Political Communication Model In Indonesian Parliament

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

Vol. 9 No. 1
February 2018

Political Communication Model In
Indonesian Parliament

140
Lely Arrianie
Received: January 11, 2018
Revised : January 20, 2018

Universitas Bengkulu
email: lely.arrianie24@gmail.com

Accepted: February 25, 2018

ABSTRACT
Tocite this article please
refer to :

Arrianie, L. (2018).
Political Communication
Model of Indonesia
Parliament. Jurnal Studi
Pemerintahan, 9(1),
140-159.

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 dilakukan dengan analisis kualitatif, dengan mengembangkan teori interaksionis, interaksi
konstruktif dan simbolis dalam lingkup politik. Hasilnya menemukan bahwa politik komunikasi 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 created 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 author’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
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).

JURNAL
STUDI PEMERINTAHAN

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 19992004? 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
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.

JURNAL
STUDI PEMERINTAHAN

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 organization (Prus, 2003). The organization “emphasizes the recursive
relationships between cultural ideals that exist in the institutional environment, and the interactions (Hallett and Meanwell, 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 knowledge depends on community-based exchange and language);
(2) Consciouslyproblematic (regarding‘known and unknown,’
as in distinguishing between things encountered, defined,
tested and objectified with humans vs. ambiguous, inexperienced, hidden, and inaccessible);
(3) Object-oriented (where the things that are known to be
human is the contextual and operational essence of community 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 interaction (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 indepth-interview in openness situation. The purpose of openness
is an interview with a friendly atmosphere with interview
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 government institution (p. 476).

JURNAL
STUDI PEMERINTAHAN

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

Politicians in the House of
Representatives

149
Backstage
 Party
 Fraction

Middle
Stage






Front Stage
 The
Commission
 Plenary
 Hearings
 Public
Hearings

Seminar
Lobby Hotel
Cafeteria
Home

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:

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
Recruitment
with
adequate cadre
Recruitment
Instantly
Recruitment
is
identical
with
corruption,
collusion,
and
nepotism
Total

Politicians
(%)

Professional
(%)

Activist
(%)

Total
(%)

62.5

25

12.5

100

60

33.3

6.7

100

76.2

14.3

9.5

100

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 communication 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 communicate must pack with a capable political ability. Therefore,
the ability to communicate politics is the ‘identity’ of every politician. 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 politicallywell. 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, charismatic 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 political 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 messages 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 dominant 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 (ChamberlainSalaun, 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 ‘political 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 messages occurs.
Political communication in Parliament cannot be conceived
as linear communication because the communication is interactional 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 political 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 foundations 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: Adaptation 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’ assumptions to action. SAGE open, 3(3). DOI: 10.1177/2158244013505757
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures 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 Research 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 relationship between communication and political knowledge: A model comparison 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. Communication 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 MerriamWalterLippmann 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 Democracy 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 communication 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 Quarterly, 78(4), 641-658.
Sapienza, Z. S., Iyer, N., & Veenstra, A. S. (2015). Reading Lasswell’s Model of Communication 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(23), 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 communication 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-shaming 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