Political Marketing Management of Parliament Under the Presidential Government System: A Lesson Learn From the Indonesia House of Representative Post-New Order Soeharto

This article was downloaded by: [New York University]
On: 23 May 2015, At: 01:42
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Journal of Political Marketing
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wplm20
Political Marketing Management of Parliament Under
the Presidential Government System: A Lesson Learn
From the Indonesia House of Representative Post-New
Order Soeharto
Nyarwi Ahmad
a
a
Politics & Media Research Group, The Media School, Bournemouth University, and Lecturer
(Study on leave) of Dept of Communication Science, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences,
Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Accepted author version posted online: 11 May 2015.
To cite this article: Nyarwi Ahmad (2015): Political Marketing Management of Parliament Under the Presidential Government
System: A Lesson Learn From the Indonesia House of Representative Post-New Order Soeharto, Journal of Political Marketing,
DOI: 10.1080/15377857.2014.959692
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2014.959692
Disclaimer: This is a version of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to authors and researchers we are providing this version of the accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting,
typesetting, and review of the resulting proof will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of
the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to this version also.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

1
Political Marketing Management of Parliament under the Presidential Government
System: A Lesson Learn from the Indonesia House of Representative Post-New
Order Soeharto
Nyarwi Ahmad1
1
Politics & Media Research Group, The Media School, Bournemouth University, and
Lecturer (Study on leave) of Dept of Communication Science, Faculty of Social and
Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
PhD Research Student at the Politics & Media Research Group, The Media School,
Bournemouth University, and Lecturer (Study on leave) of Dept of Communication
Science, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta,
Indonesia.
Email: nahmad@bournemouth.ac.uk/gloryasia2008@gmail.com
Nyarwi Ahmad hailed from Rembang Regency, Central Java, Indonesia. By 2005 he was
qualified from the Undergraduate Program, Department of Communication Science,
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta,
Indonesia and by June 2008, he was graduated from the Graduate Program, Department
of Communication Sciences, University of Indonesia, Jakarta. Since 2009, He has been
working as lecturer of Department of Communication Sciences, Faculty of Social and
Political Sciences, Gadjah Mada University (Universitas Gadjah Mada). Since 2012-
present he has been studying as PhD Research Student, at Politics & Media Research
Group, The Media School, Bournemouth University, UK.
Abstract
Modern political marketing managements of parties, government and parliament have
gradually taken place within and across democratic countries those ruled under either the
parliamentary government or presidential government systems. Little attention however,
has been directed to explore the extent to which modern political marketing management
of parliament has taken place within countries those run under the presidential system of
government especially Indonesia. As led by hypothetical-inductive approach, this work
has been specifically directed to explore: a) the dynamic exchanges and interactions; b)
the nature and structure of political market arenas; c) types of political products; and d)
models of political marketing management of the Indonesian parliament/ the Indonesian
Downloadedby[NewYorkUniversity]at01:4223May2015

2
House of Representative. Having them, this work goes into the extent to which the
institutional marketing management strategies has been advanced by the Indonesian
Parliament/the Indonesian House of Representative since Post-New Order Soeharto up to
SBY’ governments era (2004-2014).
KEYWORDS: Political Marketing Management of Parliament, Presidential Government
System and the Indonesian House of Representative Post-New Order Soeharto
1. INTRODUCTION
Political marketing has been not only being a contested term, but also having two
controversial sides—whether as it is bad or good things (Lilleker, et.al, 2007:2). Some
argued that modern political marketing has carried out some benefits for parties and
politicians/candidates whether during campaign and elections or as they have been taking
the public offices (Lilleker, 2006; Lees-Marshment, 2008). Meanwhile, the others have
voiced that political marketing seem jeopardizing the essences and values of democracy
(Savigny, 2004, 2008; Savigny and Wring, 2009).
Nonetheless, there have been perspectives, theories and proposed-models of political
marketing used to address such as political parties organization (see Henneberg, 2002;
Lees-Marshment, 2001a, 2004, 2008; Marland, et.al, 2011; Ormrod and Henenberg,
2008, 2010, 2011), parties’ campaign organization (Wring, 2005), parties’ leaders
(O’Cass, 1996, 2001), parties’ members (Ormrod, 2005, 2007, 2009), parties’
manifestoes (Ormrod and Henneberg, 2006, 2009) and parties’ candidates and

3
presidential candidates (Shama, 1976; O’ Shaughnessy, 1990; Newman, 1994, 1999a,
1999b; Denton Jr, 1998; Perloff, 1999); within contexts of whether the policy
development or internal relations within political parties’ organizations or campaigning
(Lilleker, 2006:151; Lilleker, et.al, 2007:4); being led by either the hypothetical-inductive
approach (Newman, 1994; Newman, 1999a, 1999b; Lees-Marshment, 2001, 2004, 2008;
Lees-Marshment and Lilleler, 2005; Lilleker, et.al, 2006; Wring, 2005; Lees-Marshment,
et.al, 2010; Marland, et.al, 2011) or hypothetical-deductive approaches (Omrod, 2005,
2007, 2009; Ormrod and Henenberg, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011; Ormrod, et.al, 2013).
Within context of either parliamentary government or presidential government systems,
most of existing literatures, unfortunately, have less specifically explored either the
political marketing of parties in Parliament or political marketing of Parliament. More
specifically, researches that have specifically focused on political marketing of
parliament under the presidential government system have been still under researched.
As focused on this issue, there have been various topics relate to political marketing of
parties, parties’ leaders and parties’ candidates when they have taken in the Parliament
office. As focused on the Indonesian Parliament, this work however, would not address
these broad issues. Rather, this work discusses on how and the extent to which political
marketing management of Parliament have taken place in the Indonesian politics since
Post New Order Soeharto up to the SBY’s Government Era (2004-2014). In this work,
the term of The Indonesian Parliament refers to the Indonesian House of Representative.

4
To this end, this work employs the qualitative method (Denzin and Licoln, 2005). Led by
this methods, data collections have been undertaken using the semi-structure of in-depth
interviews to the Head/Speaker, The Secretary of Faction of Indonesian Political Parties,
The Journalist’s Coordinator, and The Head of Media Publication and Public Relation of
The Indonesian House of Representative, while content analyses using textual and
thematic analyses (see Boyatzis, 1998; Butler-Kisber 2010) have been undertaken to
address four research objectives as charted by following Table 1.
Having four research objectives, this work chronicles three parts of discussions. The first
one would consider the roles, functions and challenges of parliament under the
presidential government system of Indonesia. Moreover, the second one would examine:
1) the dynamic exchanges and interactions processes between the political marketing of
the Indonesian Parliament and political marketing of the Indonesian Presidency by taking
into account the roles and positions of the ruling party and its coalitions and opposition
parties; 2) the natures and structure of political market arenas of Indonesian Parliament;
3) kinds of political products of the Indonesian Parliament; and 4) proposed-models of
political marketing management of the Indonesian Parliament. Furthermore, the last one
would explore on how and the extent to which modern political marketing management
have taken place in the Indonesian Parliament since Post-New Order Soeharto up to
SBY’s government era (2004-2014). Finally, the last one would outline the conclusions
and further research recommendations.

