Managing Organizational Conflict in the 2019 Concurrent Election In Palembang

In the 2019 concurrent election, the General Election Commission of Palembang City was prosecuted due to the accusation of not executing recommendations and not protecting voting rights. This research aims to : (1) identify the source of internal conflict; (2) identify the source of external conflict, and (3) analyze conflict management applied to resolve the conflict. This research’s method is qualitative descriptive, data were collected through interviews with purposive informants and documentation. Research shows that conflict was mainly caused by lack of regulation and human resources factors which can be specified into internal conflict were caused by personal factors such as (1) communicational barrier; (2) conflict of interest in recruitment; (3) character differences. Functional factors were disproportioned structure and lack of competence. External conflicts were mainly caused by lack of regulation resulted in misperceptions and also personal and intervention factors. By using the framework of organizational conflict management, it has become clear that the General Election Commission of Palembang applied different approaches to conflict management: forcing and withdrawal for ad hoc electoral body, and institutional (legal approach) in dealing with the Election Supervisory Agency of Palembang. Although they might produce some agreements, those types of conflict management were not leading to genuine resolution since it was a win-lose pattern. It is important to formulate rigid regulation, enhance the competence of election organizers, develop check and balance coordination, and synergize as fellow election organizers to avoid conflict reoccurrence in the future.


INTRODUCTION
In just six months after being inaugurated, all five commissioners of General Election Commission of Palembang City were suspended through the Chairman Decree of General Election Commission of Indonesia Number 1193/HK.06.1-Kpt/05/KPU/VII/2019 dated 5 July 2019, following the election crime violation case reported by the Election Supervisory Agency of Palembang City. This case originated from ballot shortage at numerous polling stations in Palembang during the 2019 Concurrent Election. District Supervisory Committee of Ilir Timur II then issued the recommendations to held continuation of electoral process at 70 (seventy) polling stations which were then forwarded by District Selection Committee of Ilir Timur II to the General Election Commission of Palembang City. General Election Commission of Palembang City followed up on the recommendation by doing identification and clarification to those polling stations stated in the recommendation. Identification was carried out by tracing supporting documents such as minutes reports, vote count results, attendance lists, etc. General Election Commission of Palembang City then gathered the election organizers at the ad hoc level to clarified on the case and to make sure that they are ready to held the continuation of electoral process. The results of the identification and clarification then was used by the General Election Commission of Palembang City to determine the continuation of electoral process in 31 (thirty one) polling stations. The number of polling stations was revised several times as there was a wave of rejection to held the continuation of electoral process from both citizens and election organizers at the ad hoc level by attaching a Statement Letter, stating that the election was completely held so there was no need to held further process.
On April 27, 2019, the continuation of electoral process was finally held, but only in 13 (thirteen) polling stations. The reduction in the number of polling stations was considered as an act of neglecting Election Supervisory Agency of Palembang City's recommendation and also eliminating the people's right to vote. After series of joint studies by Integrated Law Enforcement, the Election Supervisory Agency of Palembang City then filed a report against all five commissioner of the General Election Commission of Palembang City to the Sub Regional Police of Palembang for alleged election crime violations in the form of depriving the people's right to vote. At the same time, they also filed a report to the Election Organizer Ethics Council on violating the election organizer's code of ethics.
Palembang District Court through Sentence Number 1071/ Pid.B / 2019/ PN.PLG dated 12 July 2019 stipulates that all five commissioners of General Election Commission of Palembang City have been legally and convincingly proven guilty of "participating in criminal acts of election organizers which deliberately cause others to lose their rights to vote". General Election Commission of Palembang City then filed an appeal to the Palembang High Court, but Sentence Number 135/PID/2019/PT.PLG issued on July 26, 2019 simply corroborrated the previous sentence from the Palembang District Court. The Election Organizer Ethics Council through Sentence Number 147-PKE-DKPP/VII/2019 dated September 4, 2019 then became the final verdict for this case, where this sentence states that all five commissioners of General Election Commission of Palembang City have violated the code of ethics of the election organizers and therefore no longer meet the requirements to become election organizers in the future. Previously, the General Election Commission of Indonesia had also issued the decree on the dismissal of all five commissioners of General Election Commission of Palembang City, as a follow-up to the District High Court sentence. The dismissal of all five commissioners of General Election Commission of Palembang City resulted in the vacancy of the commissioners, so that the General Election Commission of South Sumatra Province then took over the duties of the commissioners as a work unit one level above it.
