Abstract
Political parties in Indonesia have evolved from time to time, including santri-based political parties. The management board changes, constituent demands, and the impact of power relation are the factors that influence the political parties' changes. The aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between values and power in the santri-based parties, in relation with the consistency of the parties and the politicians in a struggle for supporting ideology practices. The methods of this study are literature review and participant observation by using content analysis, discourse analysis and self-reflective. The findings indicate that the santri-based parties face a dilemma and burden in practicing Islamic values when they had been elected for house representative or executive position. As a result, the elected politicians often act pragmatically beyond the platform of the party. This study classifies the santri-based parties into two groups: out-of-the-law party and disorientation party. The former means that the party neglecting and not comply with the principles, values, and norm that stated in the party constitution in obtaining power. PKB, PAN and PKS are examples. While the latter means the party actions and program has developed beyond the party goals and constitution. PPP is an example. The major cause is the internal vulnerable condition the party encountering that triggered by conflict in gaining mass basis support. Furthermore, the Islamic parties also experience external competition with nationalist religious party in gaining votes. However, even though the Islamic parties have internal and external challenges, santri-based parties remain acknowledged as a significant political force. This is because the Islamic party has significant and real social support from Muslim voters and strong bargaining power in the political arena in Indonesia.
Highlights
In this paper we sketch out and discuss six approaches and techniques to the study of discourse: (1) Political Discourse Theory (PDT) (2) Rhetorical Political Analysis (RPA) (3) Discourse Historical Analysis (DHA) in Critical Discourse Analysis (4) Interpretive Policy Analysis (IPA) (5) Discursive Psychology (DP) (6) Q Methodology (QM) We will say more about these approaches later, but for it is worth noting how discourse has taken on a vast array of meanings over the last century or so, ranging from natural language, speech, and writing, to almost anything that acts as a carrier of signification, including social and political practices, to discourse as an ontological horizon
There are at least three dimensions along which we can think about different approaches to discourse analysis: (1) Ontology (2) Focus (3) Purpose The dimension of ontology aims to capture the relative importance explicitly attributed by advocates of a discourse analytical approach to its ontological presuppositions, for example, concerning the nature of subjectivity and agency, the nature of social relations and structures, or the nature of their interaction
We turn to the second identified approach to discourse analysis outlined in the introduction, namely Rhetorical Political Analysis (RPA)
Summary
In this paper we sketch out and discuss six approaches and techniques to the study of discourse: (1) Political Discourse Theory (PDT) (2) Rhetorical Political Analysis (RPA) (3) Discourse Historical Analysis (DHA) in Critical Discourse Analysis (4) Interpretive Policy Analysis (IPA) (5) Discursive Psychology (DP) (6) Q Methodology (QM) We will say more about these approaches later, but for it is worth noting how discourse has taken on a vast array of meanings over the last century or so, ranging from natural language, speech, and writing, to almost anything that acts as a carrier of signification, including social and political practices, to discourse as an ontological horizon. There are at least three dimensions along which we can think about different approaches to discourse analysis: (1) Ontology (2) Focus (3) Purpose The dimension of ontology aims to capture the relative importance explicitly attributed by advocates of a discourse analytical approach to its ontological presuppositions, for example, concerning the nature of subjectivity and agency, the nature of social relations and structures, or the nature of their interaction. Oftentimes comparisons and contrasts between different approaches are conducted at a fairly abstract level, whether from the point of view of ontology, epistemology, or methodology Such discussions tend to focus on their respective views of agency or structure, the nature of their knowledge claims, or how they would treat individual texts or speech interaction. While there is considerable variation at the level of methods and techniques deployed, the approaches all conceive of themselves as responses to positivist and essentialist approaches that privilege causality over understanding and laws over contingency
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
