http://dx.doi.org/10.18196/jgp.2018.0139. 140-159

Vol. 9 No. 1

February 2018

140

Received: January 11, 2018

Revised : January 20, 2018

Accepted: February 25, 2018

Tocite this article please refer to :

Arrianie, L. (2018). Political Communication Model of Indonesia

Parliament. Jurnal Studi Pemerintahan, 9(1),

140-159.

Political Communication Model In Indonesian Parliament

Lely Arrianie Universitas Bengkulu

email: lely.arrianie24@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Themain objective ofthisstudy wasto determine themodel of political communication

in the Indonesian parliament. The phenomenon of political communication by using

“violence,” occurred in the House of Representatives of Indonesia period 1999-2004.

This research was conducted by qualitative analysis, by developing interactionist theory, constructive, symbolic interaction in the political sphere. The results found that political

communication in Parliament cannot be conceived as direct communication because

the communication is interactional and transactional. Therefore, every political message

is ultimately between interests and disagreements. It can build a conceptual model in

which ‘violence’ in the delivery of political messages physically or psychologically occurs on the ‘front stage,’ middle stage’ and ‘backstage.’

Keywords: political communication and parliament.

ABSTRAK

Tujuanutama dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menentukan model komunikasi politik di parlemen Indonesia. Fenomena komunikasi politik dengan menggunakan “Kekerasan,”

terjadi di Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Indonesia periode 1999-2004. Penelitian ini dilaku- kan dengan analisis kualitatif, dengan mengembangkan teori interaksionis, interaksi

konstruktif dan simbolis dalam lingkup politik. Hasilnya menemukan bahwa politik ko-

munikasi di Parlemen tidak dapat dipahami sebagai komunikasi yang langsung karena

komunikasi bersifat interaksional dan transaksional. Karena itu, setiap pesan politik pada

akhirnyaantaraminat danperselisihan. Ini dapatmembangunmodel konseptual diyang ‘kekerasan’ dalam pengiriman pesan-pesan politik secara fisik atau psikologis terjadi di

‘panggung depan,’ panggung tengah ‘dan’ belakang panggung. ‘

Kata kunci: komunikasi politik dan parlemen.

INTRODUCTION

In 1997-1998, reforms took place in Indonesia, which cre-

ated a different situation for politicians at both National and

Regional levels. It causes concern in the community and the

effect of antipathy on politicians. Allegedly, according to the au-

thor’s observation, it can be assumed that the figures and politi

cians have used “violence” in political communication e.g.

differences in political views and attitudes.

This distinction is manifested in communal violence,

which includes inter-or inter-party-political conflict. The

author's observations found two reasons why violence used.

First, ‘violence’ to protect its existence from the opposition

JURNAL

STUDI PEMERINTAHAN

political threat. Second, ‘violence’ to be acknowledged and

feared by political opponents. It was followed by clashes

between their respective supporters. The difference in political

views using violence is an exciting new development to be

observed. It’s because Indonesia (at that time) is in a historical

transition in experiencing three major changes. First, is the

transition of political and governmental systems (autocratic to

democratic). Second, is the transition of economic system that is

patron-client and crony capitalist system to rules-based market

economy system. Third, is the transition of socio-political and

economic centralist systems towards decentralization.

Furthermore, the combination of crisis and political, economic

and social transition, resulted in a turbulence situation. A great

and potentially violent social blast. This situation also causes

two new developments: (1) economic growth with distribution

(the term "development cake") is getting smaller; (2) There is a

significant distribution of power.

This dispute involves politicians with different parties; it

has become an integral part of securing the politicians' existence

and role. And this became the political communication

phenomenon using violence occurred in the Indonesian

Parliament 1999-2004. In fact, most of Member Parliaments

(MPs) have served since 1997, its mean they have experienced

a transition period. They should be wiser in communicating well

without resorting to violence. Furthermore, political violence is

a form of communication by acting on the minds of the people

through fear and intimidation (Castells, 2013). For example, in

the Taiwan parliament, differences in political views by

defending arguments (for groups or supporting rulers) lead to

physical violence (Ibrahim, Liman & Uke, 2013; Martin, 2015).

In Nigeria, political violence and media Coverage by two

newspapers in the Osun Election in 2011 (Awofadeju, et. al,

2015; Bello, 2015; Oyesomi & Oyero, 2012).