As a mechanism to fill political positions, the election itself is already a means of preventing conflict between the parties competing in it. Based on this, it is not appropriate if the election organizers themselves were involved in conflict. General Election Commission of Palembang City was facing internal conflicts with election organizers at the ad hoc level, in particular with District Polling Committees of Ilir Timur II related to the continuation of electoral process mechanism and Voting Organizing Group of Sungai Buah Sub-district regarding the rejection to held the continuation of electoral process. The external conflict with the Election Supervisory Agency of Palembang City was based on the lawsuit for alleged election crime and violating the election organizer's code of ethics.
This study aims to identify the causes of internal and external conflicts faced by the General Election Commission of Palembang City and to analyze the conflict management used to resolved those conflicts. Conflicts between fellow election organizers are very likely to reoccured so it is necessary to study the causes to prevent conflicts in the future for a better coordination in the future. The continuation of electoral process in Palembang City is a follow-up to an extraordinary incident (shortage of ballot) that occurred during the election. In addition to the continuation of electoral process, Law Number 7 of 2017 of General Election also includes other mechanisms, namely reelection and follow-up elections which refer to post-election voting with different causes and procedures. Re-election is a more popular term to public, even the initial documentation on this case still uses the term re-election before finally changing to the continuation of electoral process. Conflict caused by the allegation of neglecting the Election Supervisory Agency's recommendation which resulted in the dismissal of all five commissioners of General Election Commission of Palembang City so far has only occurred in Palembang. Previous studies have mostly taken re-election as a research topic, regarding its impact in fragmenting groups in bureaucracy (Tinov et al., 2011) and the decreased of voter turnout (Hussein, 2013). Similar to the incident occurred in Palembang, the shortage of ballot in Tanjung Pinang causing the re-election were proven to be caused by the absence of explicit rules specifically regulating the re-election and how to handle the source of problems (in this case the ballot was swapped) so it was suggested that the General Election Commission have to issue more specific and technical regulations as precautions (Haryanti, 2014).
As a conflict-prone political mechanism, it is important for the government and election organizer in particular to design electoral systems and procedures that minimize conflict. Violations that usually occur are mostly administrative, so they must be resolved by preparing a legal procedures to prevent potential conflicts source to develop into open conflicts as revealed by Humaedi (2018) along with Anggraini, et.al (2019) which emphasizes the important role of election regulation in preventing conflict. In other perspective, Loilatu (2018) found that government institutionalization and local wisdom as well as kinship approaches can also be used as mechanisms for conflict prevention and resolution.
In general viewing, electoral conflict were seen as conflicts involving election participants, including the community as their supporters. Fischer (2002) defines conflict and election violations as "any random or organized act or threat to intimidate, physically harm, blackmail, or abuse a political stakeholder in seeking to determine, delay, or to otherwise influence an electoral process". Furthermore, he stated that the conflict and electoral violations based on the chronology can be described as follows: 1. Identity conflict, conflicts arising during the registration process and updating voter data; 2. Campaign conflict, conflicts that arise during a campaign when election participants compete unfairly by carrying out black campaigns, spreading hoaxes, and intimidating voters with threats and violence; 3. Balloting conflict, conflicts that occurred during the election in which the election participants and their supporters caused disturbances or riots at polling stations or other places; 4. Results conflict, conflicts arising from disputes over the results of vote counting and the inability of the judicial mechanism to resolve these disputes in a fair, timely and transparent manner; 5. Representation conflict, conflict that arises when the power in parliament is not distributed equally so that the concept of governance cannot be implemented properly. Petit (2000) states that dispute in elections is an inherent matter. The challenges faced in the implementation of the election and the results of the election should not be considered as weaknesses of the system, but must be seen as evidence of the strength and openness of the political system. He explains further that the important issues of the theories on election dispute / conflict resolution as follows: 1. The validity of the results, which then forms the basis for contesting the election results; 2. Administrative actions by the Electoral Management Body in solving problems, which in turn affect matters related to election and voting rights violations; 3. Criminal charges for parties who have or are indicated to have violated the electoral process.
