The Impact of Anti-Money Politics Movement at Murtigading Village in 2019 Concurrent Elections

Moch Edward Trias Pahlevi1, Bambang Eka Cahya Widodo2, Rio Kalpiando3, Fairuz Arta Abhipraya4, Azka Abdi Amrurobbi5 1, 2, 4 Masters of Government Affairs and Public Administration, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Jl. Brawijaya, Kasihan, Bantul, Yogyakarta, Indonesia 55183 3,5 Master of Politics and Government Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jl. Sosio Yustisia No.1, Karang Malang, Sleman, Yogyakarta 55281


INTRODUCTION
The Anti-Money Politics Village in Murtigading Village is a social movement considered as a political resistance movement towards money politics practices that happened among Murtigading Village Community. This resistance movement towards money politic practices is carried out by a civil society who joined and formed a special team with public figures or groups that had great influence to against money politics practices for concurrent election in 2019. In most electoral agenda, the practice of money The Indonesian elections still face money politic practices as one of the electoral issues. This political transactional transforms into a new typical behavior and even becomes a culture for Indonesian citizen in every election. This lousy culture currently became the significant factor in gaining a victory for candidates, such as for 2019 concurrent election. Money politic practices are not only harmful to electoral integrity but also has a long-term impact on a new behavior to produce corruptors. This study seeks to examine the evaluation and impact of Anti-Money Politic Village movement in Murtigading Village, Bantul Regency, Special Region of Yogyakarta for 2019 concurrent election. This study used a quantitative method. The primary source for this study was obtained from survey techniques. This study leads to the three main conclusions such as: first, Murtigading community considers money politics as a form of bribery action and potentially harmful for democracy value. Second, Murtigading community considers that movement can decrease the practice of money politics in Murtigading Village. Third, Murtigading community fully supports the existence of that movement and support to establish the legal regulations in local village government to create more political education among the community quickly.
politics is commonly happening. Indeed, this is a bad culture for the quality development of democracy in the future because the practice of money politics will create a corruption case for official leaders who are elected in elections due to high political costs.
Money politics is a form of giving or promising something to bribe someone in a general election. As one of a democratic country, Indonesia still needs to learn more about how to implement a better quality of electoral agenda because one of democracy disease in electoral agenda is money politics practice, and Indonesia is still vulnerable from money politics practice. Procedurally, Indonesia has started an excellent democracy consolidation along with the implementation of three legislative elections after the reformation era; the direct election of presidential and vice-presidential and a hundred of local elections. Many politicians or regional head candidates make middleclass people as the target of vote-buying operations by offering money or other forms of prizes as a medium of exchange in elections. It is a common understanding if there are large numbers of politicians are conducting electoral campaigns with mobilizing voters through a political transactional approach. Some of socio-economic factors such as education level and the community income could influence the rampant of vote-buying practices. Besides, some studies related to vote-buying practices are also closely to the tolerant attitude of the community towards vote-buying practices and the patron-client network that became connector among the political elite and the masses .
The patron-client practices that had already occurred in Indonesia since the colonialism have become the reason for widespread money politics practices in such developing countries. The clientelism relationship is described as a pre-modern heritage in socio-political relations. Patron-client typically has an intrinsic part of the Third World who still have relatively low incomes with high levels of illiteracy and low levels of political understanding. The vote-buying practice becomes endemic; it is because the patron-client networks are credited with nurturing and maintaining money politics practice for maintaining their status quo (Hellmann, 2011;Mietzner, 2015). The arguments related to culture became the essential factor of money politics practice. The patron-client as socio-cultural products in which groups that have certain privileges (patronage actor) exchange the money or profits with voter loyalty attitude. In Indonesia, the money politics practice has become a common thing in every electoral democracy agenda since the new order era (Aspinall & Berenschot, 2019;Omobowale, 2008).
The patron-client and the patrimonialism; these two things became a fertile nursery for money politics practices. The concept of traditional Javanese power related to the structure and political behavior of the patrimonial state. The ruler giving money to the client with a specific purpose is a patrimonial culture that has created in the cultural history of Indonesian society (Berenschot, 2018;Mietzner, 2015).
