Significance of televised public dialogs on voter perception<\/p>\n
Muhamad Ali, Jakarta<\/p>\n
The General Elections Commission (KPU) has decided to schedule
\ntelevised public dialogs, rather than debates, for June 30 and
\nJuly 1, to provide all candidates with an opportunity to convey
\ntheir visions, missions and programs. The term dialog was
\nofficially selected to prevent "any candidates from discrediting
\nothers".<\/p>\n
The dialogs, also called joint television appearances, will be
\nheld in two parts, each of which will last 90 minutes and will be
\nbroadcast by several stations on prime-time evening television.
\nParticipants will consist of some 300 people including campaign
\nteams, KPU members, the media, civic groups, academics and
\nspecial guests, with candidates to be questioned first by a
\nselect panel.<\/p>\n
This will be the first time in Indonesian history that such
\npublic dialogs are being held officially.<\/p>\n
Within the national context, it can be argued that the dialogs
\nwill be significant in regards not only political campaigns, but
\nalso political education and democratization.<\/p>\n
U.S. scholars have debated the significance of televised
\npublic debates in that country, where the activity is part and
\nparcel of its political culture. Its detractors argue that the
\ndebates have no significant influence, because they simply
\nreinforce voters' predispositions. Instead, party affiliation,
\nparental influence, income, religion, ideology and the like are
\nconsidered more influential factors.<\/p>\n
In addition, the debates were deemed to have caused very few
\nchanges of perspective and focused more on presentation and
\ncharacter than on current issues and policy, as the format
\nallowed the candidates' appearances to be more important than the
\nsubstance of their statements.<\/p>\n
They further argued that presidents were not required to
\ndebate in office, the debates did not reveal candidates'
\nqualifications for the presidency and that personality and image
\neclipsed the discussion of issues. Other critics approach the
\ndebates as just another event, and can live with or without them.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, their proponents argue that the debates are
\nimportant and influential, and that the mass media has a great
\nimpact on the electorate. The candidate's political ideology may
\nbe conveyed to the voting public in other ways, but the most
\nprominent and enduring was through television.<\/p>\n
Public broadcasts relayed candidates' credentials, including
\npolitical platforms, characters and their ability to convey ideas
\nthrough the medium. Young voters were raised on television and
\nexpected to see candidates who could perform adequately on
\ntelevision, they said.<\/p>\n
Public debates or dialogs are primarily for television, a
\npowerful communication tool in wooing voters. Exposure to
\npolitics via television cultivates a voter's attitude toward
\nissues and candidates and thus aids in determining their vote. As
\nsuch, television offers a means to provide political education to
\nthe nation as a single community, and public dialogs can serve
\ndemocracy. In short, television could function as a vehicle of
\ndirect democracy.<\/p>\n
For candidates, the public dialogs will be important not only
\nto familiarize voters with their names and faces, but also to
\nsell their ideas, characters and performance. They feel the need
\nto be telegenic and comfortable with the electronic media, while
\nthey must also be intelligent, good communicators.<\/p>\n
According to an International Foundation for Election Systems
\n(IFES) survey conducted on June 1, personality and policies on
\nkey issues are vital rationales to sway voters in their favor.
\nMore specifically, leadership quality is the most crucial of all.<\/p>\n
The dialogs will be an important contributing factor to the
\ndemocratic process of the direct presidential election -- as a
\nplatform for political education, legitimization of the
\ndemocratic process and for presenting the national and
\ninternational credibility of a future president.<\/p>\n
They will also promote discussion about political matters
\nwithin families, schools, workplaces and communities, raise
\npolitical awareness and enhance political knowledge.<\/p>\n
In the U.S., some debates have resulted in a shift in public
\nopinion toward one candidate over another. Such a shift might
\nalso happen here as a direct result of public dialog aired on TV.<\/p>\n
The IFES survey listed the most pressing issues: reducing
\ncorruption, checking inflation, creating jobs, maintaining
\nterritorial integrity, fighting terrorism and protecting the
\nenvironment.<\/p>\n
The dialogs will serve the majority of the electorate better
\nthan any other single campaign communication tool in presenting
\nthe candidates' personalities and their stance on current issues.
\nYet, since accountability is essential to democracy, a televised
\npolitical activity should also be fair.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic
\nUniversity.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/significance-of-televised-public-dialogs-on-voter-perception-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}