Several important elements of the electoral conflict as described by Fischer (2002) and Petit (2000) above, in this case actually emerged from conflict between fellow election organizers, not conflict between pairs of candidates and their supporters as were commonly found in various examples of previous research cases mentioned earlier. The difference between conflicting parties also makes the different perspective for conflict management used in this study because it uses an organizational conflict management approach, not electoral conflict approach. Muspawi (2014) states that organizational conflict resolution is intended to avoid the bad impact of the conflict, and to brings wisdom and benefits to the organization concerned. In line with this, Dalimunthe (2016) states that conflict in the organization is triggered by inevitable changes and differences.
In this study, changes in adjudication authority and differences in perceptions regarding Election Supervisory Agency's recommendations is a real examples of changes and differences that trigger conflict. This is confirmed by Heri & Elyasari (2019) in their journal which also refering to this case where the phrase "recommendation" in the Election Supervisory Agency ruling turned out to have undergone a shift in meaning to become obligatory, and the improper implementation of it can lead to serious law suit.
Robbins (1974) in Berkovitch, (1983) identify 3 (three) sources of organizational conflict in which the understanding of the sources of conflict will increase the effectiveness of conflict management applied. The sources of the conflict are: (1), Communicational, conflicts arising from misunderstanding or failure to communicate; (2) Structural, conflicts related to the role of the organization; and (3) Personal, conflicts triggered by individual differences.
According to Robbins, identification of the source of conflict will affect the conflict management method that will be applied because each source of conflict has a different conflict management approach. Although agrees with Robbins' opinion, Berkovitch has a different perspective in determining the sources of the conflict. According to him, conflict can be distinguished as follows: 1. Intrapersonal conflict, conflict within the individual that is triggered by conflict or inner conflict from the individual; 2. Interpersonal conflict, conflicts arising from human interaction, which can be divided into 2 (two) factors: a. Personal. Every individual is different, each of which carries attitudes, values, needs and characters in which their interactions with others have the potential to trigger conflict and affect organizational performance; b. Functional. Every individual in the organization has a set of behaviors related to their position. Interpersonal conflicts can arise in interactions between individuals regarding their function or position in the organization; 3. Interdepartmental conflict, differences in structure, objectives, specializations, and all matters related to the characteristics of the department / organization in which their interactions with other departments / organizations lead to conflicts. Rusdiana (2015) states that conflict management is a series of actions and reactions between actors or outsiders in a conflict. Conflict management includes a process-oriented approach that directs the form of communication (including behavior) from actors or outsiders by influencing decisions. Ross (1993) in Rusdiana (2015) states that conflict management is the steps taken by actors or third parties in order to direct disputes towards certain outcomes that may or may not result in conflict resolution and calm, positive, creative, consensus, or aggressive. Berkovitch (1983) states that the main function of conflict management is to manage disputes or to avoid escalation of the conflict. Conflict resolution can refer to either handling conflict or eliminating the source of conflict. He explained that organizational conflict management varies according to the cause, origin and context. Conflict management can be carried out by the parties involved or carried out by intervention from other parties. Conflict management is said to be effective if it is successful in: (1) Minimizing all disturbances arising from the existence of the conflict, and (2) Providing satisfying and acceptable solutions. Identification of the source of conflict is critical to proper conflict management. The right conflict management method determines the success of conflict resolution and the anticipation of conflict recurrence. Conflict management aims to achieve optimal performance by keeping conflict functional and minimizing the adverse impacts of conflict.
As stated before, election is a political-prone mechanism. In order to be able to establish democratic peace and integrity, all fellow election organizer have to be able to work together in harmony. Therefore, it is necessary to eliminate potential conflict factors and to analyze conflict management for better understanding in the future.

RESEARCH METHOD
This research is a qualitative descriptive study. This approach was chosen to analyze this case because of its capability of providing a clear and complete picture of the phenomena holistically. Sugiyono (2013) states that "Descriptive research is a research intended to investigate conditions or other things that have been mentioned, the results of which are presented in the form of a research report. Descriptive method is used to get a systematic, factual and accurate description of the facts and the characteristics of the phenomenon".