The main reasons people have considered the practice of money politics as standard practice is that they do not have many opportunities to get political education from election administrators and are the weak determination by local stakeholders to oppose the practice of money politics (Abhipraya, Sadayi, & Putri, 2020). Political education is vital because voters with poor political understanding tend to become the target of money politics actors (Manzetti & Wilson, 2007). Political education that can be performed is pre-emptive and preventive (Pahlevi & Amrurobbi, 2020). In  explanation, the regression analysis shows that the modernization theory is not significant in explaining the objectives of money politic practices in Indonesia. Unequal education levels, public income, and domicile are not predictors that can determine voters targeted towards money politic practices in elections. The argument of the modernization theory, which says that voters with insufficient levels of education and income or who live in villages do not receive empirical justification. Bribery is targeting all the group, regardless of socio-economic variables, likewise, with the theory of social involvement. The active participation in social organizations does not significantly explain why someone is targeted for money politic practices in Indonesia. The significant dimensions of political attitudes are explained in three variables, namely party-ID, political interest, and political efficacy.
The main reason for money politic practices that have become the Indonesian culture needs the existence of a social movement from the community to prevent the money politic practices. The practise of vote-buying is the starting point for creating a corruption case in Indonesia. Thus, it is necessary to take precautions in the electoral process to reduce the possibility of corrupt leaders.
Anti-Money Politics Village Movement or called as Desa Anti Politik Uang (Desa APU) is one of the efforts from the community to create awareness towards the harmful of money politic practices. It needs to be monitored and needs to be resisted. In creating political awareness for the public, it is necessary to have sufficient and consistent political literacy, so that people can understand the danger of money politic practices and deny these practices.
Murtigading Village is one of the villages in the Special Region of Yogyakarta that declared the Anti-Money Politics Village ahead concurrent election in 2019. This village is considered as the pilot village to create a domino effect towards other Anti-Money Politics Village in Indonesia. Murtigading Village has a special team to fight against money politics practices. This particular team is called "Team 11". The Team 11 is a group of Murtigading community who voluntarily provides political literacy to community and supervises participation in money politics practices ahead concurrent election in 2019.
The movement of Anti-Money Politics Village (Desa APU) is considered as a social movement against money politic practices and expecting the socio-political progress. In the definition of social movement according to (Tarrow, 2011) social movements as a political resistance that occurs when people who join the most influential groups of society and creating the agenda to fight the elites, authorities, and other opposing parties. However, from the (Giddens & Sutton, 2013) argued that social movement is the resistance actions that carried out by a group of people who ally the figures or groups who have an enormous influence in an area, then they move together to create a change in social conditions. Anti-Money Politics Village Movement in Murtigading Village by forming Team 11 as a particular group in fighting money politics practices are a form of the social movement.
This study is different from previous research. The previous research explains the patterns of money politics in Indonesia and the causes of money politics to become rampant in Indonesia. However, this research explains further about the evaluation of the Anti-Money Politics Village movement in Murtigading Village which has a positive impact among society perspectives, such as increased the Murtigading Village community in understanding political issues and the danger of money politics practices, the emergence of independent, participatory supervision among the community and eliminate the space for money politics actors to conduct their practices, the emergence of the community's desire to form a village regulation as official legal standing for the particular team in Murtigading Village to against money politics practices has legality from village local government to carry out political education in Murtigading Village.
In Indonesia, many kinds of research related to anti-money politics movement have been carried out. Cahyadi & Hermawan (2019) offer a concept of a social approach through strengthening voters' social capital and local wisdom to prevent money politics. This offer is limited to only concepts that have not been tested technically, furthermore, from the aspect of strengthening the recommendation regulation from Riewanto (2019), such as through more rigorous regulation of the obligation to use political party campaign funds and strict sanctions for the cancellation of victory for political parties involved in money politics. More specifically Muhtadi (2019) study of money politics can be minimized by changing the open proportional system to a closed proportional system. The condition is that the closed proportional system must be accompanied by primary elections or conventions within the party to filter out credible candidates while reducing oligarchy and bribery practices at the elite level. Sjafrina (2019) argued that the key to copy with money politics lies in the institutionalization of political parties so that the doors that cause massive practice of money politics such as candidate recruitment, party funding, and the lack of strengthening voter political education by political parties can be overcome. With that, it is expected that the ideological closeness between political parties and voters (Party-ID) can increase so that money politics can be suppressed (Sihidi, Khanifah, & Romadhan, 2019).
