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.