Informants in this study was chosen carefully through purposive sampling technique. Hagan (2006) in Lune & Berg (2017) use the term judgmental sampling because the researcher's assessment plays a major role in the selection of informants with this method. He stated, "In the pre-research process, the researcher first investigates the related parties to determine which informants represent the attributes / positions related to the research problem or who are considered to represent a group of people involved in the problem. ".
The informants in this study were were selected based on their role with the subject in this study as follows:  Garmien Mellia, Hertanto, Arizka Warganegara, Robi Cahyadi Kurniawan, Managing Organizational Conflict in the 2019 Concurrent Election in Palembang, JSSP, Vol. 5, No. 1, 30 June 2021

Sources: Compiled by the Authors, 2020
Sources of data in this study are primary data and secondary data. Silalahi (2012) states that the primary source is an object or original document -the raw material of the perpetrator or "first hand information". Primary data in this study were obtained from interviews with informants. Secondary data in this study were obtained from literature / documentation on the Laws and Regulations; documentation of correspondence; minutes, reports, court sentences, etc, including news from the mass media.
The reliability of the data collected must be supported by the validity of the data. Creswell (2009) states that validity in qualitative research is based on ascertaining whether the research results are accurate from the perspective of the researcher, participant, or reader in general. In this study, the strategy used to ensure the validity of the data is to triangulate the data by collecting data through 3 (three) groups of sources with different perspectives to understand the phenomena that occur from the perspective of the three and so that a common thread that justifies the data can be drawn. this research.
The analysis of these data was carried out according to the activity stages as stated by Miles, Huberman, & Saldana (2014): Data condensation, Data display, and Drawing and verifying conclusion. Creswell (2009) explained that the data analysis process in qualitative research is carried out inductively where the researcher builds patterns, categories and themes in a bottom up manner, by organizing the data into more tangible units of information. In this study, the data collected will be selected and collected in several categories based on data sources and informants, then grouped into theme groups according to the frame of mind. The results of the processed data are then presented to begin the process of drawing conclusions and verifying the results of the study. This means that all five General Election Commission of Palembang City's Commissioners must quickly adapt the hectic work rhythm before the election, developed good coordination with the secretariat, ad hoc bodies and stakeholders, and continued the election stages that had been started by the previous commissioners.

Internal Conflict between General Election Commission of Palembang City and Ad hoc Bodies
The internal conflict in this study initially referred to the conflict between the General Election Commission of Palembang City and the Voting Organizing Groups of Sungai Buah Sub-district who refused to held continuation of the electoral process which resulted in a election crime violation, because the continuation of the electoral process was not held in as many polling stations as recommended by Election Supervisory Agency of Palembang City. The research later showed that internal conflicts occurred not only with the Voting Organizing Groups of Sungai Buah Sub-district, but also with ad hoc agencies at its upper level, namely the District Polling Committees of Ilir Timur II. The conflict between the General Election Commission of Palembang City and the District Polling Committees of Ilir Timur II began to emerge since there was a shortage of ballot in the concurrent elections and escalated after the occurrence of the election crime violation case, in which the District Polling Committees of Ilir Timur II was considered to be impartial and not supporting the General Election Commission of Palembang City.
The internal conflict with the ad hoc body referred to in this sub-section is the conflict between the General Election Commission of Palembang City and the District Polling Committees of Ilir Timur II regarding the continuation of electoral process mechanism and Voting Organizing Groups of Sungai Buah Sub District regarding the rejection of the implementation of the continuation of electoral process. The analysis of the research was carried out using an interpersonal conflict approach (Berkovitch, 1983). Interpersonal conflict in organizations as described by Berkovitch (1983) can arise due to factors of personal differences, differences in perceptions, and functional differences that can lead to distrust, misunderstanding, and unhealthy competition.
The interpersonal approach is used because conflict occurs in an organizational structure and is personal (does not involve all personnel in the organizational structure). Berkovitch (1983) states that interpersonal conflicts occur in interactions within organizations, especially those that are hierarchical in nature such as relationships between superiors and subordinates, in this case the General Election Commission Palembang City with the ad hoc structure underneath.