From the aspect of legal handling, the application of criminal law as ultimum remidium must be able to minimize the practice of money politics (Nail, 2019). It is like Fitriyah (2015) study reflecting on the 2011 local elections (Pilkada) and village elections (Pilkades) of Pati Regency. It has seen that the weak legal certainty that regulates the prohibition of money politics is one of the loopholes of money politics. Furthermore, the supervisory function of Bawaslu/ Panwaslu and Sentra Gakkumdu also needs to be strengthened (Rahmat & Hasan, 2017) and also most importantly involving civil society movements such as through strengthening and collaboration with the electoral Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) of the Electoral Awareness Independent Committee (KISP) in Sardonoharjo Village, Ngaglik District, Sleman Regency, Yogyakarta Special Region. This awareness movement is not optimal due to the lack of support from the community and Bawaslu (Abhipraya et al., 2020). The fertility of money politics cannot be separated from the legal framework for elections that have not guaranteed legal certainty on the prohibition of money politics.
This research is different from previous research, as explained by some of the scholars above. This research emphasizes the impact of community in the village towards the Anti-Money Politic Village movement for concurrent election in 2019. This study sees voter's psychology and preferences in the concurrent election in 2019. Does the Anti-Money Politic Village movement effect on their political understanding in the danger of money politics practices? Furthermore, how do people behave towards money politics practices conducted by candidates? Also, in purpose to examine whether the Anti-Money Politic village in the Murtigading Village has been useful in conducting oversight of money politics practices.

METHOD
The research method can be interpreted as a scientific way to obtain valid data to find, develop, and prove a specific understanding, so that it can be useful to understand, solve, and anticipate the problems (Sugiyono, 2010). This research used quantitative methods. The quantitative research method is a method that in the process uses many numbers from the data collection stage, interpretation of the data stage, and the result stage (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
The population is a region that consists of objects or subjects that have certain qualities and characteristics determined by researchers to be studied and to conclude (Sugiyono, 2010). The population in this research were people registered as voters in the 2019 general election as many as 6000 voters.
The population in this study had the following criteria: a. The respondents were indigenous people of Murtigading Village, Sanden District, Bantul Regency b. The respondents were registered in the Permanent Voter List (DPT) c. Respondents had criteria that are among 17-60 years old and older, with a division of period among 17-21 years old, 22-27 years old, 28-33 years old, 34-49 years old, 50-55 years old, 56-60 years old, and 60 years old and above of it. d. The balance of percentage between men and women In this study, the sampling technique used was non-probability sampling with purposive sampling technique. According to Sugiyono, Purposive Sampling is a data source sampling technique with certain considerations (Sugiyono, 2010).
The use of Purposive Sampling technique was because not all samples have fulfilled the criteria that researchers listed by the research object. Therefore, the researchers chose the Purposive Sampling technique, which set out specific considerations or criteria that must be fulfilled by the samples used in this study. The calculation of sample in this study is using the Slovin formula, as follows: The primary data derived from respondents' answers to several questions formed made by researchers through the results of questionnaires for respondents. In order to strengthen the research data, researchers used documentary and observation technique as data reinforcement. In this research, secondary data were obtained directly by researchers from the literature, journals, literature studies, and books that strongly related to the research focus.