Previous research and theories of political communication have developed by scholars, i.e., Kurt Lewin, Paul Lazarsfeld and

Carl Hovland and Harold D. Laswell1.

1 Four scholars can be regarded as the founding fathers of the study of political communication in America.

They actually have a psychology education background (see Reese, & Ballinger, 2001; Eid & Paré, 2008;

Simonson, et al., 2013; Pickard, 2015).

141

Vol. 9 No. 1

February 2018

142

In Europe, several political communication studies have developed in connection with the study of public opinion, the study of socio-cultural developments, the study of the relationship between the media and the government as well as the information system which takes place in bureaucratic institutions, the

phenomenon has a dominant relevance in the research of political

communication in Indonesia2.

Politicians as communicators use violence in sending their political messages because they have a strategic position to play a

role in a particular political situation. It is a randomized

manifestation strategy addressed their target to induce the state of

insecurity. This is important because it is a process of political

communication between the people and representatives (Kriesi,

2013). The community should be able to sort out the implicit

meaning of the politicians in conveying political messages.

Therefore, the research question is how the Indonesian Parliament model of political communication in the era 1999-

2004? In addition, how is the ideal model of communication in

delivering political messages to avoid violence? It is to minimize

the behavior of 'thugs' from politicians, because they in

communication involve 'talks' (e.g. images, movements, gestures)

and parliamentary forms of symbolism (e.g. clothing, pin).

The purpose of this study is meant to examine the history of

Indonesia, the violent episodes in communicating associated with

certain historical changes. For example, the impact is personal and

collective/social violence. Personal violence is rooted in personal

conflicts, while social violence is generally rooted in social

conflict, which has broader economic and socio-political

implications than personal violence. This means that political

interests need to be exposed based on the categories and symptoms

of violence in political communication by developing

2 Most of the communications research that touches the political field are generally more present in the form

of research on voting and research on the effect of communication on the audience response about the

campaign. “The research on voting in elections was conducted by Paul L. Lazarsfeld in; The People's Choice

with McPhee and Berelson even Lazarfel B. research on Voting: a Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential

Campaign. Together with Elihu Katz, Lazarsfeld also researched on "Personal Influence; the Part Played by

People in the Flow of Mass Communications. "As well as Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes researched

on The Voters Decides."

theoretical concepts, models, and approaches. Therefore,

it is necessary to do the examination of political communication,

by checking when the language communicator is used, speech,

gesture, and the communication exchange. Thus, it is necessary

JURNAL

STUDI PEMERINTAHAN

to meant a model of political communication that can be applied

to communicators, in order to minimize the violence messages.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Political Communication

Regardless of the reformers expectations, the elite

politicians do not use new communication to empowering

citizens, greater democratic considerations, or other normative

objectives. Whereas, Caballero and Gravante (2018), state that

in modern political communication promotes created the new

identity and political participation through various forms of

interaction and information exchange. In political

communications conducted by politicians and other political

actors addressed to such voters and newspaper columnists as to

their activities to achieve certain goals (McNair 2011). In

addition, by emphasizing the function of political

communication to analyze the problems that develop in the

overall process and the politics of a nation's change. It arises

from the involvement of politicians in image development, the focus of journalists on the dramatic events (e.g., scandals,

internal party strife, and politician misconduct). Likewise, the

tactical supremacy struggles. (Blumler and Kavanagh, 1999).

If the impact of political communication has consequences

for human behavior, then become an integral part of the political

communicator behavior. And if the context changes, then not all

campaigns or parties or politicians conform to the same wisdom

(Bimber, 2014). Thus, the real object of political communication

is the political impact or outcome as one of the functions that is

a requirement for the functioning of the political system. If

political communication is seen as a methodological bridge

between communication and politics, then the formal object is

the process of creating commonalities in political facts and

events.

143

Vol. 9 No. 1

February 2018

144

A significant relationship between communication to achieve political goals is recognized by Edelman (2013), "it is

language that evokes most of the political “realities” people

experience … shaping their meaning and helping to shape the

political roles officials." This means that communication

politicians can gain power (political goal) due to persuasive

language to voters and political elites. In addition, the

effectiveness of communication in carrying out daily activities.

Political Symbolic Interaction

Policyas an example of organizational directives relating to

specific universal human nature of human behavior such as the

domain of group life or the direction of the relevant organiza-

tion (Prus, 2003). The organization “emphasizes the recursive

relationships between cultural ideals that exist in the institu-

tional environment, and the interactions (Hallett and Mean-

well, 2016)” in which people are within and throughout the

organization and in turn form it.