Analysis of the interviews conducted with informants showed that there were personal and functional differences that triggered conflict between the General Election Commission of Palembang City and the Ad hoc bodies. These personal and functional factors then lead to differences in perceptions between the two parties in carrying out their duties, as well as in implementing mechanisms for handling extraordinary incident that were not properly anticipated.
The sources conflict between the General Election Commission of Palembang City and Ad-hoc Bodies are: A. Personal Factors Personal factors contributes as the source of conflict between the General Election Commission Palembang City and ad hoc bodies are: The term of office of the commissioners should refer to the election cycle. Ideally, one membership period carries out a complete election cycle from the start. The end of the term of office that was not in accordance with the election cycle resulted in a communication gap with the ranks below, especially election organizers at the ad hoc level who could not coordinate directly with the commissioners at any time. The beginning of the term of office which is too close to the election also causes the newly appointed commissioners to immediately adapt to the hectic stages of the election. Given that not all commissioners have the same electoral background and level of ability to master all tasks, there should be an evaluation to the term of office.

Conflict of interest in the recruitment of ad hoc bodies.
Interviews with several informants indicated that there was an influence from political elements and conflicts of interest in the recruitment of ad hoc bodies which later affected the relationship between the General Election Commission of Palembang City and the ad hoc agency because it was difficult to develop good coordination without the trust from both parties.
The conflict of interest referred in this factor is the intervention of local government officials during the recruitment of ad hoc bodies. The intervention was carried out by "entrusting" a list of the names of PPK and PPS candidate personnel who were generally confidants, relatives, or other relations with personal goals or political interests. Trisnawati (2019) revealed that political interests can come from the local government (district and sub-district) by entrusting or recommending their trusted people, because they still have political interests with election participants, especially incumbent candidates. Another aspect that was also revealed from Trisnawati's research was that in addition to being entrusted by the local government, members of the ad hoc body also came from people closest to members of the General Election Commission of Palembang City's Commissioner (Trisnawati, 2019). Considering that the recruitment was carried out in the previous commissioner period, this then led to an opinion from the new commissioner regarding the personnel of the ad hoc agency which then influenced the relationship between the two. The relationship overshadowed by the prejudice (presumption) such as this contributes to the internal conflict between the General Election Commission of Palembang City and the ad hoc agency because it is difficult to build effective communication upon the suspicions.

Previous research on ad hoc management of the Palembang Local Elections in 2018 by
3. Differences in individual character. Differences in individual character as explained by Robbins (1974) in Berkovitch (1983) is a source of conflict that emerges from the fact that every individual is not the same, each one carries attitudes, values, needs and personal characteristics which in their interactions with other people have the potential to trigger conflict and affect organizational performance. In line with this, Rahim (2001) states that each individual has its own set of values and priorities when faced with a situation where each can make different decisions regarding this matter.
Interviews with informants showed that the problem of character differences was not properly resolved. Although both parties stated that they were professional, based on the analysis of the interviews, the perception of the character of certain parties was proven to hinder communication and coordination in the implementation of election administration.
B. Sources of interpersonal conflict are: 1. Unequal (disproportioned) distribution of personnel. The General Election Commission of Palembang City oversees 90 (ninety) District Polling Committee members, 321 (three hundred twenty one) Voting Committee members and 33,635 (thirty three thousand six hundred and thirty five) Voting Organizing Group members spread over 18 (eighteen) districts, 107 (one hundred seven) sub districts and 4,805 (four thousand eight hundred and five) polling stations throughout Palembang during the 2019 Concurrent Election. The figures show that the structure formed at the lowest level is quite large and managed by only 3 (three) members of Voting Committee per sub district. Since the Voting Organizing Groups inauguration was held only one week prior to the election, the limited time did not give adequate condition to create a good climate for cooperation to the levels above, and certainly not an ideal condition for establishing good coordination and communication relationships, especially with the composition of human resources that is not balanced in terms of numbers.

Personnel competence (the ability to comprehend duties, authorities and obligations).
