While becoming election landmarks, debates leave voters unmoved

Wimar Witoelar , Jakarta | Tue, 07/07/2009 10:00 AM | Headlines

Now that the campaign is subsiding, pundits and political scientists will study the official presidential and vice presidential debates for a long time. Did the three presidential debates and the two vice presidential debates change voters’ minds?

Probably not, as not much substance was put forward in the debates. The candidates are not people who have had much practice debating. Megawati Soekarnoputri never had to debate as silence is her most effective political weapon. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono does not debate, he courts people with politeness and presence. Jusuf Kalla attempts to debate, but his forte is making deals based on shared interests.

The 2009 Presidential televised debates were formal contests with rules as strict as Wimbledon tennis. No shouting during rallies, stay within the limits of good behavior. So between the lackluster styles of the candidates and the tightly designed format of the debate, not much spontaneity managed to seep through.

If there was any candor and human reaction, it was during the closing moments of the engagements and during commercial breaks. One friendly putdown in the style of Bentsen vs. Quayle in the 1982 US Presidential Debate amused viewers in the last part of the second presidential debate.

Ex-President Megawati pointed out that Jusuf Kalla served under her in the cabinet, and Kalla quickly chimed in: “My work was okay, wasn’t it?” The camera cut to Megawati’s face, which showed surprise. After a perfectly staged rumination, Megawati used her best aristocratic style to deliver a classic verdict: “Well, no.”

Whatever the virtue of that debate, television viewers delighted at the spontaneous moment that came as a welcome sprinkle of fresh water in a long, dry debate. A more substantial moment came toward the end of the last debate when Jusuf Kalla chided SBY for a campaign ad exhorting a single-stage election, alluding to a strong majority win by the SBY-Boediono ticket. Kalla said that was not a friendly ad, and SBY simply said, “That is not our ad”. Kalla jumped in like a fighter pinning his opponent to the ropes. “So you say that ad is illegal?” The exchange was brought to a tie by SBY just looking at Kalla with an expression close to disdain.

Soundbytes aside, the content of the debates left voters unmoved. People hear what they want to hear, in the unavoidable process of selective cognition. Yet even in this sense the debates was not without merit. The impression that voters heard and saw from their candidates of choice reinforces the known characters of these familiar public figures.

In a sense, this counteracts the disorientation many had felt in this tumultuous election process with almost 50 parties and hundreds of thousands of candidates in the legislative election. After the dizzying profusion of names, it was comforting to settle down with names who had captured most of their votes up even before the presidential campaign started.

While the candidates in the debates left no room for speculation, there was excitement over the anticipated performances of the moderators. In a reflection of low confidence in television presenters, the moderators were not Indonesian counterparts of Jim Lehrer or Tom Brokaw or Gwen Ifill, Bob Schieffer, all heavyweight media figures.

Instead, the Indonesian presidential debates were moderated by academics and experts in various professions such as Anies Baswedan, Komaruddin Hidayat, economist Aviliani, Indonesian Physicians Association Chairman Fachmi Idris and Dean Pratikno of Gadjah Mada University.

However, their impressive credentials did not shield them from the critical comments of bloggers and television commentators.

The mature criticism from viewers was in fact the most striking feature of the debate. Not many were impressed by the candidates’ performance. Even less strong was a favorable consensus on the moderators’ effectiveness. In many reviews the blame shifts to the debate format designed by the election commission. There was widespread criticism of the unseemliness of commercial breaks in the middle of serious debate.

Nothing has been evident in the polls that the debates had any impact on voter preferences. Since the presidential tickets were announced, the three candidates stayed in the same relative positions throughout the campaign.

The frontrunner weakened slightly over time and the third place candidate strengthened a bit while the middle candidate stayed in the middle. Independent political analyst Hayat Mansur attributes this stable constellation to the captive nature of each candidate’s constituency. Mansur adds campaign issues have nothing to do with the way traditional constituencies vote.

However, having said this, the debates are popular and even useful, and they may remain as a fixture in the brand-new tradition of presidential elections. They give people a chance to see the candidates up close and personal, displayed in comparison like different mobile phone brand, knowing fully that you would never switch brand loyalty.

The debates give the public a good feel of the standard of intellect of top public officials in the land. This may encourage skepticism and even contempt for the quality of our leaders. But the flipside is that it invites confidence of young people who feel that they could do well in the standard of competence required for public office. This bodes well for political development in the future.

The nation sorely needs a fresh pool of talent for political leadership positions. This will come from individuals coming forth proactively and those recruited by political parties and institutions such as activist groups, thinktanks and educational institutions.

In the post-pioneer generation, democratic institutions play an important role, and election campaigns set the tone. Campaign issues like neoliberalism came and went in the rhetoric flows of the campaign, racist accusations are flung in all directions and towards voting day desperate efforts are made to arouse emotions on voter registration. But we hope mudslinging and dirty tricks will not embed themselves in the Indonesian political tradition, while debates and decency will move the nation closer to her dreams of democracy.


The writer is a public relations consultant with InterMatrix Communications and the host of “WIMAR Live”, a public affairs talk show on Metro-TV.