5
2. THE COMPOSITIONS, ROLES AND FUNCTIONS OF PARLIAMENT
UNDER THE PARLIAMENTARY GOVERMENT VS. PRESIDENTIAL
GOVERNENT SYSTEMS
It has been argued that the historical formations, roles and functions of parliament in
worldwide democratic countries would be determined by several factors (Leston-
Bandeiras and Lord Philip Norton, 2007:3-4). The first important factor is the political
system and government system where each country has commonly followed one of
several types of the government systems—such as presidential system, parliamentary
system or the mixed-system of government—those determine the scope of rules and
functions of its parliament. The other determinant factor is the electoral system—such as
the majoritarian system, the proportional representation system and the mixed-system—
that define not only the number of parties and their parties’ candidates that can be elected
as the members of parliament, but also scope of power, authorities and the roles of the
members of parliaments to some degree. The third factor is the model of parliamentary
political organization that has been established within democratic countries, either based
on unicameral or the bicameral. Finally, the political policies of centralization and de-
centralization that have been relied upon the degree of effectiveness of political
organization and governments’ administration organization in a country have been
considered as another factors that define to some degree the roles and functions of
Parliament1
.
1
The decentralization has become a new trend of parliament organization regarding the historical formation
of nation-state, patterns of the sharing political authorities and the types of relationship between the central
government and local goverment that have taken shape within and across democratic countries. Within
context of the UK politic, there have been establishment of Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for

6
Setting under either the parliamentary government or the presidential government system,
the bicameral system has been much more familiar rather than unicameral parliamentary
system. Under the parliamentary government system, the bicameral system can be seen in
the UK Politics. In this respect, the parliament made up from two chambers that are the
House of Common and the House of Lord as followed the bicameral system. As the
lower house is the House of Common where the members are elected based on the First-
Past-the-Post election system and represent the parties and their constitution’s political
interest. Meanwhile, as the upper house is the House of Lords, as independent from the
House of Common where the members were mainly appointed and made up from the
Lords Spiritual as representation of the Church of England and the Lords Temporal those
are appointed by the Monarch. Both of the members of the House of Common and the
House of Lords can be appointed as the government minister based on convention. In the
legislation processes, even though the both the members of the House of Common and
the House of Lords have had responsibility for making law, however, based on the
Parliament Act, the House of Common have had the political supremacy for proposing
and amending the Bill before it will be approved by Monarch (see
http://www.parliament.uk/about/).
Wales on 1 July 1999, and the Northern Ireland Assembly on 2 December 1999 in UK Politics. Meanwhile,
within context of Indonesian Politics, there has been The Aceh House of Representative (Dewan
Perwakilan Rakyat Aceh) which is decreed under Law No.11/2006.

7
Meanwhile, the other bicameral system within context of presidential government system
is the US Parliament. In this respect, US Congress has been made up from two chambers
that are the US House of Representative and the US Senate. As the lower house, the
members of the US House of Representative will be elected in the two-years term as
representation of people in the congressional district, while as the upper house, the
members of US Senate will be votes in the six-years term. The members of the US House
of Representative have several political authorities in term of law making, financial
powers, constituent powers, few and minor executive power to scrutinize and investigate
the government department, admission of the new States, judicial powers, and electoral
function—if during the presidential election, there is no candidate have an absolute
majority. Meanwhile, the members of US Senate have more powerful power than the US
House of Representative. They have several political authorities in term of the legislative
powers, political budgeting power, scrutinizing and investigating to control over the
executive government, and constituent powers. Even though having different type of
political authorities, all the members of US Congress have several roles in term of
representation, legislation, constituency services, oversight, investigations and public
education (see http://www.house.gov/ and http://www.senate.gov/).
Generally speaking, four factors have determined the election system and the modes of
selection systems of numbers of parties and its members that could take parliaments
seats. Moreover, they have also defined the compositions, roles and functions of
parliament respecting the government system used. Together with the structural and
cultural changing of political environments, they have seemed to delineate the extent to

8
which modern political marketing of parliament would take place within and across
democratic countries, which are ruled under either the parliamentary government or
presidential government systems or mixed-systems.
3. POLITICAL MARKETING MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENT UNDER THE
PRESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEM OF INDONESIA
As political marketing of parliament has gradually taken place across worldwide, it has
been only Lees-Marshment (2003, 2004) theorized already the models of political
marketing of parliament. As derived from UK Politics, she has postulated three types of
political marketing of parliament that are: 1) Product-Oriented Parliament, 2) Sales-
oriented Parliament and 3) Market-oriented Parliament. The first one would be
characterized by the political marketing strategy of parliament by emphasizing strategy
on how the political product to be met with the expected-normative function of
parliament in the democratic system. It would be implemented by delivering political
product of parliament in order to satisfy and fulfill the expectations, demands, wants, and
needs of the electorates as well as broader stakeholders. Meanwhile, the second one
would be run using the most appropriate selling strategy of parliament in order to get the
popular support among the public and electorates (Lees-Marshment, 2004:181-182).
Unlike wise previous model, it focuses on how presenting the institution in the best light
in order to achieve positive evaluation from the stakeholders and public using the market
intelligence to assure that the parliament and its members enable to sell their political
product in better ways within various political communication channels. Finally, the last
one would be relied on the developing marketing communication strategy of political

9
marketing of parliament (Lees-Marshment, 2004: 185-186). The main goal of this model
is how to increase the parliament’s ability to design and to suit its product as demanded
by public as well as the broader stakeholders where the market intelligences have been
placed to seek on what public most need and want in order to design political product of
parliament. As having the internal reaction and the support analysis to the product design,
the head of parliament must ensure that the members of parliament will agree with the
proposed changes of product design. Moreover, the product adjustment needs to be taken
by the parliament and its members to strengthen the substances, performances, packaging
and delivering its political product of parliament; the achievability need to be considered
to ensure that the product design and promises can be achieved; and the competition
analysis need to be accounted to adjust its political product of parliament and to ensure
that all of the delivering political product meet with the roles and functions of parliament
and its members.
Theoretically speaking, Lees-Marshment (2003:24) has mainly pointed out the stages and
processes of market-oriented of parliament. However, she has not yet fully accounted the
differentiation between the stages and processes of marketing-orientation of parliament in
one hand and market-oriented of parliament in other. Moreover, she has less
differentiated between the strategies, stages and processes marketing-orientation and
political market-orientation of parties as well as members of parties as they have taken
rules in parliament on one hand and the strategies, stages and processes of political
marketing-orientation of parliament and political market-orientation of parliament on the
other. Yet, she has already outlined the political market arenas and models of political