In Parliament Indonesia as an organization, every action,

and interaction of politicians using language, gestures and

parliamentary symbols. The symbolic code in politics has

several characteristics that determine its usefulness and its

limitations. First, there is a dualism of feelings and inseparable

thoughts (Loseke & Kusenbach, 2008), this means that dualism

cannot separate in their rhetorical formations. Secondly, some

variations in symbolic content and emotion codes are

perceived (Loseke, 2016). Symbolic interaction theory uses the

individual paradigm as the main subject in social science,

putting individuals as active and proactive actors. The

uniqueness of symbolic interaction, that there is freedom and

limitations. This meaning of all actions even as well as

construct collective life together with the community through

its action and communicative interaction.

Consequently, the interaction politicians are always filled

with symbols in daily and social life. Thus the symbolic

interaction theory is the perspective of the individual and social.

According to Loseke (2016), the symbolic code is a system of

thought that can be used to construct narrative, plot, character

and moral scenes that have the potential to convince through the

appeal of logic. The root of symbolic interaction theory is

presupposed social reality as a process and not as something

static-dogmatic. Therefore, the communication behavior of

politicians is seen as a symbolic interaction for the individuals

in it. Briefly, the theory of symbolic interactions can be characterized

as follows (Prus, 2003:15):

(1) The life of human groups is intersubjective (human know-

ledge depends on community-based exchange and lan-

guage);

(2) Consciouslyproblematic (regarding‘known and unknown,’

as in distinguishing between things encountered, defined,

tested and objectified with humans vs. ambiguous, inexpe-

rienced, hidden, and inaccessible);

(3) Object-oriented (where the things that are known to be

human is the contextual and operational essence of com-

munity life);

(4) Multi-perspective (as in variable viewpoint, conceptual

framework, or idea of reality);

(5) Reflective (think, self-conscious, purposive, deliberative);

Sensory (recognizing human ability for stimulation and

activity, as well as capacity, material limitations, practical

limitations, and practical abilities) (Prus, 2003: 15).

(6) Sensory (recognizing human ability for stimulation and

activity, as well as capacity, material limitations, practical

limitations, and practical abilities).

RESEARCH METHOD

This research was conducted using qualitative analysis, by

developing interactionist theory, constructive, symbolic interac-

tion (Dalal and Priya, 2016) in the political sphere. The symbolic

interactionism as the epistemological and on- tological foundations

of evolved grounded theory.

JURNAL STUDI

PEMERINTAHAN

145

Vol. 9 No. 1

February 2018

146

In addition, meaning and the concepts of self, action, and

interaction are key interweaving themes that feature in the

various interpretations of symbolic interactionism

(Chamberlain- Salaun, et al., 2013: 5). This research using

phenomenology approach, symbolic interaction and

dramaturgy with qualitative analysis. The social establishment

of symbolic interactions e.g. based on technical perspectives

(seeing the institution's efficiency), political perspective

(seeing from its demands), structural perspective (status) and

cultural perspectives (institutional models). The research

approach with social establishment of symbolic interaction is

to see the institution from the perspective of dramaturgy (its

role). The research focus is on the political communication

model in Indonesia MPs 1999-2004. This model is intended to

examine the dynamics of symbolic interaction MPs. This

research will observe and examine the politicians' behavior,

talking, interacting, gestures, in every place to be classified in

the model. According to Corbin and Strauss (2008), the

meaning and concepts of action, interaction, self, and

perspective are the themes of symbolic interactionism

contained.

Data Collection

The research was conducted at the House of Representatives

of Indonesia (Parliament) in Jakarta. Data collection in this

research through several stages, i.e:

a. Observation

This method uses a systematic observation and recording of

the MPs activity as a research subject. In addition, the use of

language and symbols in the political messages exchange between

politicians, such as in parliament, factions or public places. Eaves

dropping and tracking procedures will be used in addition to

figuring out what is symbolized and disguised as a role difference,

politicians’ appearance and impression management. This is

because the process of observation in the location and the same

time.

b. Interview

Interview method in this research is unstructured but in-

depth-interview in openness situation. The purpose of openness

is an interview with a friendly atmosphere with interview

JURNAL

STUDI PEMERINTAHAN

guidelines made specific for information received maximally.