Data collection method used in this study was the questionnaire method. According to Sugiyono ( 2010), the questionnaire is a data collection technique that has done by giving a set of written statements towards the respondent to answer. Researchers used the questionnaire as a research instrument. The type of questionnaire used was a closed questionnaire. The data analysis technique in this research was descriptive. This technique is useful to summarize data in numbers, tables, or graphs to provide important information as a basis for effective decision making. Statistics also used to analyze data by describing the collected data (Manfaat, 2018).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The Perception of Murtigading Community Towards Money Politic Practices
The findings of this study are different from other studies. This study evaluates the movement in against money politics practices in the form of village movement and produce a positive impact among society with political education agenda to increase the political understanding in Murtigading Village community. The emergence of participatory supervision in Murtigading Village community creates the difficulty for the money politics actors in money distribution among Murtigading Village community. Moreover, the impact of the Anti-Money Politics Village movement in Murtigading Village encourages the establishment of village regulations to strengthen the function of Anti Money Politics Village Team to carry out political education in Murtigading Village community.
The money politics practice or patronage that known since colonialism era is a problem that will give a harmful impact on the democratization process. Therefore, the resistance movement of money politics practice should exist. Besides, the in-depth understanding of society towards the danger of money politics practice is also needed to counter the actions of money politics practice. Money politics is a challenge in the electoral process.
Murtigading Village, one of the villages in Sanden Sub District, Bantul Regency, Special Region of Yogyakarta, is considered able to against money politics practice in the form of Anti-Money Politic Village Movement (Desa APU) in Special Region of Yogyakarta. This movement initiated is by a group of village communities by forming a team called Team 11. Team 11 is a team that has to provide political literacy in the community and supervising money politics practice for concurrent election in 2019.
Team 11 had been existed since the village chief election in Murtigading Village. The community understanding of the harmful effect of money politic practice is needed in purpose to support this social movement against money politic practice.
Based on the findings obtained in this research study, we will try to analyze the perception of Murtigading community in understanding money politic practice. In general, it has found that the majority of Murtigading community have a high understanding of money politic practice and its impact toward democracy value. The more explanation regarding the following findings in this field research bellow.

Figure 1. The Sourve Information Related to Money Poltic Practises
From the obtained data in this research (see Figure 1), it has found that 40% of Murtigading community get information related to money politic practice through socialization that conducted by team 11. This percentage is more than other indicators such as radio/television, newspaper, internet and socialization conducted by the electoral organizer. Team 11, which is one of the social movements initiated by the community in Murtigading Village, succeeded in becoming a source of information in participating in creating a better value of democracy practice, Team 11 also can show its role as one of the characteristics in social movement concept.
According to Donatella & Diani (1999) explained that one of the characteristics of social movement is an informal network of interactions. In this position, Team 11 is outside of the electoral organizers' structure, which is the team started by Murtigading community initiation ass the efforts to oversee the healthy election as a manifestation of democracy value. Nevertheless, it's different with electoral organizers such General Election Commissions (KPU) or Election Supervisory Board (BAWASLU) as the institutions that have the responsibility to conduct electoral socialization in particular to fight practices that potentially violate the ethics of election.
Beside from Team 11, Murtigading community also obtained the information related to money politic practices from the internet with a percentage of 27.66%. This amount indicates that the internet as a second source as information provider related to money politic practice. Furthermore, Murtigading community have obtained the information related to money politic practice from radio or television with a percentage All of the answer are correct of 15.67 respondents. It has shown in the form of a graph in Figure 1; we will only find socialization by the electoral organizer as a source of information related to money politic practice at number 4 with a percentage in 14%, then followed by the newspaper. From this data, it interprets that the socialization that conducted by Team 11 has successfully touched the community to obtain the information related to money politic practice. Nevertheless, the money politic practice is still found in the concurrent elections in 2019 and especially in the Murtigading Village area. It is known through the recognition of respondents when the research conducted by researchers.
The voter education that conducted by Team 11 in Murtigading Village, they conduct socialization activities in each community forum by conveying the types of money politic practice in purpose to create the rejection of money politic practice in society due to the high understanding about the dangerous effect of money politics practice. It is crucial to understand the categories of money politics practices. In Murtigading Village, the respondents involved in this research were generally capable of recognizing the form of money politics practices. Furthermore, the figure below ( Figure  2) will show the percentage of people perspectives on money politics practice.

