Electoral Personalization and TikTok Politics: The Transformation of Campaign Strategies in Indonesia's 2024 General Election
Keywords:
TikTok, Electoral Personalization, Political Communication, Digital Campaigns, IndonesiaAbstract
The rapid expansion of TikTok has transformed political campaigning by prioritizing personalized communication, algorithmic visibility, and emotionally engaging content over conventional forms of electoral mobilization. Indonesia's 2024 General Election offers an important opportunity to examine how digital platforms reshape campaign strategies and voter engagement in one of the world's largest democracies. Although previous research has explored the political impact of social media, limited attention has been devoted to TikTok's unique role in accelerating electoral personalization and redefining political branding. This study investigates how political candidates, campaign teams, and voters utilized TikTok during Indonesia's 2024 election. Using a mixed qualitative approach, the research combines digital content analysis, engagement metrics, interviews with campaign strategists, and discourse analysis of highly viewed political videos. The findings demonstrate that successful campaign strategies increasingly relied on authenticity, entertainment, emotional storytelling, and algorithmic optimization rather than ideological messaging alone. This transformation contributed to greater political accessibility among younger voters but also encouraged personality-centered politics and simplified policy discussions. The article argues that TikTok has become a significant institution within contemporary electoral politics by reshaping political communication, voter behavior, and democratic participation. It contributes to comparative political communication literature by extending debates on platformization, algorithmic governance, and digital campaigning beyond Western democracies. The findings provide practical implications for election management bodies, policymakers, and digital platforms seeking to balance political innovation with electoral fairness, transparency, and democratic accountability.
References
Abidin, Crystal. 2016. “Visibility Labour: Engaging with Influencers’ Fashion Brands and #OOTD Advertorial Campaigns on Instagram.” Media International Australia 161 (1): 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X16665177.
Bucher, Taina. 2018. If...Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Castells, Manuel. 2012. Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Chadwick, Andrew. 2017. The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Enli, Gunn Sara, and Eli Skogerbø. 2013. “Personalized Campaigns in Party-Centered Politics: Twitter and Facebook as Arenas for Political Communication.” Information, Communication & Society 16 (5): 757–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.782330.
Gibson, Rachel K., and Ian McAllister. 2015. “Normalizing or Equalizing Party Competition? Assessing the Impact of the Web on Election Campaigning.” Political Studies 63 (3): 529–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12107.
Gillespie, Tarleton. 2014. “The Relevance of Algorithms.” In Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society, edited by Tarleton Gillespie, Pablo J. Boczkowski, and Kirsten A. Foot, 167–194. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kappeler, Kira, and others. 2022. “TikTok and Political Communication: New Challenges for Digital Democracy.” Social Media + Society 8 (4): 1–12.
Karvonen, Lauri. 2010. The Personalization of Politics: A Study of Parliamentary Democracies. Colchester: ECPR Press.
Kaye, D. Bondy Valdovinos, Xu Chen, and Jing Zeng. 2021. “The Co-Evolution of Two Chinese Mobile Short Video Apps: Parallel Platformization of Douyin and TikTok.” Mobile Media & Communication 9 (2): 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157920952120.
Kreiss, Daniel, and Shannon C. McGregor. 2018. “Technology Firms Shape Political Communication: The Work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google With Campaigns During the 2016 U.S. Presidential Cycle.” Political Communication 35 (2): 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1364814.
Kreiss, Daniel. 2016. Prototype Politics: Technology-Intensive Campaigning and the Data of Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mazzoleni, Gianpietro, and Winfried Schulz. 1999. “Mediatization of Politics: A Challenge for Democracy?” Political Communication 16 (3): 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198613.
McAllister, Ian. 2007. “The Personalization of Politics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, edited by Russell J. Dalton and Hans-Dieter Klingemann, 571–588. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rahat, Gideon, and Tamir Sheafer. 2007. “The Personalization(s) of Politics: Israel, 1949–2003.” Political Communication 24 (1): 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600601128739.
Scammell, Margaret. 2015. “Politics and Image: The Conceptual Value of Branding.” Journal of Political Marketing 14 (1–2): 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2014.990829.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2018. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
van Dijck, José, Thomas Poell, and Martijn de Waal. 2018. The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: PublicAffairs.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Laras Maheswari
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain full copyright ownership of their works without restriction. The views and opinions expressed in articles published in this journal are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal, its editors, publishers, or the authors’ affiliated institutions. All content published in this journal is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
