Dialog or monolog?

The present general election, so it has been said, will be of a better quality than previous ones, particularly because the campaigning will be done through dialog. There would be no more mobilization of crowds to take part in campaigning parades, which drew much criticism in the past, mainly because of its potential in creating disturbance.

Our field observations, however, show that so far there has been little dialog in the campaign. Monologs have so far been the dominant pattern of communication instead. Many people who went to campaign gatherings in the hope of being able to hold a dialog with leaders whom they respect, such as cabinet ministers, often went home disappointed because those leaders failed to show up. Those who did take the platform spent most of their time giving a monolog.

This tendency to give monologs is even more conspicuous on television -- the most effective medium for dialog or public debate. Curiously, neither dialogs or public debates are conducted on television, whose reach is nationwide. In the rare instance that something close to a dialog is seen, spontaneity is often lacking and the discussion appears to follow a strict scenario, as in a soap opera.

Security considerations are reported to be behind this reluctance to hold dialogs or public debates on television. Assuming that this is correct, a question arises: Who is it that must be protected by security? Any legislative candidates who are afraid to engage in dialog with people had better withdraw their candidacy.

-- Media Indonesia, Jakarta