10
marketing of parliament. However, she has not yet succinctly divided between the
internal and external political market arenas and less taken into account the interactions,
exchange, interactions and relationship between these political market arenas. Moreover,
she has not yet less advanced the patterns of interactions and relationship between the
national parliament (Westminster) and the UK local parliament. More importantly, her
models have yet comparatively discussed on how and the extent to which models of
political marketing of parliament across democratic countries that have shared similar or
different characteristics of political system, government system, media system and
election system with the UK Politics have taken shape. Whilst Lees-Marshment (2003,
2004) has already theorized the models of political marketing of parliament within
context of UK Politics, unfortunately, the others authors have not yet advanced the
conceptual framework of political marketing of parliament under presidential government
system; either within context of the advanced-western democratic countries such as US or
the emerging democracy such as Indonesia.
As focused on the Indonesian politics, we have to consider the dynamic exchanges and
interactions processes of the political marketing between: a) the Indonesian Parliament
and the Indonesian Presidency; b) the ruling party and its coalitions when they have taken
position in either the parliamentary or governmental offices and the opposition parties
when they have ruled in the parliamentary office; and c) the ruling party and its coalitions
and the opposition parties in the central offices. As regards these three arenas of
exchanges and interactions processes, there have been both the institutional and personal

11
approaches of political marketing, as charted by figure 12
. In this respect, the institutional
approach of political marketing management of fractions of parties and personal
approach of parties’ leaders or parties’ politicians in parliament—whether as the ruling
party and its coalitions or opposition parties—have determined entire political processes
of supervising, scrutinizing, budgeting and law making policies within the sub-
organization and special committees of the Indonesian Parliament. The ruling party and
its coalitions in one hand and the opposition parties on the other have contested political
interests as they have formulated political policies and products in order to be achieved
and delivered by the appointed-ministries, head of national state agencies and head/vice
head of extra/independent state agencies that have been controlled by the Indonesian
Presidency. Within context of the presidential government system of Indonesia,
contestations and formulations of the political policies and products have strongly
represented the ‘sharing of political interests’ not only between the ruling party and its
coalitions, but also between these parties and the opposition parties. Moreover, within the
whole political processes in the Indonesian parliamentary and governmental arenas, both
the institutional approach of political marketing of these parties and personal approach of
political marketing of these parties’ leaders and parties’ politicians have been always
taking place. Therefore, the numbers of existing ruling and it coalitions and opposition
parties in the Indonesian Parliament and types of the inter-party competitions in the
parliamentary and governmental arenas (by following either centripetal or centrifugal
2
This work only discusses the institutional approach of political marketing management of the Indonesian
parliament and less address the individual approach of political marketing of Members of Indonesian
Parliament.

12
models), which have varied across periods of political regimes), would strongly
determined the whole exchanges and interactions processes of political marketing
between the Indonesian Presidency and the Indonesian Parliament.
This work would not go further to explore: a) the dynamic exchanges and interactions
processes of political marketing between the Indonesian Parliamentary and the
Indonesian Presidency; and b) how and the extent to which transformations of political
marketing orientations of the Indonesian Parliament across periods of political regimes of
Post-New Order Soeharto that have taken shape along side the formulations of political
policies and products, which have been contested by the ruling parties and its coalitions
and the opposition parties within contexts of the parliamentary and governmental arenas.
Rather, the subsequent discussion would prefer to specifically examine on how and the
degree to which the political marketing management of Indonesian Parliament have taken
shape since Post New Order Soeharto. In doing so, we need to outline political market
arenas, political products and proposed-model of political marketing management of the
Indonesian Parliament within context of the presidential government system of Indonesia.
By refashioning Lees-Marshment’ (2003:23; 2004: 176-177) idea, the parliament under
the presidential system of government of Indonesia has featured both the internal and the
external political market arenas. The internal political market arenas of parliament are the
individual members of parliament and staffs (whether political appointees/non-civil
service staffs or civil services staffs) who have been placed within the sub-organizational
structure of parliaments, the special committee or sub-organization of the parliament and

13
the fractions of parties in parliaments. Indeed, they carry out the personal and
collective/institutional political interest of their parties’ affiliation/parties’ fractions.
Therefore, these internal market arenas have been characterized by more fluid, open and
dynamic markets due to parties in government always try to get enough political support
from them to propose and implement any political policies, while the opposition parties
always need their support to scrutinize the government’s policies or do effort to down
grade people trust to the ruling party government that would be useful to accomplish
benefit of the future election.
Slightly contrasting to the internal political markets, the external political markets of
parliament are composed from: 1) the international organizations/agencies; 2) the
executive body of government; 3) the Indonesian public and the Indonesian business
associations; and 4) the mass media, the Internet and social media networks users. The
first external political markets of parliament are the international organizations/agencies
where Indonesian government or Indonesian civil societies/non-government
organizations have been taking part as members of being active as participant. They
include any international organization/agency where Indonesia registered as member
(such as UN, ASEAN—including ASEAN + 3, APEC and G20) or another international
organizations/agencies that directly or indirectly have became the associates/partners
with whether the Indonesian (central/local) government or the Indonesian civil society
organizations/non-government organizations (including the Indonesian religious
organizations) or the Indonesian Universities or Indonesian business/trade
associations/organizations. Indeed, there have been various contemporary international

14
economies, cultural, politics and human right issues that have to be taken into account by
the Indonesian Parliament by addressing these issues that are directly or indirectly
connected with the regional and international values, ethics and regulations/agreement.
Meanwhile, the second one includes the governing (coalitions) party—that has ruled the
executive body of central and local governments, extra/independent state agencies and
the local government and the local parliament that always need support from the
parliament whether to run public policies or to accomplish political goals/interests either
during the political process of budgeting or lawmaking or supervising or controlling. If
the ruling party or its coalitions have led parliament, they would less have problems in
term of political interactions, transactions and relationships with president/vice president,
ministries and head of states agencies. Otherwise, if the opposition parties have
controlled the parliament, there have been various potential problems emerged with these
aforementioned external political markets. Within context of the presidential government
system, there would be latent and manifest heating issues in parliament when the
disloyalties’ of members of government coalition parties in parliament or the opposition
parties in parliament have failed to meet (or ignore) the demands, expectations and
interest of these external political markets. Moreover, there would be also potential issues
with the extra/independent state agencies (such as Supreme Court and the Corruption
Eradication Commission) (as part of external political market of parliament) when the
members of parliament or sub-organizations/special committee of parliament have been
suspected and alleged involving in particular political budgeting scandals or less ability to
meet expectation toward various these government agencies as demanded by public.