Although the General Election Commission has held a series of human resource capacity building activities for commissioners, the short period of time since being inaugurated along with the busy activities of the election stages has affected the control of the General Election Commission of Palembang City's Commissioner over their duties, especially for personnel who do not have an election organizer background. From the point of view of election organizers at the ad hoc level, the results of the research show that the technical guidance held for ad hoc bodies, especially at the lowest level, was not good enough in terms of quantity and quality, which greatly affects the competence of election administrators. Technical course modules mainly focus on updating voter list, election administration procedures and filling administrative forms.
The research analysis shows that the incompatible stages between forming an ad hoc body and the end of the commissioner's term of office resulted in a lack of time to develop a good communication relationship, since both parties only had three months to interact before the election. The hectic electoral stage activities also did not provide room to develop more intense interpersonal interactions, especially at the KPPS level with the largest number of human resources who were just inaugurated a week before the election. Harmonious relationships based on trust are also difficult to build because of the influence of an element of interest in the recruitment of ad hoc bodies.
An understanding of the duties, authorities and obligations within the organization is very important, especially for election organizers with hectic work stages in an pressing period of time. The research showed that the factors as mentioned above caused inconsistencies in carrying out the following tasks below: 1. In handling the shortage of ballot in Ilir Timur II Subdistrict at the time of the 2019 Concurrent Election, the research show that the mechanism for handling ballot shortages is not fully understood by the ad hoc agency and is not properly resolved by the General Election Commission of Palembang City; 2. The post-special election implementation mechanism (ballot shortage) and the handling of Election Supervisory Agency recommendations, the study show that ad hoc bodies did not fully understand the mechanisms for handling extraordinary incidents and how to follow-up to Panwascam's recommendations, which are also not properly addressed to the General Election Commission of Palembang City.

External Conflict between General Election Commission of Palembang City and Election Supervisory Agency of Palembang City
Analysis of the conflict between the two institutions is carried out with the perspective of interdepartmental conflict (Berkovitch, 1983). Berkovitch states that Interdepartmental Conflict is triggered by differences in structure, objectives, specializations, and all things related to the characteristics of the department / organization which in their interactions with other departments / organizations can lead to conflict. Rahim (2001) use the term intergroup conflict which refers to incompatibilities or disagreements between two or more divisions, departments, or subsystems in relation to tasks, information, and so on. The use of this approach is based on the position of the General Election Commission and Election Supervisory Agency as fellow election organizers, both refering to the same laws and regulations, namely Law No.7 of 2017 concerning General Elections. The law states that the General Election Commission, Election Supervisory Agency and Election Organizer Ethics Council have a unitary function to hold general elections. This unity of functions then makes the distinctive relationship between the three of them, especially between the General Election Commission and Election Supervisory Agency as two institutions whose main tasks are intersecting each other.
General Election Commission and Election Supervisory Agency as two institutions that jointly carry out the stages of election administration have a taskdependency relationship where each party cannot carry out its duties and functions properly without the involvement of the other party. Berkovitch (1983) stated that interdependence can actually produce collaboration, but on the other hand it can also be a source of conflict.
The analysis of the research results shows that the external conflict between the General Election Commission of Palembang City and the Election Supervisory Agency of Palembang City is basically caused by the following things: 1) The difference in interpreting the procedures / provisions and mechanisms for implementing the continuation of electoral process. Though it is based on the same Law, the lack of derivative regulations regarding the continuation of electoral process mechanism causes different interpretations between the General Election Commission of Palembang City and the Election Supervisory Agency of Palembang City regarding the continuation of electoral process; 2) Different perspective about suffrage protection. The research showed that both institutions have their own way on interpreting the protection of the right to vote. This disagreement raises debate about voting as right and not obligation and limitation to suffrage protection, especially for people who have declared themselves unwilling to vote; 3) Different perspective of the Statement Letter, the existence of the Statement Letter which was originally intended as evidence that the election was running smoothly and therefore no need to held continuation of electoral process later bounced back because it was considered as an act of mobilizing KPPS and citizens to not carry out continuation of electoral process and at the same time, closing access to use their voting rights; 4) Differences perspective on how to follow-up of Election Supervisory Agency's recommendations. For General Election Commisson of Palembang