Figure 2. The Money Politic Practice According to Murtigading Community Perspectives
Money politic generally is a bribe practice, a form of giving or promising something to others in the form of cash, goods, or services in purpose to influence voters in giving their votes in the election (Sukmajati & Aspinal, 2015). Money politic practice will not just accidentally happen, but there is a patron-client relationship involved in society. Social and economic conditions in society, such as education level, and income level can become a factor that influences the existence of money politic practice (Muhtadi, 2013).
In this study, the researchers also tried to understand how the perceptions of Murtigading community in understanding the form of money politic practices are. One of the ways is by providing a list of choice indicators in the form of giving money, goods, and services. Based on figure 2, the number 40.67% of Murtigading community have confirmed that receiving bribery practice in the form of money, goods, and services considered as a form of money politics. Furthermore, even it is becoming worst when 33.33% of Murtigading community considers the money politics as bribery practice is only in the form of money given by candidates. From this data, it proves that Murtigading community generally understood that money politics occurs not only in bribery practices in the form of money but also in the form of goods and services. However, sufficiently many people also categorize money politic is only in the form of money given by candidates.
Besides, some people consider that money politics is an activity of receiving bribery practice in the form of foods, vouchers, donations, and program promised by candidates. The percentage of choices that showed in Figure 2 stated that there are people who understand money politics practice is only on a few perspectives of behaviors. Therefore, with this finding, we can conclude that the political understanding of people become very important to understand the money politics phenomenon.
Through this data, it stated that Murtigading community is generally capable of recognizing the form of money politics. It becomes essential in order to minimize the room for money politics actors in conducting vote-buying because money politics will also tend to choose voters with low levels of political information as to their targets (Manzetti & Wilson, 2007). Not only in recognizing the form of money politics, but it is also vital for the public to understand the harmful effects of money politics practice. In this research, we will try to see how the people of Murtigading Village consider the money politics practice can be harmful towards the quality of Indonesian democracy, for more details, it is available in Figure 3 and the following explanation. As one of the democratic countries, Indonesia has pioneered an excellent democracy consolidation along with conducting the three successive legislative elections in the post-reform era, direct presidential/vice-presidential elections and hundreds of local elections in various regions. Nevertheless, factually, the journey of Indonesian democracy is hampered by the presence of money politics practices. The practice of money politics that occurs continuously will generate problems of accountability and democratic representation (Muhtadi, 2013 Through this research, it has found that Murtigading community, in general, agrees that money politics practices can be harmful towards democracy value. In the amount of 54% said agree and 40.67% said strongly agree. This data shows that in terms of perception and understanding, the Murtigading community is aware of the harmful impact of money politics practices. This understanding is crucial for the agenda against money politics practices among the community. Also, this would encourage the spirit of the village community in establishing the social movement of Team 11 as an effort against money politics practices.
Moreover, there were still some people who expressed doubts and disagreed that money politics has a high potential to be harmful to democracy value. As shown in Figure 3, even though the percentage is tiny, but in fact, some people consider that the behavior of money politics practice will have no impact on democracy value. However, the existence of a social movement in the form of team 11 which is in general supported by the village community would be able to foster a spirit against money politics practice in all levels of the local community through socialization and political education programs.
The debate gets broader when discussing money politics practice and its resistance efforts. One of the essential things that also needs to be understood is about how Murtigading community interprets money politics practice, for an explanation and the data is available in figure 4 below. Regarding the conducted survey, the researchers provide several options to the respondents as the answers in interpreting money politics practices. Based on the data available in Figure 4, some of the options include; money politics as a form of returning the favor, social life, compensation for wages, forms of bribery, others, and no answer. From the data obtained by researchers regarding the perception of Murtigading community in interpreting money politics practice shows that 54.66% of respondents consider money politics practice as a form of bribery.
This number also shows that the majority of respondents have a high understanding of the polemic of money politics practices. This perception will influence the efforts against money politics practice. Further, most of the others with a percentage of 24.67% of respondents chose not to answer the question. The remaining 8.57% considers that money politics practice is a form of returning the favor, while others choose to interpret money politics as a form of social life, compensation for wages, and other answers with percentages as shown in Figure 4.