Informants in the interview is MPs 1999 to 2004. However, in

scientific ethics, researchers only use the initials of informants.

c. Focus Group Discussion Data collection methods invite students, party cadres and

political activists who have an interest in political dynamics in

parliament. It is intended to know the observations of the public

about the characteristics, functions, interactions of politicians

and their activities in the delivery of political messages in

Parliament.

d. Network

This information searches through the communication network to determine the politicians in understanding and

experience. The networks used are NGOs such as Parliament

Watch, Kontras, and Humanika.

e. Recording Tape This method is used to view historical activities of MPs.

Records are made through live images owned by electronic

media (private television and TVRI), for example, photos,

interviews from the media to be edited in accordance with the

research object.

RESULTS

Communications in Parliament

The Association of Indonesian Parliaments (2001) states

that,

...the phenomenon seen from the many demands of the

community submitted to the council is inseparable from

the initial step of democratization in Indonesia. The 1999

election, considered relatively the most fair election in the

history of Indonesian politics after the 1955 election, is

considered to have produced the most legitimate govern-

ment institution (p. 476).

147

Vol. 9 No. 1

February 2018

148

The result of the observation in parliament that it does not yet have a model of political communication is applied because it

is dominated by the leadership, and the political situation at that

time with intrigue and random communication. It because of the

leadership model in the parliament is interactive and transactional.

This is one of the reasons why there is no theoretical compatibility

because it creates multi-perception when doing political

communication.

However, it seems that the effect of political communication

is shifting slightly because politicians as communicators give

different meanings received by the communicant. If interpreted,

then in the party can have different meanings and opinions, but

can have had the same opinion.

In addition, the political communication model can be

developed by adjusting the function of politicians (political

education, cadre recruitment, the interests of society and the rights

of others), this can provide learning for politicians as

communicators in conveying political messages with symbols

(contents). Thereafter, we can find out political communicators

(politicians, professionals, and activists) in identifying the

message of the conversation and its context.

The findings of observation from the daily activities of politicians can be seen in Figure 1 as an illustration or model of

MPs convey political messages. In this model is divided into three

stages, as a place for politicians to communicate related to the

political messages exchange. In addition, in this model, the

capacity and ability of politicians who use role and symbols are

classified as political stages. Each part of the stage represents the

role that politicians play in conveying their political message.

JURNAL STUDI PEMERINTAHAN

149

Fig. 1. Model of Political Stage the House of Representatives

(Source: Observations Author)

The first classification is the front stage, this is the

territory of MPs must be considered, enjoyed and appreciated

by the community directly or indirectly. In this place politicians

will manage the impression or self-image, this means they must

be able to make impression management that can have a

dazzling or irritating effect on the audiences.

The second classification is the middle stage, this is a

neutral or gray area, can be seen or not. Finally, the third

classification is the backstage. This place is an invisible area for

the audience, but a place in initiating their ideas and political

intuitions. It is a place in providing many perspectives between

communicators and communicants in conveying political

messages.

Findings show that politicians play some substantial roles

as follows. First, violence in political communication is

individual and un-institutional, although the phenomenon has

occurred that involves the exchange of political messages in

parliament. Secondly, there is no dichotomy between party

politicians exchanging violent political messages. These results

are consistent with statements from:

Politicians in the House of

Representatives

Front Stage

Backstage

Party

Fraction

Middle

Stage

The Commission

Plenary

Hearings

Public Hearings

Seminar

Lobby Hotel

Cafeteria

Home

Vol. 9 No. 1

February 2018

150

“In fact, the background of a party is not related to the

behavior of communication with ‘violence’ on the

‘political stage,’ but rather to the personal capacity of the

individual and their political experience.” (Interview

result. Informant ‘L’ - Parliamentary Politician, July

2003)

Third, the characteristics of politicians are more dominant in influencing their political behavior in parliament than the

characteristics of the represented political parties.

“I see every MP in both the House of Representative and

the Assembly at Provincial has a background. It

determines the political stance when s/he plays her/is

political behavior. Whether he/r comes from a party that

has an adequate cadre system with moral standards and

political ethics. If there is a deviation, means it’s a driving

factor that affects.” (Interview result. Informant ‘D’ -

Parliamentary Politician, July 2003)

Fourth, clothing is an important attribute for politicians,

especially on the front stage, it becomes an obsession to pack it to

the fullest. Fifth, there is a confusion of conceptions about the

political stage, any event occurring on the back stage can be the

front stage or vice versa (eg, fractional meetings can be the front

stage of the commission meeting). Sixth, formal events can be

backstage rather than informally. Seventh, politicians without

going through the process of meritocracy experience a “cultural

shock” in its role on the political stage (see table 1).