City, the recommendations were already followed up by doing clarification and identification of voting stations, and also the implementation of the continuation of electoral process. But the decision to reduced the number of voting stations less than recommended which lead to an election crime lawsuit, has rise to the impression that the Election Supervisory Agency recommendation is mandatory for compliance; 5) Personal conflicts and intervention from election participants. From interview with Chairperson of the Palembang City General Election Commission in the 2019 Concurrent Election, he revealed that he received political pressure from certain groups who wanted to change the election results, and therefore urge to held re-election. This has led to allegations of Election Supervisory Agency as a political tool and further exacerbated the conflict between the two. Berkovitch (1983) explained that recognition of the sources and characteristics of conflict plays an important role in determining the conflict management method that should be used, where the source and type of conflict will determine the different conflict management methods. Conflict management methods for interpersonal conflict according to Berkovitch (1983) divided into 5 (five) methods namely withdrawal, smoothing, compromise, forcing and problem solving. As for interdepartmental conflicts, Berkovitch (1983) also distinguishes conflict management methods into 5 (five) methods, namely avoidance, institutionalization (seeking legal certainty through a higher institution), rules and procedures (establishing new rules and procedures), bargaining, mediation / arbitration ( appoint a third party to mediate / arbitrate). The results showed that the General Election Commission of Palembang City adopted a different approach in dealing with conflicts with ad hoc agencies. The General Election Commission of Palembang City used its authority as an institution with a higher structural hierarchy to force (forcing) PPK Ilir Timur II to just accept what had been stipulated. Meanwhile, for KPPS that refused to hold further elections, the General Election Commission of Palembang City took an act of neglect and instead provided access by receiving a Statement Letter so that the conflict management method used by the General Election Commission of Palembang City against KPPS was withdrawal.

Conflict Management Applied by General Election Commission of Palembang City
A formal legal approach through legal channels through higher institutions (institutionalization) is used in dealing with conflicts with the Election Supervisory Agency of Palembang City. As the defendant, the General Election Commission of Palembang City actually did not have any other choice but to follow the legal process, especially since the Election Supervisory Agency did not provide room for conflict resolution by other methods because it was not in accordance with the applicable violation resolution procedures.
The above conflict methods (forcing, withdrawal, and institutionalization) were not leading into a genuine conflict resolution because it is only oriented towards a winlose relationship and tends to bury the conflict without solving the root of the problem. The internal and external conflicts faced by the General Election Commission of Palembang City after the 2019 Concurrent Election finally resolved on their own by the end of the working period of election organizers at the ad hoc body level and the issuance of the sentence from the District Courts and High Courts and also the Election Organizer Council as the final verdict.
However, the research show that the parties involved in the conflicts are not fully satisfied with the resulting conflict resolution, but have no other choice but to accept what has been determined. This dissatisfaction shows that the root causes of the conflict have not been resolved completely and the resulting conflict resolution is not a genuine solution so that without fundamental changes to the factors causing the conflict above, the potential for conflict can reoccured in the future.

CONCLUSION
The results showed that the internal conflict between the General Election Commission of Palembang City and the ad hoc agency was caused by personal and functional factors, whilst the external conflict was basically caused different perspective and also personal conflicts and intervention from election participants..
The conflict management method applied by the KPU of Palembang City in dealing with conflicts with ad hoc bodies was forcing and withdrawal. External conflict was resolved with a formal legal approach through higher institutions (institutionalization). As a win-lose conflict management method, the those methods tend to bury conflicts without solving the root of the problem because they do not guarantee genuine resolution. The conflict eventually resolved itself with the end of the election administration's tenure at the ad hoc body level and the issuance of legal sencente. However, the results of the research show that the parties involved are not fully satisfied with the resulting conflict resolution, but have no other choice but to accept what has been determined.
Based on this research, it is important to fix the causative factors above to avoid conflict reoccurred. General Election Commission needs to evaluate on commissioner's terms of office, improving election logistics supervision and technical course for election organizer, creating effective coordination, and providing more detailed derivative regulations regarding recommendation follow up, the mechanism for implementing further elections, shifting and fulfilling the shortage of ballot, and also handling extraordinary incidents during the election. It is important to formulate rigid regulation, enhance the competence of election organizer, develop check and balance coordination, and to synergize as fellow election organizer to avoid conflict reoccurrence in the future.