15
Moreover, the other political markets of parliament are the local government and the
local parliament that have particular political interest especially in relation with politics
of local government budgeting, the direction of political policies of autonomy and
decentralization and the conflict of interest within legislation processes of local
governments. Unlike wise in the UK Politics where the Scottish Parliament and the
National Assembly for Welsh and Northern Ireland Assembly that potentially challenge
the UK Parliament, within context of Indonesian politics since Post-New Order Soeharto,
yet, several special region of Indonesia have had some local parliament such as The Aceh
Parliament (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Aceh), or the Papuan House of Representative
(Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Papua/DPRP) and the Papuan People Consultative Assembly
(Majelis Rakyat Papua/MRP) that have less equal political position with the Indonesian
Parliament3
. Being constituted by specific regulations as the ‘special local government’,
they however, have specific authorities to formulate local government policies as
demanded by their people that to some degree carry out political conflict of interest not
only with the central executive body of government, but also with the Indonesian
Parliament/The Indonesian House of Representative.
3
See the Law No.21/2001 about the Special Authonomy for Province of Papaue (Otonomi Khusus Bagi
Propinsi Papua), and Law No.35/2008 about the Approved-the decree of the Goverment Regulation as
Replacement of Law No.1/2008 about the amandement of the Law No.21/2001 about the Special
Authonomy for Province of Papaue (Otonomi Khusus Bagi Propinsi Papua) as Law (Penetapan Peraturan
Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang No1/2008 Tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang No.21/2001
Tentang Otonomi Khusus Bagi Propinsi Papua Menjadi Undang-Undang).

16
The third one relates with the public and business associations. Public is closely
associated with individual citizens and their associations/organizations that can be
manifested as the voters, non-voters, the pressure groups, the interest groups, and civil
societies’ organizations and non-government organizations. More specifically, civil
society organization and non-government organization refer to any public independent
organization that has been established by civil society or non-government organization
(including religious and cultural organization). Meanwhile, the business/corporate as
political markets have existed as business associations, trade union and professional
worker communities, which have particular business interest, taxation policies and the
employment policies. Generally speaking, they need parliament to call and to account the
government policies, to scrutinize the direction of political legislation, and to ensure that
the government can fulfill their political interest, demands and expectations.
The last one appertain to the mass media, the Internet and social media networks users.
The existing mass media mainstream under the dominant commercial media system of
Indonesia always potentially criticizes the performances and images of (the members of,
the sub-organization/special committee of and the fractions of parties within) the
parliament. In this respect, the logic of commercial-driven journalism of these media can
diminish the parliament political agenda over times. Having ability as public opinion
maker and driver, they have emerged as the hardest political market arena that has to be
smartly managed by the Indonesian Parliament. Meanwhile, along side the huge power of
commercial/private media, the Internet and social media network users have also became
the new important external political market that more likely to scrutinize the performance

17
of parliament. Together with the negative political news frame made by the mass media
mainstream, they have enabled to mold the negative public opinion toward the images of
(the members of, the sub-organization/special committee of and the fractions of parties
within) parliament.
Meanwhile, there have been several political product of parliament under the presidential
government system of Indonesia. The first one refers to the tangible assets of parliament.
In this respect, the place and building of parliament offices and merchandises made by
parliament may be potentially generated as the political product such as the historical
values of parliament building, the logo and symbol as the political product and brand of
parliament. Moreover, the second one relates with the individual members of parliament
and all staffs that have been employed by parliament. As being affiliated with different
party’s ideological orientation, social and cultural background, each members of
parliament have different characters that represent the structures of society in terms of
race, gender, class and previous occupational background. In this respect, each staff
either the civil services or non-civil services/political appointees that have been hired for
long time or short-time contracts, they have had not only the different duties,
responsibilities and political communication skills that have been directed to serve
different committees, sub-organization of parliament and the members of the parliament,
but also there have had various political interest. Furthermore, the third political product
of parliament is all of the political processes and political activities of the parliament and
political activities of the members of parliament in term of running their jobs in
parliament offices or constituency duties out-side the parliamentary office. In this respect,

18
the first one refers to: 1) all-political activities (such as political debate and discussion,
which influence the direction of public opinion, either being held in the parliament
offices or in the mass media as well as social media networks) that directly relate with the
srutinizing government policies, law making and political budgeting; 2) the out-side
parliament office’s activities of the members of parliament while dealing with their
constituents or electorates; and 3) social, cultural and political events that are held by the
parliament such as during the Independent Day.
What are types of political marketing models of parliament that could be derived from the
presidential government system of Indonesia Post-New Order Soeharto up to the SBY’
government eras? We have been informed that Lees-Marshment (2003:23; 2004: 178-
179) has offered the stages and processes of the Product-Oriented Parliament (POP), the
Sales-Oriented Parliament (SOP), and the Market-Oriented Parliament (MOP).
Meanwhile, as focused on the resources-based view of political organizations, O’Cass
and Voola’ (2011: 633-639) have underlined the responsive nature of market orientation
(i.e. understanding the expressed needs of the voters) and the proactive nature of market
orientation (understanding the latent needs of the voters). By taking into account the
strategic political capability of organizations while dealing with the uncontrolled-factors
of political markets, they have proposed three types of political marketing orientations
that are; 1) the proactive political market orientation (PPMO) as indicated by the
emphasizing the market intelligence and research to form the long-term market-
orientation strategy as expected by the electorates; 2) the reactive political market
orientation (RPMO) as characterized by the short-term market-orientation approach upon

19
the demand and expectation of electorates; and 3) the political brand orientation (PBO)
that emphasizes the centralized-institutional approach to establish and to strengthen the
personal branding of political institutions. In term of PBO, each political organization
should meet with several conditions that are: 1) the distinctive logo of organization,
presentation of consistent image, platforms, and reputation as, presented in brand
communications through paid and unpaid media; 2) the functional utility of their political
brand as generated through the communicated offering and actual delivery of the
electoral services to meet both expressed and latent needs; 3) value-adding capabilities of
their political brands; and 4) the attractiveness of brand symbolism whereby the
emotions, self-image, personality and psyche and values of brand enable to provide more
positive political impression to various political markets (O’Cass and Voola, 2011: 635-
637).
Theoretically speaking, there would be three types of the institutional approach of
political marketing of parliament as derived from the presidential system of government
of Indonesia. There have been transformations of political marketing orientations of the
Indonesian Parliament respecting the systemic-environments and the internal conditions
of the Indonesian Parliament that have taken place along side changing political regimes
Post New Order Soeharto. As seen from Table 3, when the Indonesian Parliament has
followed the product-orientation, the Product-Oriented Parliament to some degree has
been advanced by emphasizing the ‘attractiveness and uniqueness’ of any tangible and
intangible political products that are created by (Speaker, members and staffs of)
parliaments in regard with both external and internal markets. Meanwhile, it has favored

