Candidates lack communications skills

Ong Hock Chuan, Jakarta

What is apparent from the debates of the presidential candidates and their running mates on Wednesday and Thursday night is that most of them still don't seem to "get it" when it comes to communicating effectively to a TV-plugged-in audience.

The "it" that the politicians do not get is that Indonesia has changed. Like it or not, Indonesia now has free media, which includes dozens of TV stations. In such an environment performance is as important, if not more so, as reality. The backdoor wheeling and dealing that they have been so good at is now as stale as yesterday's newspapers.

In an age where media images and impressions shape perceptions with unprecedented power, politicians have to realize that their biggest enemy is not their political rivals but themselves and the information clutter that comes with the times.

To be successful, these politicians must cut through the clutter with performances that are both convincing and memorable. In the free democracy that Indonesia is today they have to court and win over public opinion if they want the presidential job and want to be able to do well while in office. In short, they have to be excellent performers before the camera.

The good news is that it is possible, with some training, for politicians to master the communications skills with which they can cut through the clutter. The bad news is that almost all of the presidential candidates have yet to learn about the good news.

The candidates' performances at the presidential debates made this fact painfully obvious. Most people watching thought the debates a big bore, could not recall what the candidates were on about and became more convinced than ever that none of the politicians was worth voting for. But if they had to vote based on the debates then it would be Amien Rais and either Wiranto or Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

Why did the candidates come across as mediocre? Why can't most people remember what they said? Why was there a feeling that the candidates were saying nothing "concrete"? Why did they, in general, fail to inspire or win trust? The answer, from a communications point of view, was that they failed to cut through the clutter.

And boy, was there clutter! To begin with, the concept of the forum itself was a feat of muddled thinking. Was it a debate or a dialog? Everyone was expecting a debate but it was officially called a dialog. What do political contenders do in front of the TV in a dialog anyway?

Then there was the format. History instructs us that political leadership is a lonely pursuit. There is usually only one leader, -- the president or presidential candidate -- and the vice president is there only as a backup. Yet, for some inexplicable reason, this round of elections is obsessed with portraying the different contenders as Siamese twins, even positioning the presidential and vice presidential candidates side by side.

The result was yet more clutter, especially when the more articulate vice presidential candidates such as Agum Gumelar or Hasyim Muzadi outshone, and therefore undermined, the credibility of their political bosses.

There was also clutter arising from the panel of speakers, who seemed so in love with their own voices they could not frame a coherent question in the 45 seconds allotted to them.

With so much clutter most of the candidates were left to muddle through. Amien Rias performed the best of a mediocre lot. This was because he, consciously or otherwise, adhered to some basic rules of messaging.

Messaging is an important element in mass communications. It is based on studies that have shown that audiences do not remember the details of speeches or debates. All they retain, especially after a day or two, are impressions of the candidates or speakers.

Effective communications therefore is a combination of getting the content (not more than three key ideas that connect with the audience) and the delivery (which must appear convincing and memorable) right.

Here's a short rundown of how the presidential candidates stacked up in terms of their communications skills:

Amien performed best of all because his answers were short and to the point. He also used speech pauses effectively to drive home his messages.

He had a lot of facts and statistics at his command to demonstrate that he knew what he was talking about. He also used anecdotes, which are useful because they stick in the mind. His story comparing the salaries of a Shanghai oil company CEO's salary with that of his Pertamina counterpart is one of the more iconic images of the debate.

Amien's statements also argued in the best interests of his constituency -- in other words he spoke of what was important for his voters, not himself. Amien also benefited from the credibility and common-sense approach of his running mate, Siswono Yudhohusodo.

Unsurprisingly, President Megawati Soekarnoputri shot herself in the foot with her performance, which went downhill from the time she plonked her handbag in front of her rostrum, thereby making it, together with her pearl earrings and necklace, compete for attention with her.

She lost out, especially when she had to read her opening statement and kept referring to a peculiar and distracting notebook throughout the debate.

In a business in which the wisdom is you've lost the audience if you cannot make your point within 10 seconds, she could not finish her answers in the 90 seconds allotted to her, prompting her to be stopped by the presenter and eroding whatever impression of control she had left.

Like most of the speakers she made little eye contact with the audience and failed to establish rapport, giving the impression that she was mouthing meaningless "motherhood" statements.

Hamzah Haz was all at sea. Not only did he have to read from a text for his opening statement, he was clearly out of his depth with many of the questions raised, which he passed to Agum Gumelar, sometimes to the latter's surprise.

Agum was clearly sharper and more articulate than his "boss" and you can't help wondering who would be running the show if they ever got elected to office.

And then the military candidates. The most interesting was Wiranto, who appears to have been coached on his presentation skills. He was well trained, perhaps too well trained, because his performance and answers were polished, as if with military precision, and lacked the warmth of spontaneity and passion. Perhaps for this reason there was little about his performance that stood out.

Susilo was also very precise and articulate. His good looks made him a good candidate for the debate. But his performance and answers similarly failed to cut through the clutter of contending voices during the debate because, like Wiranto and most of the candidates, he did not render his ideas in a language that connected with the common man.

All things considered, however, the debate, for all its imperfections, has been a tremendous step forward for Indonesian democracy. It gives the electorate a chance to see for themselves the mettle of the candidates and make their choices accordingly.

The writer is Partner of PT Maverick Solusi Komunikasi, is a public relations consultancy that specializes in crisis and issues management, brand communications and communications training.