Another example concerns two groups of Balinese villagers who were about to fight using machetes
as a result of differences in the preference of election candidates (2014). On a larger scale, the
polarization potentially is a serious threat to society, especially when both camps announced their
victors. The fear of possible eruption of social conflicts that could be triggered by potential hostility of
the competition was mentioned by the founder of the Kawal Pemilu:
“My earliest move was to see the danger of this nation divided when I saw Prabowo declaring
victory, and Jokowi also declared victory. Two of them declared victory even though the
candidates were only two and the situation had been fierce for months, even more than a year.
[...] And we all know that it's exactly the very half-neck-to-neck [...]. Our nation is divided into
two. [...] It was very dangerous because it could lead to conflict, concerning horizontal conflict
as well. Therefore, I try to find a solution, can we show who wins.”

5.3.2. Contributing factors
The literature review showed that the availability of appropriate resources, social influence, and
perceived data quality can contribute to citizen-led engagement with OGD. While the case supported
the availability of resources and influence from social relationships, the perceived data quality was
unsupported. Resources needed for developing Kawal Pemilu platform and digitizing election results
were affordable to volunteers and to some degree can be minimized. For example, four volunteers
used their free time to develop the platform and spent only $55.83 for buying domain and hosting the
websites. Other volunteers also digitized the C1 forms in their free time or sometimes developed the
platform parallelly with doing their official works.
The influence of social relationships is a contributing factor in the case since nearly all volunteers were
recruited by their ‘close’ social media friends, particularly by the founder of Kawal Pemilu. After setting
up the core team consisting of four volunteers with a software development background, the founder
recruited volunteers for digitizing election results using a secret Facebook group and adopting a MultiLevel Marketing (MLM) tactic. He targeted a thousand volunteers by enlisting ten trusted close friends
and encouraging each of them to recruit another ten friends who were also asked to recruit ten friends
(10 x 10 x 10). However, the recruitment was intentionally stopped when it reached 700 volunteers
before the Kawal Pemilu’s front-end site became very popular.
However, the perceived data quality as a contributing factor to citizen-led engagement with OGD was
unsupported by the case. Instead, the discovery of erroneous data motivated volunteers to detect
more data as such and be the first to share or post the data on social media platforms. One volunteer
commented:
“If we found [an erroneous C1 form], we were just excited to look for other [C1] problems.”
Another volunteer stated:
“In fact, actually I was excited to find this case. We wanted to know exactly [and] captured
these strange things [done by] a [corrupt] KPPS officer.”
Three factors, which were not identified in the literature review, emerged in the case as contributing
factors to the OGD citizen-led engagement at the individual level, namely competition, diverse skills
of volunteers, and social media use. Kawal Pemilu was among one of many citizen-led engagement
initiatives competed in digitizing and displaying accurate results of the presidential election and
initially lagged few days behind other initiatives. Although at first, Kawal Pemilu founder felt
disappointed for being lagged behind, he tried to reveal the competitor’s weakness in the validation
process of the digitization results and designed a better solution for the process.