The data show that money politics practice can be interpreted differently by each community. Although the majority of Murtigading community understand money politics as bribery, there are still people who interpret money politics practice as other forms such as returning the favor, compensation for wages, and social life. This public perception can certainly change, especially as the majority of people understand the harmful effects of money politics practice on democracy value. Also, with the existence of people who together create a movement to against money politics with Team 11 is expected to be able to conduct the socialization and political education agendas in order to create the same perception towards money politics practice.

The Impact of TEAM 11 as a Social Movement Against Money Politics Practice
In Indonesia, social movements as the effort to oppose and encourage a change in public policies, social, and political affairs at local and national levels is a common thing in a democratic country. Social movements are needed by the community to achieve a social change that cannot be carried out by bureaucratic and administrative government ways.
Team 11, formed by the Anti-Money Politics Village movement (Desa APU), is an illustration of the social movement against money politics practice in the community. The findings of this research show that some people consider that Anti-Money Politics Village movement is effective in stemming the practice of money politics, and some of people consider it ineffective. It creates a broader debate over this movement. The following figure is the findings of this research. From the data obtained above (Figure 5), it analyzes that 56% of Murtigading Villagers in Bantul Regency considers Team 11 as a special team to carry out political literacy and community oversight in money politics practice. Also, this team is considered adequate and exerted fearful effects on the money politics actors in Murtigading Village. The interview results with Fauzi & Asmadi (Februari 18, 2020) as the members of Team 11 show that the monitoring activity on money politics practices by creating some of the complaint posts in several points of the village before the campaign agenda until the voting day has an impact to the exerted fearful effects on money politic actors. Complaint posts were built by involving some of the community elements in Murtigading Village community such as leaders and students from several universities.
The establishment of the complaint posts in Murtigading Village aims to be a forum for the community to report incidents of money politics practices and obtains the information related to the general election. Then the complaint post is used as a place for political literacy for the public. Furthermore, 44% of Murtigading Village people still consider that this movement has not been effective in stemming the money politics practices, this due to the same pattern of the previous movements.
The community considers that the practice of money politics in Murtigading Village in the concurrent elections had not carried out in the village area. Due to the presence of participatory community supervision, the distribution patterns of money politic practice carried out outside of the Murtigading Village. The success team of legislative candidates usually bring the community to leave the Murtigading Village to distribute money to bribe voters.
The community considers that the Anti-Money Politics Village movement (Desa APU) needs to have a useful pattern to observe the money politics actors in outside of Murtigading Village, in order, the money politics patterns can be dammed maximally. With the emergence of fear in money politic actors to bribe voters in Murtigading Village, it does not mean that the practice has disappeared, but the practice has moved to a place that is considered by the money politic actors as a safe place that cannot be monitored by the village community. In the findings of this field research, some Murtigading community saw the practice of money politics could be found despite the existence of tight supervision from the community in Murtigading Village. Do you know that there is financial assistance (money) in the concurrent election?

Exist Nothing
From these data ( Figure 6) obtained with the number 58,67% of the Murtigading Village community did not see the practice of money politics for concurrent election in 2019. From in-depth interviews with Asmadi & Fauzi ( February 18, 2020) as the members of Team 11, they considered that with the Anti-Money Politic Village movement (Desa APU), the atmosphere of vote-buying activities that conducted by money politic actors in the election did not occur with free-openly to distribute the money among the community. In the previous elections, the practice of vote-buying was prominent and openly from the campaign stage in elections. However, for concurrent election in 2019, it was tough to find the money politic actors who were distributing money to the public.
The existence of Team 11 and students from several universities who are involved in this social movement can narrow down the money politic actors to carry out money politic practices with openly in the community. The synergy of the local village government, namely the head of the village and Team 11 in campaigning agenda to reject money politic practices in Murtigading Village, was one of the impacts that make money politic actors who have no enough bravery conduct the vote-buying practices openly in the community.