20
running the sales-orientation, the Sales-Oriented Parliament would be reliant on abilities
(Speaker, members and staffs) of parliament, not only on producing the more interesting
and unique product, but also how to successfully sell them to their internal and external
political markets. In the meantime, as it has decided following the market-orientation, the
Market-Oriented Parliament would very reliant on ability (Speakers, members and staffs)
of parliament to conduct the market intelligence that have been used to design the more
interesting products in order to satisfy the demands, needs and expectations of their
internal and external political markets.
As regards the last model, there are RPMOP, PPMOP and PBOP that may be established
by the Indonesian Parliament based on its conditions of organizational resources in regard
with internal and external political markets. In this respect, PPMOP will be developed
and implemented by emphasizing the political product of parliament and the
implementation and development of strategic communication of parliament, while PBOP
will underline and enhance the brand design and adjustment and brand development of
political product of parliament will be encapsulated as the focus of political market-
orientation. Unlike wise these models, RPMOP would mainly emphasize the strategic
communication programs of Parliaments that are focused on the short-term issues.
Indeed, as strategic communications become the important points of these models and
political marketing and public relation have been recognized much in common (Lilleker
and Jackson, 2011:157) and closely related (Stromback and Kiousis, 2011; Stromback,
et.al, 2010), modern management of political public relations has to be taken into
account. In this respect, the Corporate Public Relation (CPR) (see Lilleker and Jackson,

21
2011: 170-171) would be useful to be supplanted within one of these political marketing
approaches. Indeed, we need specific another discussion and publications to explore the
interlinked and intersections between these public relations theories and those proposed-
models of political marketing of parliament within context of presidential government
system of Indonesia4
.
The last questions are the extent to which the Indonesian Parliament has established
political marketing management? What are the existing challenges that remain exists?
Generally speaking, the nature of government and political systems and the structures and
its players of political marketing within the Indonesian Parliament/the Indonesian House
of Representative have defined type of political marketing management of the Indonesian
Parliament since Post New Order Soeharto (1998-present). Based on Law No.27/2009,
the Indonesian Parliament has been composed from two cambers, those are: 1) the
Indonesian House of Representative/Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia (DPR
RI), and 2) the Indonesian Regional Representative Council/ Dewan Perwakilan Daerah
Republik Indonesia (DPD RI) (Article No.2 of the amended-Indonesian National
Constitution 1945). Unlike wise The Indonesian Regional Representative Council that
has less power on law making processes (Article No.22d of the amended-Indonesian
National Constitution 1945 and Articles No.223-226 of Law No.27/2009), based on: a)
the amended-Indonesian National Constitution 1945 (Article No.20a); b) Law
No.4/1999—as amended by Law No.23/2003 (Article No.25); and 3) Law No.27/2009
4
This paper would not go further to discuss these knowledge gaps. We need another research investigations
and publications to explore these issues within context of Indonesian Parliament.

22
(Articles No.69-73), the Indonesian House of Representative has had three main
authorities those are: 1) the law making power (legislative); 2) the budgeting power; and
3) the scrutinizing and controlling authority to the executive government that is led by the
Indonesian Presidency. Yet, as an important political institution, they have those three
strategic rules. The members of this institution however, have been less capable to
generate their political legitimacy and power due to the inherent internal political
fragmentation of parties’ fractions in one hand and the increasing power of the
president/vice president in other (see Zeigenhein, 2008; Sherlock, 2007, 2009). As regard
with these conditions however, modern political marketing management concepts and
principles have been gradually installed.
Indeed, it has been hard to define when the first time of this institution has begun to adopt
modern political marketing management due to lack of official record. However, as there
have been structural changing of political system and government system, media system
and election system, some have voiced that the earlier adaptation of political marketing
management of Indonesian Parliament/the Indonesian House of Representative has
gradually taken place since the Reform Era (1999-2004)5
. In this respect, since Akbar
Tanjung (the former of General Chairman of Golkar Party) appointed as the Speaker of
the Indonesian Parliament/the Indonesian House of Representative first term Post-New
Order Soeharto (1999-2004), there have been heating political turbulence between this
5
Personal Interviews with : 1) Jaka Surya, The Coordinator of Journalist Communities of The Indonesian
House of Representative, February 2013; 2) Suratno, The Head of Public Relation Officer of the Indonesian
House of Representative, February 2013; and 3) Dadang Prayitna, The Head of Publication Officer of the
Indonesian House of Representative, February 2013.

23
institution and the Presidential Palace that forced him to advance the Product-Oriented
Parliament and to some degree the Sales-Oriented Parliament; even less equipped with
the modern institutional approach6
. Moreover, as HR.Agung Laksono (at that time he was
Vice Chairman of Golkar Party) has taken role as the Speaker of this institution (2004-
2009), these models have been interchangeably used to address both internal and external
political market arenas.
Meanwhile, when Dr.Marzuki Ali (Democratic Party) has been appointed as the Speaker
of this institution (2009-2014), the institutional approach of modern political marketing
management of parliament has been just officially installed. Since this term, the modern
political marketing has been run by emphasizing the political public relation approach as
led by the decree No.7/BURT/DPR RI/I/2010-2011, about the “General Guidelines of the
Management of Public Relation of the Indonesian House of Representative”(Pedoman
Umum Pengelolaan Kehumasan DPR RI) that is released at 22 October 2010, by the
Household Affairs Agency (Badan Urusan Rumah Tangga/BURT) (one of the special
section of the Indonesian House of Representative). This decree has been directed to the
Speaker, the Head and all of staff of this institution7
while dealing with the internal and
6
Personal Interview with : 1) Jaka Surya, The Coordinator of Journalist Communities of The Indonesian
House of Representative, February 2013.
7
They are : 1) the Speaker; 2) the Head of Houselhold Affairs Agency; 3) the Head of Committe (Komisi);
4) the Head of Legislative Section; 5) the Head of Agency for Inter-Parliament Cooperation (Badan
Kersama Antar Parlemen/BKSAP); 6) the Head of Agency for State Financial Accountability (Badan
Akuntabilitas Keuangan Negara); 7) The Head of Agency Budget (Badan Anggaran); 8) The Head of

24
the external political markets8
. Based on this decument, the Indonesian Parliament has
not yet less systematically constituted the internal and external political markets and
political market arenas and how to comprehensively address them. However, this
institution has begun to concern on how to deal with the external and internal political
markets arenas; even the internal political market arenas has been very diffocult to be
fully managed respecting the dynamic of the inter-party competitions and the fluctuations
and tensions of the conflicts of political interests between the ruling party and its
coalitions in legislative (the Indonesian Parliamant) and the executive body of
governments and of these parties and the oppositions parties in the Indonesian
Parliament.
Having this institutional strategy of management of political public relation, two main
institutional approaches have been advanced that are: reactive approach and the
preventive approach, which is combined by creative approach. The reactive approach
relates the Reactive Political Market-Orientation of Parliament (RPMOP), while the
preventive approach is slightly similar with the Proactive Political Market-Orientation of
Parliament (PPMOP). The first one has been developed based on the abilities to avoid
several potential attacks to the political image of parliament, while the second one would
be advanced based on the strong abilities to increase and perform the political image of
Honorary Board (Badan Kehormatan); 9) The Head of Fractions of Parties (Fraksi-Fraksi); and 10) The
Head, Deputy Head and Bureau Chief of Secretariat General of the Indonesian House of Representative.
8
Pedoman Umum Pengelolaan Kehumasan DPR RI (The General Guideline of the Management of Public
Relation of the Indonesian House of Representative). Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia. 2011.
Page 1-2.

