Analysis of Laws of Specialization for Presidential Candidates in the 2019 General Election in Bandung - Indonesia

Ega Prakarsa(1), Karim Suryadi(2), Leni Anggraeni(3),

(1) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
(2) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
(3) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia


Laws of specialization is one indicator in personal branding that includes ability, behavior, lifestyle, mission, achievement, profession and service. Laws of specialization is an important indicator of personal branding that must be known by various segments of voters in the community as a source of information relating to the president and vice president. But in reality, laws of specialization experience a distortion of meaning so that these personal characteristics become biased and are often associated with various political interests. This often leads to conflicts that are based on differences in understanding, as well as the emergence of an attitude of distrust of presidential candidates and vice presidential candidates for the 2019 general election. This study uses a quantitative approach, descriptive statistics. Through this research, the people of Bandung City already know and are able to distinguish and provide responses about the laws of specialization of presidential and vice presidential candidates in the 2019 general election. This research has implications for community leaders, political figures and the government.


General Election, Law of Specialization, Personal Branding

Full Text:



Agnew, J., & Shin, M. (2018). Electoral Dramaturgy: Insights from Italian Politics about Donald Trump’s 2015-16 Campaign Strategy … and Beyond. Geographies of the 2016 Presidential Election Electoral, (Heathcote), 81228. Retrieved from

Bonjour, S., & Chauvin, S. (2018). Social Class, Migration Policy and Migrant Strategies: An Introduction. International Migration, 56(4), 5–18.

Coleman, J., & Fararo, T. (1992). Rational Choice Theory. London: Sage Publication.

Faulks, K. (2012). Sosiologi Politik (Terjemahan; H. Mahadi, Ed.). Bandung: Nusa Media.

Gauja, A., Chen, P., Curtin, J., & Pietsch, J. (2018). ‘Double Disillusion’: Analysing the 2016 Australian Federal Election. In Double Disillusion: The 2016 Australian Federal Election.

Giddens, A. (2006). Sociology. (p. 1094). p. 1094.

Hendriks, C. M., Duus, S., & Ercan, S. A. (2016). Performing politics on social media: The dramaturgy of an environmental controversy on Facebook. Environmental Politics, 25(6), 1102–1125.

Journal, I., & Popitz, H. (2017). Social Norms. 11(2), 3–12.

Kavanagh, D. (1983). Political Science and Political Behaviour (Allen & Unwin, Eds.). London: Routledge.

Lestari, L., Lumbantobing, I. T., & Johar, S. S. (2019). Political Behavior of Beginner Voters in Mayor Election Batam 2015 at Sagulung Kota. Journal of Techno Social, 10(2), 11–16.

Montoya, P. (2002). The Personal Branding Phenomenon. Personal Branding Press, (2002), 1–6.

Mutz, D. (2018). Response to Morgan: On the Role of Status Threat and Material Interests in the 2016 Election. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 4, 237802311880861.

Saunders, P. (1990). Social Class and Stratification (Society Now). London and New York: Routledge.

Soekanto, S. (2007). Pengantar Sosiologi. Jakarta: P.T.Raja. Grafindo.

Stephen Gorard. (2003). Quantitative Methods in Social Science.

Sunstein, C. R. (1996). Social Norms and Social Roles. 903.

Tarigan, A. K. M., Sagala, S., Samsura, D. A. A., Fiisabiilillah, D. F., Simarmata, H. A., & Nababan, M. (2016). Bandung City, Indonesia. Elsevier and Science Direct, 50, 100–110.

Vogt, W. P. (2007). Quantitative research methods for professionals. Quantitative Research Methods for Professionals, 5–18.

Whiteley, P. (2009). Rational Choice and Political Participation-Evaluating The Debate. Sage Publication, 48(1), 211–233. Retrieved from


  • There are currently no refbacks.

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