Presidential debate a form of education

Presidential debate a form of education

By A. Chaedar Alwasilah

BANDUNG (JP): Indonesian citizens have now been introduced to
the presidential debate, a dialog considered taboo in Indonesian
political discourse during the last three decades. As is always
the case, it is not easy to introduce an innovation, especially
when it involves national issues and concerns such as
presidential nominations. It is usual for innovators to fall
victim to public contempt and scorn. Only after years of trial
and error are people assured of the benefit of the innovation.

Among Indonesian citizens, it is university students and
proreform elements that embrace the presidential debates with
enthusiasm. Politicians and bureaucrats that support the status
quo perceive them as high-risk activities of political acrobats.
It did not come as a surprise that Golkar Party chairman, Akbar
Tanjung and chairmen of newly declared political parties declined
to join the debates. Many observers, including the general
public, wondered why Megawati Soekarnoputeri refused to attend
the debates.

Debate, according to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, is a
contention by words or arguments, or a regulated discussion of a
proposition between two matched sides. Presidential debates then,
imply arguments and counter-arguments of presidential aspirants
for or against various issues and policies on national as well as
international issues.

Such open discussions, especially when broadcast nationwide,
have significant implications for the following:

* From their arguments, candidates' familiarity with various
issues is obvious and measurable. Their impromptu reactions to
in-depth questions raised by panelists and audience members shows
the breadth and depth of their knowledge. No one is born to know
everything, yet everybody expects their future president to
possess a general opinion on a range of issues. Such schemata are
accumulative in nature and are established through reading
printed texts, listening to others' opinions, and by
participating continuously at a variety of social engagements.

* Psychologically, such debates reveal the personality of
candidates. As presidential hopefuls, they are expected to be
emotionally fully developed. Political decisions should be based
on sound and reasoned judgments, not driven by emotion. For
example, candidates who overreact to questions and challenges
definitely suggest they are not ready to listen to a staunch
critical opposition. Such candidates tend to perceive critics as
a threat to their position and interests, an attitude which is
antithetical to the essence of democracy.

* An ability to argue suggests an ability to communicate ideas
and to convince others so that they wish to buy the ideas. Such
abilities are crucial for establishing diplomatic and
international relations. Without such skills, how could leaders
convince the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the
United Nations and the world to listen to Indonesia? Sound
arguments, coupled with valid data and substantiated with
evidence, will help candidates anoint themselves as promising and
competitive candidates.

* Politically, putting in an appearance at the open debate
spotlighted the candidates, sidelining the absent candidates into
obscurity. Many people do not realize the power of television,
which in American culture places an issue or problem at the top
of the public agenda, where it can become a central factor,
influencing the public perception of the performance and
credibility of rising stars. Among the candidates, Amien Rais,
Sri Bintang Pamungkas and Yusril Ihza Mahendra stand out as the
most popular, expressive, eloquent and communicative candidates.

* The fact that most presidential candidates, legislators and
bureaucrats downplay the significance of presidential debates is
worth discussing. In the ensuing section, an attempt is made to
submit a critical analysis of the issue and its implications for
education.

* Akbar Tanjung is a model of the status quo. Psychologically,
he is not ready to be crucified with questions regarding the
current ills and problems blighting the country, simply because
he should to a great extent be held responsible for them. It is
not without reason that people perceive he is a coward evading
responsibility. And, in the eye of reformists, this is a big
minus.

* Megawati's reluctance to show up to the debate, despite her
charismatic popularity and massive support, is a message to her
followers that she cannot compare with other candidates,
especially Amien Rais, Sri Bintang Pamungkas and Ihza Mahendra.
For one thing, she lacks self-confidence and the courage to speak
up alone without her think tank minders around. People are
puzzled by a nagging question: how could she face and solve the
complicated problems of a nation, when she is not yet prepared to
argue with other candidates?

* Most political parties set for the coming elections have
problem recruiting legislators, let alone nominating a
presidential candidate. A theory exists that most new political
parties are led by novice politicians who have emerged out of
obscurity. And in the short-term, these parties are projected to
dissolve. Most people feel they exist without a vision, a
mission, or programs marketable to the public. Their leaders are
politicians that would prefer to die than engage in political
debates. This paralysis leads to a hypothesis that the emergence
of political parties has been triggered by the euphoria of
freedom of assembly and speech, rather than by well-defined
political agendas.

* We are witnessing not just a change of government but a
change of regime. It involves altering the rules of political
games, including presidential debates and has far-reaching
consequences. Indonesians are now developing a new political
discourse, a phenomenon quite unprecedented even in the recent
past. Any citizen running for the presidency should learn how to
argue in a public debate. The year 1999 proclaimed the
presidential debate as a rite of passage in Indonesian political
life. We envision more presidential campaigns are to be turned
over to high-powered professionals who advise candidates on every
detail, ranging from advising on political issues they should
tackle to the image they should project in their TV appearances.

* What does all this have to do with education? It is evident
that our education system has failed to prepare politicians to
communicate politically with the public in open debates. In other
words, they lack political communicative competence. This
competence comprises three major components. Cognitively, they
should be knowledgeable about politics, rhetorically they should
be eloquent in their communication and psychologically they
should be able to control their emotions.

* To be politicians, young students should be trained how to
participate in a debate to express opinions, to present evidence
and to defend ideas. Exposure to different ideas will broaden
students' horizons of thought and experience. Through debates,
students can become open-minded abandoning a faulty stance on
issues and learning to accept completely new ideas offered by
others. In other words, changing ideas for better solutions and
truth is not immoral at all.

* It is a fact that only presidential candidates with solid
university backgrounds welcomed the open debates with ease and
enthusiasm. This suggests at least two things. First, university
settings prove to be better places for preparing politicians.
Second, it could be inferred that to be a communicative
legislator and president one should have a college background.

* Everybody agrees that the military has played a major role
in preparing leaders of the country, from a national level to a
village one. However, from history we learn that three decades of
Soeharto's administration has brought the country to economic,
political and cultural chaos. The military, that is to say, has
failed to build strong leadership and governance within the
country. A soldier aspiring to be a president should be equipped
with academic and intellectual qualities.

* We also learn from the past that the politics of a floating
mass has resulted in a negative impact on political education in
the country. First, the people are deliberately made to perceive
that political campaigns are a matter of organizing the masses.
There are no mutual, interactive and critical dialogs between
politicians and their constituencies. Second, by design the
people were fooled about politics. Political parties were not
allowed to operate at district and village levels. During
Soeharto's regime, the people were in fact deprived of political
rights and freedom. The constituencies did not know who their
representatives were. In such a system, the representatives
answered to their party, and thus were detached from their
constituencies.

* Presidential debates are an effective form of political
education and democracy. Public and open debates create among
citizens a culture of critical thinking. Presidential debates
constitute a form of political advocacy that widens a person's
political loyalty beyond the local group to the nation as a
whole. A democratic society allows us to disagree over the
relative values of freedom and virtue, the nature of a good life
and the elements of moral character. Nevertheless, through open
debates and discussions, we share a common commitment to
collectively recreating a new Indonesia.

In the past, the presidency was a sacred and untouchable
issue; presidential debates have correctly demystified the
institution. Doors are now wide open for any Indonesian citizen
to be a political leader, legislator and even president, provided
he or she is able to communicate politically, argue soundly and
most importantly convince us he or she fights in the interest of
the people.

The writer is a lecturer at the Graduate School of the
Teachers' Training Institute in Bandung, West Java.