Table 1. Party Recruitment Process to the House of

Representatives

Recruitment Process

Politicians (%)

Professional (%)

Activist (%)

Total (%)

Recruitment with adequate cadre

62.5 25 12.5 100

Recruitment Instantly

60 33.3 6.7 100

Recruitment is identical with

corruption,

collusion, and

nepotism

76.2

14.3

9.5

100

Total 68.2 22.7 9.1 100

Eighth, higher education does not affect politicians especially

in communicating their political messages. Informed by the

informant that politicians who communicate with violence,

generally have high education background and politics. This can

be proven, with various cases of political communication

violence in parliament, with physical and psychological

tensions, which have higher levels of education (bachelor and

master degree). It shows an imbalance in the process of

conveying political messages and causing conflict in the name

of his party.

Ninth, political communication in parliament is not

conceived as linear communication, although popular. This is

because all political communications actors in parliament are

interactional and transactional. Tenth, there is still a distance of

communication between politicians with party’s constituents

and others. Eleventh, violence in political communication is felt

physically and psychologically. Twelfth, violence in political

communication is synonymous with ‘political thuggery.’

“...it could be a reflection of our social and political

culture but it could be because there is a political

structure we are indeed precisely the potential to be an

ad that is conducive to the birth of the ‘political

thuggery’ through discourse, in fact there has been a

‘violent’ political, it is not only by physical violence but

can be psychologically via discourse can also occur.

Thuggery was once a symptom not a problem but lately

it appears because we do not have a standard political

culture but usually do something that is something

repressive as well.” (Interview Result, Informant “F” -

Parliamentary Politician, September 2003)

Physical and psychological violence in messages

conveyed by communicators will have an impact on the

communication of politicians. Some politicians do not

experience physical violence, but psychologically they are very

depressed. Then resigned formally or absent despite their status

as MPs.

JURNAL

STUDI PEMERINTAHAN

151

Vol. 9 No. 1

February 2018

152

This means that there is physical and psychological violence in communicating to MPs at that time. It is derived from

politicians who revealed the following.

“There are some members of parliament whose political

literacy is not very mature, indicated by harsh behavior in

expressing opinions. It will cause the ‘opposite’ or

‘fellow’ of the politician to be offended. In making

decisions, s/he is manifest in a sarcastic, verbal and

physical form. The violence occurs, it because the

political culture is not mature, and the elegant politics

level. When he loses in making decisions and it becomes

upset, then he/r resentment wreaked out by provoking the

masses. In politics there must be interest, competition and

they manage it differently. It is not in the party’s

background, but rather the individual politicians (how

s/he was recruited? -what the track record is? -). It

because there are some fractions appear to be sarcastic.

However, generalizations not allowed, for example, the

rude party X and vice versa the Y party is subtle, but

individual politicians behavior itself. If it can be conveyed

in a polite manner why should it be rude? the important is

aspirations can be absorbed and realized.” (Interview

Result: Informant ‘S’ - Parliamentary Politician, July

2003)

In response to the above interview, it seems that almost all

politicians agree that any physical or psychological form in a

message containing violence will have an impact on political

communication in parliament. Physical and psychological

violence should not happen on the political stage. Although

political processes and systems are in a situation of continuous

interest then political communication will be related to those

two things

Political Communication Model

The activities of politicians involving political communica-

tion processes in the process of ‘hearings’ between the commis-

sion and the government as partners. This moment observed as

a process of political communication, which is the exchange of

political messages. For example, meetings in parliament about

‘hearings,’ the communication does not focus on the main

points but more to the political. It is because of the substance of

the information discussed; this is considered to violate the rules

for other MPs and trigger a dispute among fellow politicians

who conduct ‘hearings.’

Politicians in parliament partly a cleric and statesman, who

can deal with their limitations. It means that the ability to com-

municate must pack with a capable political ability. Therefore,

the ability to communicate politics is the ‘identity’ of every poli-

tician. It can lead politicians to communicate politics without

conflict.