However, with the number of 41.33% claimed that they had watched the votebuying practices. It was confirmed by the researchers when conducting in-depth interviews with Fauzi (May 9, 2020) as one of the members of Team 11 and the respondents that admit if money politics occurred and shared among several communities. Nevertheless, the process of distributing the money was not carried out in the area of Murtigading Village, even though the people who received the money are the residents of Murtigading Village.
In the analysis of researcher toward the Anti-Money Politics Village Movement (Desa APU) that carried out by village community who care about the democracy value, it has shown its success by narrowing the space of money politic actors to bribe the community. However, money politic actors consider this that the community can still be mobilized by accompanying people to receive the money outside of Murtigading Village. There is a difference in the transactional pattern of vote-buying practices. The initial pattern was the money politics actors come to each community house and changes to be attracting people to get out of their houses and conduct the vote-buying outside of Murtigading Village for concurrent election in 2019.
The practice of money politics can work successfully, one of the ways is because the money politics actors have an actor/s who consider has a high level of understanding about Murtigading Village region. The research also shows that the success team mostly does the money politics actors. The success team, in this case, is community leaders who are close and well-known among the community. They are not part of the political party of candidates, but they are recruited by candidates to help find votes in the region. The following data is the research findings related to money politics actors in the community.

Figure 7. Money Politic Actors in the Community
From the data obtained (Figure 7), with the number of 64.87% considers that the success team is an actor that is often encountered by the community in distributing the money politics for concurrent election in 2019, but the fact was not from political parties. This data is in line with  that mostly the success team categorized as a broker, and the brokers are socially very close with the community compared with the general community.
The success team, which is as an alternative way built by the political party, has been inherited since the New Order era. The approach that used by Golkar as the political party to win the election in the new order era was to creates a successful team. Stakeholders filled this team in the area such as RT/RW, head of the village, religious leaders, and hamlet heads. It has done because the authorities in the area have a high number of followers and potentially to use their power to mobilize voters. Furthermore, with the number of 13.53%, the community considers political party administrators carried it out at the village level, and the rest gets done by candidates directly by the village stakeholders.
The political education conducted by Team 11 in Anti-Money Politic Village movement in Murtigading village, certainly had a significant impact in voters understanding toward their vote preferences to give their votes toward candidates. From the data obtained from interview instrument with Fauzi and Asmadi as the members of Team 11, the technique that used in socialization stages was not only to provide the understanding about the harmful effects of money politics but also about how the community able to recognize the vision and mission from legislative candidates who will become representative for Murtigading village. Perhaps, the community could be selective in observing the vision and mission offered by legislative. This study explains how voters determine their vote preferences toward concurrent elections in 2019, as follows:  From the data obtained above (Figure 8), it shows the vision and mission factors determine the voter preferences in giving their votes to candidates, meaning the voters considered as a rational voter, considering the vote preferences are based on the determination of the issues and policies that carried out by candidates. It explains that the actual practice of money politics conducted by the candidates in mobilizing the votes among the community may not be able to works optimally. The community in Murtigading Village are smart enough and has a high rational approach for determining their choices in polling stations.
The rational approach leads to the conclusion that voters are genuinely has a high level of rational thinking. The voter makes their assessments for a candidate or political party. Based on the communication actions in classifying these voters as rational voters. These rational voters have their motivations, principles, knowledge, and has enough information. Their actions are supposed to relate to the community interest with logical reasoning and consideration. Furthermore, the preference in 26% of voters said they would vote what are liked by them; they have their reasons to prefer the proximity factor in the community.
The presence of Team 11 as a special team in the Anti-Money Politics Village movement (Desa APU) for concurrent election in 2019 considered as a great movement to create better progress in the form of political education agenda in the community because all this time the political education agenda was not received by the public. Team 11 is a young group that created when the local election to choose the head of the village in Murtigading Village begins. In the village head election, team 11 was present to oversee and provide political education to the community to obtain competent village leaders and wondering those head of village candidates will not conducting money politics. They fully realize that the leaders who were conducting money politic practices will not produce a pro-community policy in the future.
