to have access to resources.
Signs of change
This commercialisation of the social contract is not irreversible. Recent elections in Thailand (2023), Pakistan (2024), and Sri Lanka (2024), the latter following significant socio-political upheaval, have seen notable successes for independent candidates, or candidates attached to political parties that promise to “do things differently” by tackling socio-economic inequalities through systematic reforms, rather than personal handouts (such as Thailand’s Move Forward Party and Sri Lanka’s National People’s Party). As one candidate elected on such a platform said: “we have to show that there is a new and better way of doing politics, the current model in many countries is simply unsustainable”.
The path forward
The extent to which such narratives can continue to appeal across multiple election cycles will largely be determined by the extent to which these words are translated into action by these new and emerging political structures or movements. But they can also be reinforced by grassroots efforts, such as citizen assemblies and regular town hall debates on key development issues. These can increase people’s engagement with the policy and decision-making processes that affect them and the individual(s) that are elected to represent them. Regulating spending can play a role, but alongside shifting conceptions of how politics works and for who.
Whilst changes are unlikely to come quickly or by working alone, partnerships and a sustained (re)engagement with core democratic principles can help to unravel the unsustainable and unworkable cost of politics. There is optimism, and opportunity, to be taken from the fact that citizens and politicians, aspiring and current, broadly agree on this point. Recognising the embeddedness of the problem, and the need for holistic solutions that go beyond regulatory frameworks, no matter how well they are enforced, can create space for interlinked efforts to improve civic awareness and engagement, strengthen internal political party democracy and ultimately enhance transparency and accountability.
Related content