Furthermore, regardless of the party’s background MPs, it

does not affect the capacity of politicians to communicate politi-

callywell. The informants (AM – Political Observer) states that:

“Indonesian politics still exists ‘violence,’ because politics in

Indonesia is still traditional, for example, the reasons for voting

and supporting the party are still public, primordial, charismat-

ic and patron clients.” (Interview Result, February 2004)

Some of these things, which led to ‘violence’ in the exchange

of political messages. When the public sees ‘violence’ in politi-

cal communication, then they will connect with the figure of

the politician. However, this is not an excuse if political parties

are recruiting politicians by existing standardization, to produce

politicians with high credibility on the ‘political stage.’

Therefore, the process of party recruitment of politicians

can contribute to a ‘violence.’ It is necessary to consider a party

to provide an opportunity for MPs. The individual factors of

politicianswill have different motives, although theywill engage

in ‘violence’ in communicating for the delivery of political mes-

sages on the ‘stage.’

Based on the results, the individual characteristic (positive

or negative) are more dominant in influencingpolitical behavior

JURNAL

STUDI PEMERINTAHAN

153

Vol. 9 No. 1

February 2018

154

in parliament rather than the party characteristics represented.

That is, the ambition of ‘personal gain’ is the dominant motive

of politicians to become MPs. The informant reveals that there

is still a distance of communication between politicians with

their party’s constituents as well as to the community. Thus, if

simplified, the preposition series shows that the more domi-

nant characteristic of the individual influences the politician’s

behavior rather than the characteristics of their party, this can

be simplified into the following model.

FIG. 2. COMMUNICATION MODEL IN PARLIAMENT (SOURCE: AUTHOR’S OBSERVATION)4

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION

In the findings, the authors are faced with evidence that the

type of political communication model in parliament has not

found a suitable theoretical model, because the political

communications (especially in Indonesia) dominated by leaders

(e.g. communication model of President Joko Widodo using

Komunikasi Berasa which studied by Wijaya, 2016).

It is contrary to Lasswell’s communication model (see, for instance, Sapienza et al., 2015; Eadie, 2011; Jansen, 2010; Malin, 2011), with the components of the

Who says What to Whom in What Channel with What

Effects model (5W model).

“Lasswell’s construct has a long history filled with

many theoretical twists and turns. It has seen a

variety of labels, uses, and manifestations over the

course of its conceptual evolution, which has

undoubtedly contributed to confusion about it in

the scholarly literature (Sapienza et al., 2015:

617).”

The previous study political communication models have resulted in legitimacy process, communication and political

knowledge in complex societies (see, for instance, Habermas,

2006; Eveland et al., 2005; Mcleod et al., 1999; Scheufele, 2000;

Blumler, and Kavanagh, 1999; Shah, et al., 2017).

Political communication through ads before the election,

tend to be populist, very communicative, but the critical mass it

is just a hoax. Packaging political promises to attract voters. The

packaging as dramaturgical perspective Goffman (1948) that the

routines in the ‘stage’ is not alone but with the team, they

cooperate perform a routine in ‘politics’. Team involvement

sometimes does not act as a supporter but a ‘thorn in the meat’

that undermines the team’s cohesiveness. “Dramaturgy in the

sense understood by theatre criticism (and via interactionist

analysis as understood by Goffman) counts in policy practice

and political life” (Anderson, 2014: 22). Dramaturgy’s Goffman

see how people work together in protecting the various demands

of each other, is related to the social reality for ‘pentaskan’ and

identity are shown. The fact that on a ‘political stage’ is easily

designed, but not easy on the ‘political stage’. Politicians

interpret the symbols (words, speech, conversation, phone,

meetings, documentation, etc.) are used creativity.

The interaction of politicians will affect many people, as

they perform ‘shows’ and impression management especially

front of ‘political stage’ becomes a measure for them in defining

themselves constantly, changing direction, and actions.

JURNAL

STUDI PEMERINTAHAN

155

Vol. 9 No. 1

February 2018

156

“Goffman (1959) has suggested that first

impressions, which are based upon perceptions of the

observed’s reputation, knowledge and skills, are

significant in terms of their potential for putting

human interaction on the wrong or right track

(Thompson, et al., 2015: 20).”

In the findings and observations, the majority of politicians

in Parliament attempt to present themselves as closely as possible

with physical symbols outside the 'political stage'. The visible

symbols are their dress style such as wearing a shirt, tie and coat

with pins of Parliament logo. The pin indicates that they are MPs. Symbols guide internal behavior and mediate interactions (Maglio

and Spohrer, 2013: 668). Interaction becomes symbolic when

individuals interpret and define their own objects and actions or

actions of others and act on assigned meanings (Chamberlain-

Salaun, 2013: 6).

