Experts doubtful of indoor pool campaign
By Haryoso
SEMARANG (JP): Two political analysts have welcomed the proposal to move election campaigns indoors for security and public order reasons, but they doubt whether the move will be effective in enhancing communication between the parties and voters if it is adopted next year.
Despite describing dialog campaigning as an idea whose time has come because it encourages communication, Riswandha Imawan of Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta said it should not be adopted in the 1997 election because of a lack of preparation,
"There isn't much time left for the preparation," Riswandha told The Jakarta Post. "If the election contestants are forced to accept the idea, Golkar will be accused of forcing its will on the other two contestants as the scheme would work to its advantage."
Soehardjo S.S., a political professor at Semarang's Diponegoro University, suggested that a mixture of outdoor mass rallies and indoor dialogs would be the best solution for next year's election campaigns.
In the regions, people still regard the campaign period as a "party time" held once every five years, he said.
President Soeharto has commissioned the National Council for Defense and Security to come up with methods of campaigning that are less likely to lead to the security disturbances and disorderliness normally associated with outdoor mass rallies.
Soeharto asked the council to draft the election campaign regulations in time for the campaign period which is slated for a month beginning at the end of April.
Election campaigns in 1992 were dominated by mass rallies held outdoors, sometimes involving long motorcades taking the campaigners and their supporters to the venues. TV ads were also employed in a limited way but they were not deemed effective in communicating with voters.
Golkar, vying for an even bigger landslide victory than the 68 percent of the vote it won in 1992, has suggested that the mass rallies be replaced by indoor dialogs, allowing candidates to meet and discuss various issues with potential voters.
Golkar has stressed that these gatherings are preferable to a forum where representatives of the three contestants are put in one room to debate election issues before a large crowd.
The United Development Party (PPP) and the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) have not objected to the call for a more orderly campaign.
Both Riswandha and Soehardjo said there are limits to the effectiveness of dialogs as proposed by Golkar.
Riswandha said that for a dialog to be effective, the speaker and the audience must be on the same wave length. A professor, he said, would not necessarily be able to communicate his ideas clearly if he was speaking to a poorly-educated audience, he suggested.
In short, he said, the audience in an election dialog campaign must possess sufficient intellect to receive and digest the information given by the campaigners.
Riswandha said that dialogs would be more effective in big cities than in villages.
He also doubted that these dialogs would immediately lead to effective two-way communications between the campaigners and their audience.
"These people have long been isolated from the political and decision-making processes. You can't expect them to suddenly turn active. These things take time," he said.
Riswandha also warned that while Golkar could mobilize people to attend its dialogs, PPP and PDI will have a harder time because people are afraid of being accused of supporting the two minority parties if they turn up at their dialogs.
"If I go to PPP or PDI dialogs, I would immediately be branded a supporter," he said.
While arguing that the campaign period should be equally divided between outdoor rallies and indoor meetings, Soehardjo said the campaign themes for outdoor rallies should be scrutinized so that they do not incite the participants.
"They should not become unsolicited free-speech forums," he said.
Soehardjo also suggested that debates, allowing election contestants to address the same crowd, rather than dialogs should be introduced.