Article Sidebar

Submitted
May 2, 2026
Published
July 20, 2026
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 1

Main Article Content

Abstract

The digitization of elections in Indonesia is often promoted as a way to increase efficiency and transparency. However, some academics question whether this shift truly supports equitable political participation. This study focuses on the Malili Subdistrict and examines how differences in digital access, literacy, and technology use contribute to unequal electoral participation in the 2024 East Luwu Regency Regional Election. The research uses a three-level digital divide framework—which considers access, skills, and usage—and analyzes participation through in-depth interviews with 16 purposively selected informants. The analysis reveals infrastructure disparities between the center and peripheral areas, resulting in a fundamental access gap (first-level). The disparities in digital literacy levels subsequently generate three groups: digital natives/savvy urban, digital natives/savvy with limited access, and digitally marginalized. This results in unequal technological utilization capabilities (second-level). This situation results in three patterns of participation: active digital participation, inert digital participation, and conventional participation that is either exclusive or creates disparities in the benefits or outcomes obtained (third-level). These findings emphasize that the digitization of elections, in the absence of a comprehensive strategy to confront the digital divide, has the potential to exacerbate democratic inequalities in electoral participation and to establish new stratifications that benefit groups with digital privilege.

Keywords

Digitalization of Elections Electoral Participation Democratic Digital Divide Inequality Luwu Timur

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Abisono, A. H., Rahmawati, D., & Wijaya, K. (2024). Digital literacy and electoral participation in Indonesia: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Digital Democracy, 12(3), 245-268.
  2. Alifia, N., & Sundawa, D. (2022). Implementasi e-voting dalam meningkatkan partisipasi pemilih: Studi kasus di lingkungan kampus. Jurnal Ilmu Politik dan Komunikasi, 12(1), 78-95.
  3. Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802-1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
  4. Blank, G., & Lutz, C. (2018). Benefits and harms from Internet use: A differentiated analysis of Great Britain. New Media & Society, 20(2), 618-640. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816667135
  5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  6. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139-167.
  7. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  8. Daud, M., Rahman, A., & Kusuma, H. (2022). Infrastructure divide and digital inequality in rural Indonesia. Asian Journal of Communication, 32(4), 312-329.
  9. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  10. Flick, U. (2018). Triangulation in data collection. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection (pp. 527-544). SAGE Publications.
  11. Handoko, T., Pratiwi, S., & Nugroho, A. (2023). Media sosial dan polarisasi politik dalam pemilu Indonesia. Jurnal Komunikasi Politik, 15(2), 145-163.
  12. Hardinata, F., Setiawan, B., & Wulandari, R. (2023). Digital divide in Eastern Indonesia: Implications for democratic participation. Indonesian Journal of Geography, 55(1), 89-107.
  13. Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people's online skills. First Monday, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v7i4.942
  14. Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of the "net generation." Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x
  15. Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults' use of the Internet. Communication Research, 35(5), 602-621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208321782
  16. Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2013). Distinct skill pathways to digital engagement. European Journal of Communication, 28(6), 696-713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323113499113
  17. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
  18. Imawan, R. (2023). Platform digital dan pengawasan partisipatif pemilu di Indonesia. Jurnal Politik Indonesia, 8(1), 56-74.
  19. Khalifah, N., Azhari, M., & Permata, S. (2025). Digital election infrastructure and democratic inequality: An Indonesian perspective. Southeast Asian Studies, 14(1), 23-45.
  20. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
  21. Mahpudin, A. (2019). Tantangan implementasi teknologi informasi dalam penyelenggaraan pemilu di Indonesia. Jurnal Administrasi Publik, 10(2), 134-152.
  22. Miarta, I. N. (2024). Hoaks dan disinformasi dalam pemilu digital: Studi kasus Pilkada 2024. Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi, 21(1), 89-106.
  23. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
  24. Nurhidayat, S., Wicaksono, P., & Fitriana, A. (2024). Bridging the digital divide: Challenges in rural electoral participation in Indonesia. Journal of Southeast Asian Electoral Studies, 6(2), 178-199.
  25. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
  26. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  27. Perbawani, A. A., Sobari, W., & Kusumastuti, D. (2018). Dinamika media sosial dalam kontestasi politik lokal di Indonesia. Jurnal Sosial dan Politik, 9(3), 201-219.
  28. Putu, I. G., Mahendra, K., & Suryani, L. (2024). Data privacy concerns and public trust in digital electoral systems. Indonesian Journal of Public Administration, 18(1), 67-85.
  29. Reddick, C. G., & Turner, M. (2012). Channel choice and public service delivery in Canada: Comparing e-government to traditional service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.03.005
  30. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
  31. Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  32. Sari, D. P., Hidayat, R., & Utami, W. (2023). Civic tech platforms and electoral transparency in Indonesia. Digital Government: Research and Practice, 4(2), 112-128.
  33. Scheerder, A., van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2017). Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes: A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1607-1624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.007
  34. Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2010). Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the Internet. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 487-509. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710001210
  35. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
  36. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE Publications.
  37. Suniadewi, N. P., & Abadi, T. W. (2024). Marginalisasi digital dalam partisipasi politik masyarakat pedesaan. Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan, 17(1), 45-63.
  38. Sustikarini, A. (2020). Platform Kawal Pemilu dan gerakan pengawasan partisipatif di Indonesia. Jurnal Penelitian Politik, 17(2), 167-184.
  39. Van Deursen, A. J., & Helsper, E. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? In L. Robinson, S. R. Cotten, J. Schulz, T. M. Hale, & A. Williams (Eds.), Communication and information technologies annual (pp. 29-52). Emerald Group Publishing.
  40. Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. SAGE Publications.
  41. Vedel, T. (2006). The idea of electronic democracy: Origins, visions and questions. Parliamentary Affairs, 59(2), 226-235. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsl005
  42. Vinalti, R., Kurniawan, E., & Saputra, A. (2024). Literasi digital dan partisipasi politik generasi milenial dalam pemilu. Jurnal Studi Pemuda, 13(1), 34-52.
  43. Wirdyaningsih, S. (2020). Evaluasi implementasi teknologi dalam penyelenggaraan pemilu: Tantangan dan prospek. Jurnal Bawaslu, 6(1), 89-107.
  44. Yilmaz, R., Chen, Y., & Weiss, A. (2024). Digital exclusion and political participation in developing democracies. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 37(2), 201-223.
  45. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.