While social exchange theory explains the transactional logic of political interactions, it is labeling theory that reveals the subtle but profound psychological consequences of these transactions. Howard Becker (1963) posited that the labels society assigns to individuals can profoundly shape their self-identity and behavior. When a person is repeatedly categorized in a certain way, the label becomes internalized, influencing decisions, perceptions, and social interactions.
In the context of vote buying in Indonesia, labeling operates on both structural and symbolic levels. Citizens who accept monetary incentives during elections are often implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, cast as "easily swayed" or "materialistic." Over time, this social labeling can be internalized: voters begin to see themselves primarily through the lens of the transaction, rather than as autonomous political agents. Their self-perception shifts from active, deliberative participants in democracy to objects within a transactional system.
This internalization has consequences beyond individual psychology. Once citizens accept the label, it reinforces the rationalization for continued transactional behavior. A voter who has internalized the notion that "my vote can be bought" is less likely to resist future offers and less likely to demand accountability from elected officials. The cycle becomes self-reinforcing: political actors expect transactional compliance, voters internalize the label, and democratic norms erode incrementally.
Labeling also interacts with the broader public narrative. Politicians, media, and social networks may reinforce these perceptions, portraying transactional voters as commonplace or "normal," thereby legitimizing the practice. In this sense, labeling theory bridges the individual and societal levels, showing how micro-level perceptions of self-worth and identity become entwined with macro-level patterns of political behavior.
Empirical observations in Indonesia illustrate this process vividly. In regions with a history of pervasive vote buying, citizens often articulate a resigned acceptance: "Politicians always forget their promises, so why not take the money?" Here, the label---voluntarily internalized---serves as both a justification for immediate gain and a subtle acceptance of systemic degradation. The interaction between social labeling and rationalized exchange is thus a critical mechanism driving the persistence of transactional politics and the gradual erosion of democratic legitimacy.
C. Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger)
While social exchange explains the calculative logic of political transactions, and labeling illustrates how identity is reshaped, cognitive dissonance theory delves into the psychological tension that emerges when actions conflict with beliefs. Leon Festinger (1957) argued that individuals experience discomfort when their behaviors are inconsistent with their values or knowledge, prompting them to seek rationalizations or behavioral adjustments to reduce the dissonance.
In the Indonesian political context, cognitive dissonance is vividly manifested among both voters and legislators. Citizens who value democratic principles---fair representation, accountability, and justice---face a conflict when they accept monetary incentives in elections. The tension is acute: ideals of civic virtue clash with immediate material gain. To resolve this discomfort, voters employ rationalizations: "Politicians never keep their promises, so taking the money is the only rational choice." Such rationalizations alleviate psychological tension but simultaneously normalize transactional politics, reinforcing cycles of degradation.
Legislators, too, are embroiled in cognitive dissonance. Many invest substantial resources---financial, social, and emotional---to secure electoral victory, yet the electorate has been conditioned to treat votes as commodities. Once elected, politicians confront the inconsistency between the ethical ideal of representing constituents faithfully and the reality of wielding power in a system that incentivizes self-interest and transactional relationships. Rationalizations emerge: "Voters only care about money; promises are secondary." These cognitive maneuvers reduce internal discomfort while indirectly perpetuating arrogance and neglect.
The interplay of cognitive dissonance across voters and politicians creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop. Voters justify taking incentives politicians justify ignoring promises voters' beliefs about democracy adjust political norms shift toward acceptance of transactional practices. Over time, what begins as individual rationalization evolves into collective normalization, systematically eroding democratic legitimacy.
In Indonesia, surveys and field reports reveal that many citizens, especially in regions with persistent vote buying, consciously acknowledge the moral compromise of accepting monetary incentives yet feel psychologically compelled to do so, having witnessed repeated legislative failures. Cognitive dissonance theory thus illuminates not only the rationalizations behind transactional voting but also the mechanism through which systemic political degradation becomes entrenched, making the phenomenon resilient to traditional civic appeals or reformist rhetoric.