25
parliament and its members. Facing the huge challenges from internal and external
political markets however, they have less be able to develop the Political Brand-
Orientation of Parliament (PBOMP).
As regards the dynamic internal party-competitions in the parliamentary and
governmental arenas, the several challenges have remained exists9
. Within the internal
political markets, there have been the extensive competitions among the fraction (and its
the members) of parties in Parliament. Indeed, there has been an agreement made by the
Speaker and the Head of sub-sections/committee and Head of Fractions of Parties of
Indonesian Parliament to run that aforementioned decree. The Speaker and the Head of
sub-sections/committee however, have had less power to force all of members or
Fractions of Parties of the Indonesian Parliament to run this agreement10
. As regards this
9
Based on personal interview with Dr.Marzuki Ali, The Speaker of The Indonesian House of
Representative, February 2013, and Ade Komaruddin, the Secretary of Fraction of Golkar Party, February
2013; 3) Based on personal interwiew with M.Hanif Dzakiri, the Secretary of Fraction of the Nation
Awakening Party (Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa/PKB), February, 2013; and M.Arwani Thomafy, the
Secretary of Fraction of the United Development Party (Partai Persatuan Pembangunan/PPP), February
2013.
10
Yet, based on Law No.27/2009, The Speaker of the Indonesian House of Representative (Article No.84)
and Head of sub-sections/committees of the Indonesian House of Representative (Article No.96) have had
some influential roles. However, as there have been ‘ a collegial principle’ among the Members of the
Indonesian Parliament as imposed by the existing regulation of the direct election system (Law No.8/2012),
they have no authority to force each of Members to fully implement the institutional strategic approach of
the political marketing management of the Indonesian House of Representative. Moreover, as each of those
Members has to achieve political objectives of each fraction of party in the Indonesian Parliament, there

26
condition, the external professional experts that have been employed to support this
institutional strategy of political marketing of the Indonesian House of Representative
indeed have no authority to drive the dynamic of the internal political market as expected
by the Speaker.
Meanwhile, as regards the external political markets, several problems have remains exist
due to less ability of this institution to predict and to manage the uncontrollable
situations. Whilst the Speaker of the Indonesian House of Representative cannot fully
represent the voice of the members (especially while dealing with particular political
issues in relation to the existing parties’ interests in the parliament), there has been the
domination of market-driven journalism, the rise of negative political issues (such as
political and moral scandals) made by the members of this institution that generate more
interesting news value of the mass media. Along side this existing problems
unfortunately, the members or fractions of parties in parliament has tended to take benefit
beyond the current issues of the mass media agenda and public agenda. Therefore,
political brand-image of the Indonesian House of Representative is always going to be
have been some ‘political conflict of interests’ among these Members, These Speaker and Head of Sub-
sections/committees of the Indonesian House of Respresentative those have been very difficult to be fully
managed. Furthermore, whilst the oppositions parties have obtained the major seats in the Indonesian
House of representative, those ‘political conflict of interests’ would be much more complicated, as
members of the rulling party and coalitions parties in the Indonesian House of Representative have taken
roles as Speaker and Head of Sub-sections/committees have to strongly support or to secure the political
policies and to protect the political images of the Indonesian President/Vice President.

27
risked. Indeed, it would be related to the work performance of the members and the
populist political policies and political products offered by the Indonesian Parliament.
In the meantime, there have been also plenty of student associations, the NGOs/CSOs,
business owners association, charities organizations and the professional associations that
have various political agenda that directly or indirectly relate to either the ruling and its
coalitions and opposition parties’ interests. As regards these political markets, the
opposition parties have commonly taken much more benefits rather than the ruling and its
coalition parties. As they have seemed to oppose the political agenda of the Indonesian
House of Representative, this institution has organized several public dialogues. When
they have been supported by the mass media mainstream and the social media network
users however, it will be hard to fully control and comprehensively response them
especially when the inter-party competitions in the Indonesian Parliament has been in
high political tension. However, they would be much more easily tackled, as there has
been strong political consensus among the ruling and its coalitions and the opposition
parties on responding the demands, needs and interests of these political markets.
Moreover, it could be easily managed as the hired professional political public relations
consultants have succeeded on counter negative political campaign related domestic and
international issues raised by these political markets. Indeed, the degrees of getting
supports from various groups of political journalist communities and the Indonesian
media outlets on maintaining the positive political images of the Indonesian Parliament
have been very essential.

28
4. DISCUSSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS
Investigations of political marketing management of Parliament would be defined by
what kinds of research paradigm and approach used to explore the theoretical and
empirical knowledge gaps within and across democratic countries. As led by the
interpretative paradigm and hypothetical-inductive approach, this work has already
outlined the dynamic exchange and interactions processes of political marketing
management that taken place within the Indonesian Parliament in relation with the
Indonesian Presidency by taking into consideration the ruling party and its coalitions in
one hand and the opposition parties in other. As focused on political marketing
management of the Indonesian Parliament/the Indonesian House of Representative, this
work has chronicled the internal and external political market arenas, political products
and proposed models of political marketing management of parliament under the
presidential government system of Indonesia Post-New Order Soeharto up to 2014s.
Indeed, several deceptive findings need to be carefully scrutinized. First, as focused
within democratic countries, which are ruled under the presidential government system
such as Indonesia, further investigations have to robustly and clearly differentiate among
the concepts and practices of transformations of political marketing management,
political marketing-orientations and the political market-orientation of the Indonesian
Parliament/The Indonesian House of Representative. Second, subsequent research has to
consider the differentiation between the strategies, stages and processes of political
marketing-orientation and political market-orientation of parliament in one hand and of
fractions of parties—whether the ruling and its coalitions or opposition parties—in

29
parliament in other. Third, the holistic approach of the political marketing management of
the Indonesian Parliament needs to include the assessment to political marketing
behaviors of the members of the Indonesian Regional Representative Council (Dewan
Perwakilan Rakyat, Republik Indonesia). Fourth, further research needs to reveal the
patterns of the both individual and institutional approaches of political marketing
management of the Indonesian Parliament in regard with the domestic and international
external political markets (arenas) or comparative analyses of these external markets
(arenas). Fifth, regarding the implementation of the decentralization and autonomy
policies of the Local Government since Post-Reform Era, the further research needs to be
undertaken directed to address the dynamic competition of the political marketing
management between the Indonesian Parliament and the Regional Parliament either the
Province Regional Parliament or the District/Municipalities Regional Parliament. Sixth,
the research also need to be held to assess the political marketing of Indonesian
Parliament in term of strengthening the branding of nation, branding of national and local
cultures of Indonesia, and the branding and policy-making of the international relation
strategies as well as international law in term of regional communities areas (such as
ASEAN communities, Asia Pasific communities, etc) and global communities. Finally,
the global perspective needs to be advanced to assess the models of political marketing
management of parliament within context of democratic countries that are ruled under the
presidential government system and comparing those models with democratic countries,
which are run under the parliamentary government system or mixed-system; within
contexts of whether the established of western-democratic countries or transitional
democratic countries or the emerging democratic countries.

