Why many presidential candidates are doomed to failure<\/p>\n
Ong Hock Chuan
\nPartner
\nPT Maverick Solusi Komunikasi
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
The good news in the 2004 presidential elections is that many
\npoliticians have woken up to the fact that they have to be more
\nsavvy in managing their public image because Indonesia is, in
\nspite of all its imperfections, a thriving democracy where public
\nopinion matters.<\/p>\n
As a result, politicians have been busily inviting public
\nrelations consultants to pitch for handling their campaign
\ncommunications. The more forward-thinking ones have already
\nappointed their image gurus.<\/p>\n
The bad news, however, is that very few of them will be
\nsuccessful in translating their realization of the need for a
\nmodern, sophisticated electoral campaign into reality. As a
\nresult, all they will have achieved once the final votes have
\nbeen tallied is a humiliating electoral defeat and a huge hole in
\ntheir considerable wallets.<\/p>\n
There are many reasons that contribute to an ineffective
\nelectoral campaign but my experience has been that the main one
\nis because these politicians are surrounded by unprofessional
\naides and advisors, who are not as interested in seeing their
\nleader win as in lining their own pockets.<\/p>\n
For instance, a public relations consultancy I know of was
\nrecently appointed by a very prominent politician to help him
\nspruce up his image. The politician was extraordinary because he
\nwas honest about his own shortcomings. He knew that he came
\nacross as lackluster because of a very poor public speaking
\nstyle. He wanted to improve himself and his electoral chances by
\nbeing coached on a more effective style of delivery.<\/p>\n
Like most people in his position, he left it to his advisors
\nto appoint the consultancy and work out the financial
\narrangements. They, of course, asked for hefty commissions. One
\nof the advisors was his own close relative but even he was
\nlooking out for Number One instead of his boss.<\/p>\n
Up close, the consultants observed that it was a hopeless
\nsituation. His advisors were constantly making recommendations to
\nhim of measures ostensibly to benefit him but in reality to line
\ntheir pockets. Thus, several hagiographic pieces were published
\nabout him that were badly written and presented in such a way as
\nto contain not a shred of credibility. In spite of this, however,
\nthousands of copies of the books were printed and handed out free
\nto all and sundry.<\/p>\n
His relative owned an \"advertising agency\" that makes its
\nmoney producing banners and designing and placing newspaper
\nadvertisements. So guess what his recommendations to improve the
\npolitician's image consisted of?<\/p>\n
With money being the driving factor, such communications
\ncampaigns are usually devoid of strategy but full of banners,
\nadvertisements, posters and other collateral that send out mixed
\nmessages.<\/p>\n
If politicians are serious about mounting an effective
\nelectoral campaign they should take their communications
\nseriously. They should not allow their dubious underlings to
\nadvise and handle the campaign communications. They should roll
\nup their sleeves and find a communications advisor themselves.<\/p>\n
If they are lucky enough to find one that knows what he or she
\nis doing then they should treat them as a partner and listen to
\ntheir advice closely. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's working
\nrelationship with his communications director, Alistair Campbell,
\nfor example, took him to Downing Street and helped him win the
\nhearts and minds of many Britons.<\/p>\n
Communications advisors worth their salt will set about
\nbringing focus to the campaign. The problem with the campaigns of
\nmany politicians is that they lack focus. As a result, no one is
\nreally sure what they stand for or what their vision for the
\ncountry might be. In moments of confusion, as in Indonesia,
\npeople want to see a leader, someone with vision, someone who can
\ntake charge, someone who inspires confidence and trust.<\/p>\n
It may sound Machiavellian, but a good public relations
\npractitioner can go a long way to helping create the perception
\nof such attributes in a politician, provided that the politician
\nis willing to listen and act on the advice. But while the public
\nrelations person can help package politicians, they are still
\nlimited by two major factors: Time, and the caliber of the
\ncandidates themselves.<\/p>\n
As to the former, no matter how brilliant the campaign
\ncommunications strategy might be, it takes time to build an
\nimage. Some things cannot be hurried or they begin to ring
\nhollow. Presidential candidate Amien Rais, for example, gets full
\nmarks for trying to build his appeal to a younger audience, but
\nhanging out with Slank and singing one of their songs? Eek!<\/p>\n
As to the latter, the plain truth is that many of the
\npresidential candidates are made of poor stuff. At best they are
\ndevoid of charisma; at worst they are not even likable. No amount
\nof image massaging and packaging is going to help them. The best
\nthing is for them to stare truth in the face and save themselves
\na lot of angst and money by withdrawing gracefully.<\/p>\n
Refusal would mean resorting to spin doctoring which, as any
\nrespectable PR practitioner will attest to, is the last resort of
\nthe desperate trying to sell the unsellable. It convinces no one
\nand simply gives the remaining communications consultants a bad
\nname.<\/p>\n
Maverick is a PR consultancy specializing in issues and crisis
\nmanagement as well as brand strategy.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/why-many-presidential-candidates-are-doomed-to-failure-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}