If that is the case on politics, it will be about the politician's

self-action – Cooley 'looking glass self' that in every human

interaction is always filled with symbols and interactions, both in

social life and in life itself. “Cooley (1992) developed the concept

of the looking-glass self that describes the part of identity, which

develops through one's interpersonal interactions within the

context of interpersonal relationships (Unoka and Vizin,

2017:2).”Furthermore, political communication politicians in

Parliament realized in various forms, in the form of sharing

models but do not have equal significance by those involved. The

top down model is still valid but the intensity is reduced, it is not

surprising when politicians from the same faction have different

opinions.

Conclusion

In parliament, it found that politicians in communicating there are an element of ‘violence’ that occurs in “political stage,” this

happens with different views and motives in conveying political

messages.

In parliament, there is no single model of political

communication theoretically applied because politi- cians use a

random model according to the style and behavior of

individual politicians. It means that every politician is doing the

process of political delivery messages based on the habits and

style of politicians.

The research finds that communication politicians can

develop towards meaningful communication models. The ‘po-

litical stage’ has symbols and meanings so that the interactions

and ways of communication are interpreted based on political

interests, agreements, and compromises related to the identity

and background of the politician. This, which is the difference

in the motive of how ‘violence’ in the delivery of political mes-

sages occurs.

Political communication in Parliament cannot be conceived

as linear communication because the communication is inter-

actional and transactional. Therefore, every political message is

ultimately a meeting of interests and disagreements. It can build

a conceptual model in which ‘violence’ in the delivery of politi-

cal messages physically or psychologically occurs on the ‘front

stage,’ ‘center stage’ and ‘backstage.’

REFERENCE

Anderson, R. (2014). Playing the fool: Activists’ performances of emotion in policy making spaces. Emotion, Space and Society, 13, 16-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

emospa.2014.05.004

Awofadeju, P. O., Adeyemo, A. L., Kwembili, C., & Adesanya, A. (2015). Political Violence and Media Coverage in Nigeria: An Analysis of Nigerian Tribune and Punch Newspapers of 2011 General Elections in Osun State. Int'l J. Advanced Legal Stud. & Governance, 5, 79.

Bello, S. K. (2015). Political and electoral violence in nigeria: Mapping, evolution

and patterns (june 2006-may 2014). IFRA-Nigeria Working paper Series.

Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foun- dations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707-731.

doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x

Bennett, K., & Brickley, T.(2014). Labeling and Symbolic Interaction Theories of Crime.

The Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. John Wiley & Sons. DOI: 10.1002/9781118517383.wbeccj261

Bimber, B. (2014). Digital media in the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012: Adapta- tion to the personalized political communication environment. Journal of Informa- tion

Technology &Politics, 11(2), 130-150.DOI: 10.1080/19331681.2014.895691

Blumler, J. G., &Kavanagh, D. (1999). The third age of political communication:

Influences and features. Political communication, 16(3), 209-230.

Caballero, F. S., & Gravante, T. (2018). Introduction. In Networks, Movements and

JURNAL

STUDI PEMERINTAHAN

157

Vol. 9 No. 1

February 2018

158

Technopolitics in Latin America (pp. 1-14). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.

org/10.1007/978-3-319-65560-4

Castells, M. (2013). Communication power. OUP Oxford.

Chamberlain-Salaun, J., Mills, J., & Usher, K. (2013). Linking symbolic interactionism and grounded theory methods in a research design: from Corbin and Strauss’ assump- tions to action. SAGE open, 3(3). DOI: 10.1177/2158244013505757

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and proce-

dures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks.

Costanzo, P.J.(2016). “ACourse Project Designed to Aid Students’ Understandingof the Structure of Advertisements: An Application of the Who Says What to Whom over What Channel with What Effect Model”. Western New England University.

Dalal, A. K., & Priya, K. R. (2016). Introduction to qualitative research. Qualitative Re- search on Illness, Wellbeing and Self-Growth: Contemporary Indian Perspectives.

New Delhi: Routledge.

Eadie, W. F.(2011). Stories we tell: Fragmentation and convergence in communication disciplinary history. Review of Communication, 11(3), 161-176.

Edelman, M. (2013). Political language: Words that succeed and policies that fail. Elsevier.