30
Laws
The Indonesian National Constitution of 1945
The Amendment of Indonesian National Constitution of 1945
Law No.27/2009 about the Indonesian People Consultative Assembly, the Indonesian
House of Representative and the Regional Representative Council of Republic Indonesia
Law No.35/2008 about the Approved-the decree of the Goverment Regulation as
Replacement of Law No.1/2008 about the amandement of the Law No.21/2001 about the
Special Authonomy for Province of Papaue (Otonomi Khusus Bagi Propinsi Papua) as
Law (Penetapan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang No1/2008 Tentang
Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang No.21/2001 Tentang Otonomi Khusus Bagi Propinsi
Papua Menjadi Undang-Undang).
Law No.11/2006 about the Aceh Goverment (Pemerintahan Aceh).
Law No.22/2003 about the Composition and Position of the Indonesian People
Consultative Assembly, the Indonesian House of Representative and The Regional
Representative Council of Republic Indonesia.
Law No.21/2001 about the Special Authonomy for Province of Papaue (Otonomi Khusus
Bagi Propinsi Papua).
List of Personal Interview

31
1. Dr. Marzuki Ali, The Speaker of The Indonesian House of Representative,
February 2013
2. Ade Komaruddin, the Secretary of Fraction of Golkar Party, February 2013;
3. M. Hanif Dzakiri, the Secretary of Fraction of the Nation Awakening Party (Partai
Kebangkitan Bangsa/PKB), February, 2013
4. M. Arwani Thomafy, the Secretary of Fraction of the United Development Party
(Partai Persatuan Pembangunan/PPP), February 2013.
5. Jaka Surya, The Coordinator of Journalist Communities of The Indonesian House
of Representative, February 2013.
6. Suratno, The Head of Public Relation Officer of the Indonesian House of
Representative, February 2013
7. Dadang Prayitna, The Head of Publication Officer of the Indonesian House of
Representative, February 2013.
REFERENCE
______Pedoman Umum Pengelolaan Kehumasan DPR RI (The General Guideline of the
Management of Public Relation of the Indonesian House of Representative). Dewan
Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia. 2011. Samuel P.Huntington. 1991. The Third
Wave of Democratization in the Late Twenty Century. Oklahoma: The University of
Oklahoma Press.
Boyatzis, R. E. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Butler-Kisber, L. 2010. Qualitative Inquiry: Thematic, Narrative and Arts- Informed

32
Perspectives. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Denzin, K. and Licoln, Y.S. 2005. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. London:
Sage Publication. Third Edition.
Denton, Jr, Robert E., and Woodward, Gary C.1998. Political Communication in
America. London: Praeger Publication. Third Edition.
Henneberg, Stephen C.M. 2002. Understanding Political Marketing, in Nicholas
J.O’Shaughnessy and Stephen C.M. Henneberg (Eds). 2002. The Idea of Political
Marketing. London: Praeger Publishers.
Lees-Marshment, Jennifer. 2001. Political Marketing and the British Political Party: The
Party Just Begun. Manchester: Manchester University Press. First Edition
Lees-Marshment, Jennifer. 2003. Political Marketing, Journal of Political Marketing,
2:1, 1-32.
Lees-Marshment, Jennifer. 2004. The Political Marketing Revolution: Transforming the
Government of the UK. London: Routledge Publication.
Lees-Marshment, Jennifer and Lilleker, Darren G (Eds). 2005. Political Marketing: A
Comparative Perspective. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Lees-Marshment, Jennifer. 2008. Political Marketing and British Political Parties.
Manchester: Manchester University Press. Second Edition.
Lees-Marshment, Jennifer, Stromback, Jesper and Rudd, Chris (Eds). 2010. Global
Political Marketing. London: Routlegde.
Leston-Bandeiras, Cristina and Norton, Lord Philip. 2007. Parliamentary Institution:
Basic Concepts. Working Paper of NA-UNDP, Project VIE/02/007. Supported by Swiss
Agency for Development and Cooperation, UK Department for International

33
Development and Canadian International Development Agency.
Lilleker, Darren G. 2006. Key Concepts in Political Communications. London: Sage
Publications.
Lilleker, Darren G., Jackson, Nigel A., and Scullion, Richard. 2007. The Marketing of
Political Parties. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Lilleker, Darren G. and Jackson, Nigel A. 2011. Political Public Relation and Political
Marketing, in Stromback, Jesper and Kiousis, Spiro (Eds). 2011. Political Public
Relations: Principles and Applications. London: Routledge. Page 1-32.157-176.
Marland, Alex, Giasson, Thierry and and Lees-Marshment, Jennifer. 2011. Political
Marketing in Canada. Toronto: UBC Press.
Newman, Bruce I. 1994. Marketing of the President: Political Marketing as Campaign
Strategy. London: Sage Publications.
Newman, Bruce I (Eds).1999b. Handbook of Political Marketing. London: Routledge
Publications.
Newman, Bruce I. 19991. The Mass Marketing of Politics: Democracy in an Age of
Manufactured Image. London: Sage Publication.
O’Shaughnessy, N. J. 1990a. The Phenomenon of Political Marketing. Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
O’Schaughnessy, Nicholas J. dan Hanneberg, Stephan C.M. 2002. The Idea of Political
Marketing. London: Praeger Series in Political Communication
O’Cass, A. 1996. “Political Marketing and the Marketing Concept”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 10/11, pp. 45-61.

34
O’Cass, A. 2001. “Political Marketing: An Investigation of the Political Marketing
Concept and Political Market Orientation in Australian Politics”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 9/10, pp. 1003-1025.
O’Cass, Aron and Voola, Ranjit. Explications of Political Market Orientation and
Political Brand Orientation Using the Resource-Based View of the Political Party.
Journal of Marketing Management. Vol. 27, Nos. 5–6, May, 2011, 627–645. Page 628
Ormrod, Robert P. 2005. A Conceptual Model of Political Market Orientation. Journal of
Non-Profit and Public Sector Marketing, 2005: 14 (1/2): 47-65
Ormrod, R. P. 2006. “A Critique of the Lees-Marshment Market-Oriented Party Model”,
Politics, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 110-118.
Ormrod, R.P and Henneberg, Stephen C.H. 2006. Are you thinking what we’re thinking?
or Are we thinking what you’re thinking? An exploratory analysis of the market
orientation of the UK parties, in Lillejer D, Jackson, N and Scullion, R. 2006. The
Marketing of Political Parties. Political Marketing at the 2005 British General Election,
Manchester, Manchester University Press. 31-58.
Ormrod, R. P. 2007. “Political Market Orientation and its Commercial Cousin: Close
Family or Distant Relatives?”, Journal of Political Marketing, Vol. 6, No. 2/3, pp. 69-90.
Ormrod, Robert P. and Henneberg, Stephan C. 2008. Understanding Political Market
Orientation. Paper presented at International Conference on Political Marketing,
University of Manchester, Manchester UK, 27th-29th March 2008.
Ormrod, Robert P. 2009. Understanding Political Market Orientation. Thesis submitted
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Institute for Marketing and Statistics, Aarhus
School of Business, University of Aarhus, Denmark. January 2009.