The presence of this group received quite positive community responses and supports. The findings of this study explained that almost all community in Murtigading Village sufficiently supports the existence of Team 11 to be maintained in the lead-up to the local election in Bantul Regency. The legal regulations governing Team 11 in conducting political education in the community is necessary. In order to create legal standing for the presence of Team 11 and Team 11 able to access the village budget to conducting political educations for the community. The following Figure 9 is the findings that obtained by the researcher from this study: From the data obtained in Figure 10 explains the support of the community for Anti-Money Politics Village movement is quite large. An in-depth interview result with Fauzi (May 9, 2020) as one of the members of Team 11, the community that involve in volunteer group who has a task to provide socialization related to the harmful effect of money politics was a noble activity to create better progress of democracy value in the future. Then this movement continues to be maintained and has the support from the local village government. Team 11, as the social movements, is an effort to pursue community interests or to achieve public goals through collective actions. However, it can also describe as a collective action that tries to promote a better change in the community.
The impact of this Anti-Money Politics Village movement successfully affects the community for concurrent election in 2019 phase. Before the presence of Team 11 in Murtigading Village, money politic practices were conducted openly in the village community, but then it has turned over into more challenging to be conducted because Does not support Very unsupportive the community monitors it. Furthermore, community understanding of the harmful effects of money politics and also the community understanding toward democratic values has increased during the existence of Team 11 as a special team in Anti-Money Politic village movement. It is no wonder this Anti-Money Politics movement has received tremendous support from the Murtigading Village community, Bantul Regency.
The high level of community support can create impetus the legal regulations for Team 11 as their official identity by the village government. In figure 10 it explains that the community fully approve to a legal basis governing for Team 11 as a special team for Anti-Money Politic Village movement. From the interview with Fauzi Noor (May 9, 2020) as one of the member of the Team 11 in Anti-Money Politics Village movement, he considers that it will create some significant progress if there is a legal regulation for their basis in providing political education in the community, and participating supervision agenda at the village level, proper political education activities with better structure and massive. As a result, they will get material and moral supports from the village government.

CONCLUSION
The social movements conducted by the community in fighting the practice of money politics in Murtigading Village, Bantul Regency, Special Region of Yogyakarta have an impact towards the practice of money politics for concurrent elections in 2019. The presence of Team 11 as a special team that conducts a monitoring and political literacy among community creates fear for unscrupulous brokers to do the practice of money politics to the community. The distribution patterns of money politics were carried out not in Murtigading Village region, but outside the Murtigading Village region in order to avoid the Team 11 as a monitor actor in the community towards the practice of money politics.
The evaluation of this movement shows that some village community considers that the Anti-Money Politic Village movement (Desa APU) is effective in overseeing money politics behavior conducted by money politic actors such as success teams and candidates in elections. Besides, it's also considered as a significant movement to provide a political education agenda in the community. The existence of Team 11 received positive responses from the community, it's because they have no excellent political understanding before the presence of Team 11 that provides voters understanding toward electoral integrity.
The voters' perspective in understanding money politics, they consider that money politics is a form of bribery; this also considered as unpermitted by religion. Meaning they have a high understanding of the practice of money politics that potentially create corruptors and corruption act. The preference of voters in Murtigading Village community is not determined by money, but rather by seeing the vision and mission of candidates. It considered that the Murtigading Village community is rational voters.
The Anti-Money Politics Village Movement received massive support from the Murtigading Village community to maintain for concurrent local elections in 2020. However, the Murtigading Village community considered that establishing a legal foundation for Team 11 is essential, in order to receive full support from the village government in the form of material and others. This support from the community has come from political awareness in the Murtigading Village community that began to grow and high understanding of the harmful impact of money politics for democracy value.
The suggestions from this study are Anti-Money Politics Village movement is an example that can be adopted by other villages. The role of civil society to be involved in the supervision of general elections/regional head elections is very important. Elections/local elections are the beginning of the creation of a pro-community policy created by the government. Then money politics is a bad culture, and harmful for democracy value needs to get monitored by civil society power.