Eid, M., & Paré, D. (2008). Mapping communication and media studies in canada. Global

Media Journal Canadian Edition, 1(1),3-7.

Eveland Jr, W. P., Hayes, A. F., Shah, D. V., & Kwak, N. (2005). Understanding the re-

lationship between communication and political knowledge: A model compari-

son approach using panel data. Political Communication, 22(4), 423-446. DOI: 10.1080/10584600500311345

Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Com- munication theory, 16(4), 411-426. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x

Hallett, T.,&Meanwell, E. (2016).Accountability asan inhabited institution: Contested meanings and the symbolic politics of reform. Symbolic Interaction, 39(3), 374-396.

DOI: 10.1002/SYMB.241

Ibrahim, S. G., Liman, A., & Uke, I. I. (2013). The Behavioural Science in Law Making Process: A Psychological Approach to Understanding Legislative Violence. The Social Sciences, 8(2), 123-128.

Jansen, S. C. (2010). Forgotten histories: Another road not taken – The Charles Mer- riamWalterLippmann correspondence. Communication Theory, 20, 127–146. doi:10.1111=j.1468-2885.2010.01357.x

Kriesi, Hanspeter. (2013). Introduction – The New Challenges to Democracy. In Democra-

cy in the Age of Globalization and Mediatization (pp. 1-18). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Loseke, D. R. (2016). Symbolic Interaction and Narrative Productions of Meaning in Public

Spaces. In The A structural Bias Charge: Myth or Reality? (pp. 123-144). Emerald

Group Publishing Limited. Loseke, D. R., & Kusenbach, M. (2008). The social construction of emotion. In J. A.

Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 511-530).

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2013). A service science perspective on business model innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(5), 665-670. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.05.007 Malin, B. J. (2011). Not just your average beauty: Carl seashore and the history of com-

munication research in the United States. Communication Theory, 21, 299–316. doi:10.1111=j.1468-2885.2011.01383.x

Martin, J. T. (2015). Policing an Occupied Legislature: Symbolic Struggle over the

Police Image in Taiwan's Sunflower Movement. Hong Kong LJ, 45, 229.vv 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.

McNair, B. (2011). An introduction to political communication. USA: Routledge.

Oyesomi, K. O., & Oyero, O. (2012). Newspaper Coverage of Women's Participation in the 2011 General Elections in Nigeria. The Nigerian Journal of Communication, 10(1), 136-156.v

Pickard, V. (2015). Charles Siepmann’s forgotten legacy for communication research and media policy. The International History of Communication Study, 256.

Prus, R. (2003). Policy as a collective venture: A symbolic interactionist approach to thestudy of organizational directives. International Journal of Sociology and

Social Policy, 23(6/7), 13-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443330310790589

Reese, S. D., & Ballinger, J. (2001). The roots of a sociology of news: Remembering Mr. Gates and social control in the newsroom. Journalism & Mass Communication Quar- terly, 78(4), 641-658.

Sapienza, Z. S., Iyer, N., & Veenstra, A. S. (2015). Reading Lasswell’s Model of Com- munication Backward: Three Scholarly Misconceptions. Mass Communication and Society, 18(5), 599-622. DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2015.1063666

Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at

cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3(2-

3), 297-316.

Shah, D. V., McLeod, D. M., Rojas, H., Cho, J., Wagner, M. W., & Friedland, L. A. (2017). Revising the communication mediation model for a new political commu-

nication ecology. Human Communication Research, 43(4), 491-504. doi:10.1111/

hcre.12115 Simonson, P.,Peck,J.,Craig, R.T.,&Jackson, J.P.(2013). Thehistoryofcommunication

history. The handbook of communication history, 13-57.

Thompson,A., Potrac, P.,&Jones,R. (2015). ‘Ifoundoutthehardway’: Micro-political workings in professional football. Sport, education and society, 20(8), 976-994.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2013.862786 Unoka, Z., &Vizin, G.(2017). Tosee in a mirror dimly.The looking glass self is self-sham-

ing in borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry Research, 258, 322-329.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.08.055

Wijaya, B. S. (2016). The ‘Realness’ Discourse of a Political Leader: A Komunikasi

Berasa Perspective. Journal of Government and Politics, 7(2), 310-340. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.18196/jgp.2016.0032

Yayasan, A. P. I. (2001). Panduan Parlemen Indonesia. Jakarta: Yayasan API.

JURNAL

STUDI PEMERINTAHAN

159