35
Ormrod, R. P. and Henneberg, S. C. M. 2009. “Different Facets of Market Orientation: A
Comparative Analysis of Party Manifestos”, Journal of Political Marketing, Vol. 8, No.
3, 190-208.
Ormrod, Robert P. and Henneberg, Stephan C. 2010. Understanding voter orientation in
the context of political market orientation: is the political customer king? Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 26, Nos. 1–2, February 2010, 108–130
Ormrod, Robert.P, and Henneberg, Stephan C. 2011. "Political Market Orientation and
Strategic Party Postures in Danish Political Parties." European Journal of Marketing, 45
no. 6, 852-881.
Ormrod, Robert P., Henneberg, Stephan C.M., and O'Shaughnessy, Nicholas J. 2013.
Political Marketing: Theory and Concepts. London: Sage Publication.
Perloff, Richard M. Elite, Popular and Merchandised Politics: Historical Origins of
Presidential Campaign Marketing, in in Bruce I.Newman (Eds). 1999. Handbook of
Political Marketing. London: Sage Publication. Page 19-40.
Savigny, Heather. 2004. Political Marketing: A Critical Assessment-Caveat Emptor. A
Thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of Doctor Philosophy,
Department of political science and international studies, School of social science, The
University of Birmingham, August 2004.
Savigny, Heather. 2008. The Problem of Political Marketing. New York: Continuum.
Savigny, Heather and Wring, Dominic J. 2009. ‘An Ideology of Disconnection: for a
Critical Political Marketing. Central European Journal of Communication, 2 (2), pp251-
67.

36
Shama, Avraham. 1976. The Marketing of Political Candidate, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 4:4, pp.764-777.
Sherlock, Stephen. 2007. The Indonesian Parliament after Two Elections: What has
Really Changed? CDI Policy Papers on Political Governnance. Centre for Democratic
Institutions.
Sherlock, Stephen. 2009. Indonesia’s 2009 Elections: The New Electoral System and the
Competing Parties. CDI Policy Papers on Political Governance. Centre for Democratic
Institutions. 2009/01
Stromback, Jesper and Kiousis, Spiro. 2011. Political Public Relations: Defining and
Mapping an Emergent Field, in Stromback, Jesper and Kiousis, Spiro (Eds). 2011.
Political Public Relations: Principles and Applications. London: Routledge. Page 1-32.
Strömbäck, Jesper, Mitrook, Michael A. and Kiousis, Spiro. 2010. 'Bridging Two
Schools of Thought: Applications of Public Relations Theory to Political Marketing',
Journal of Political Marketing, 9: 1, 73-92
Wring, Dominic. 2005. The Politics of Marketing of Labour Party. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Zeigenhein, Patrick. 2008. The Indonesian Parliament and Democratization. Singapore:
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

37
Table 1 Research Objectives, Data Collections and Data Analyses
Research Objectives To explore: Data Collections Data
Analyses
What are the internal and external political market
arenas of the Indonesian Parliament/Indonesian House
of Representative
The Semi-Structures
of the In-depth
Interviews of: 1) the
Head/Speaker; 2) The
Secretary of Faction
of 3 Indonesian
Political Parties; 3)
The Journalist’s
Coordinator; 4) The
Head of Media
Publication; and 5)
Head of Public
Relation Officers of
The Indonesian House
of Representative
have been conducted
in February 2013
Content
analyses
using
textual
and
thematic
analyses
of the in-
depth
interview
s data
What are kinds of political products of the Indonesian
Parliament/the Indonesian House of Representative
What are of modern political marketing management
that can be postulated within context of the
presidential government system of Indonesia
How and the extent to which modern political
marketing management has taken place in the
Indonesian Parliament/The Indonesian House of
Representative since Post-New Order Soeharto (1998)
up the SBY’s Government Era (2014s).

38
Table 2 Political Products of Parliament under the Presidential Government System of
Indonesia
No Types of Political Products Political product
1 The tangible assets of
parliament
The place and building of parliament offices and
merchandises made by parliament, and its the logo
and symbol
2 Human as political product
of parliament
The members of parliament, civil service staffs and
political consultants/political experts who have been
working in the parliament or supporting the members
of parliament.
3 Political processes within
or by the parliament and or
the members of parliament
as well as by or within sub-
organization of parliament
All of the political processes and political activities in
parliament offices or organized by parliament
Political activities of the members of parliament that
taken place outside parliament office while dealing
with the external political markets (arenas) especially
the constituents and electorates
Social, cultural and political events that are held by
the parliament

39
Figure 1 The Dynamic Exchanges and Interactions Processes of Political Marketing
Between the Indonesian Parliament and the Indonesian Presidency. Adopted from Lees-
Marshment (2003, 2004) and as derived from the in-depth interviews of: 1) the
Head/Speaker; 2) The Secretary of Faction of 3 Indonesian Political Parties; 3) The
Journalist’s Coordinator; 4) The Head of Media Publication; and 5) Head of Public
Relation Officers of The Indonesian House of Representative have been conducted in
February 2013.

40
Figure 2 The Internal and External Political Markets (Arenas) of teh Indonesian
Parliament under the Presidential Goverment System of Indonesia. As derived from the
in-depth interviews of: 1) the Head/Speaker; 2) The Secretary of Faction of 3 Indonesian
Political Parties; 3) The Journalist’s Coordinator; 4) The Head of Media Publication; and
5) Head of Public Relation Officers of The Indonesian House of Representative have
been conducted in February 2013.

41
Figure 3 Transformations of Political Marketing Orientations and Models of Political
Marketing Management of Parliament under the Presidential Government System. As
adopted from: Jennifer Lees-Marshment. 2003:23, 2004:174-189 and O’Cass and Voola,
2011: 635–637 and as derived from the in-depth interviews of: 1) the Head/Speaker; 2)
The Secretary of Faction of 3 Indonesian Political Parties; 3) The Journalist’s
Coordinator; 4) The Head of Media Publication; and 5) Head of Public Relation Officers
of The Indonesian House of Representative have been conducted in February 2013.

Political Marketing Management of Parliament Under the Presidential Government System: A Lesson Learn From the Indonesia House of Representative Post-New Order Soeharto

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Political Marketing Management of Parliament Under the Presidential Government System: A Lesson Learn From the Indonesia House of Representative Post-New Order Soeharto

Similar to Political Marketing Management of Parliament Under the Presidential Government System: A Lesson Learn From the Indonesia House of Representative Post-New Order Soeharto (20)

More from UniversitasGadjahMada

More from UniversitasGadjahMada (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Political Marketing Management of Parliament Under the Presidential Government System: A Lesson Learn From the Indonesia House of Representative Post-New Order Soeharto