Presidential tickets make no difference in dialog

Muninggar Sri Saraswati, The Jakarta Post/Jakarta

The General Election Commission (KPU)-sponsored dialog has failed to live up to expectations that it would be a forum for presidential candidates to convince the public of their platforms and programs, mass communication experts said on Wednesday.

Referring to the fact that several major television channels have defied the KPU's call for a live broadcast of the dialog, the experts said the program also failed to capture public attention, let alone provide insights for voters.

"In a restricted campaign period, a debate would be more effective than a dialog. Why? Because the voters can gauge the quality of presidential candidates in a debate and judge which is the better side," Efendy Ghazali of the University of Indonesia's school of communication told The Jakarta Post.

From Tuesday through Thursday, state television TVRI and some private channels are broadcasting live the dialog between candidates Megawati Soekarnoputri-Hasyim Muzadi and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono-Jusuf Kalla and a group of selected panelists.

The KPU decided to hold the dialog after Megawati's campaign team said the KPU rules prevented a debate. Susilo had earlier challenged her to a public debate.

Effendy said the dialog failed to unveil concrete programs that could be evaluated if the candidates were elected.

"Both pairs talked about superficial things, nothing specific. If voters could not see any difference between them, I am afraid they will choose a candidate based on popularity or other personal preferences," Efendy said.

Another mass communication expert from Diponegoro University in Semarang, Turnomo Raharjo, agreed, saying the people could not determine the strength and weaknesses of the candidates.

"The media is supposedly the most effective tool to deliver the candidates message to voters while a debate is said to be the best way to raise people's awareness of a presidential campaign. It is too bad that the KPU picked a one-way communication method," he commented.

Efendy, however, blamed the campaign team of Megawati, whom he said had "underestimated their candidate".

"They made a big mistake. Megawati has shown good progress. It was clear that she is ready for any kind of debate. She could present her ideas better than she could in the first round.

She looked relaxed, and was able to smile on three occasions while Susilo, who could articulate himself well, only smiled once. This is an achievement," he said.

Megawati's campaign team's decision not to allow their candidate to go for a one-on-one debate would only confirm public suspicion that the incumbent president lacked communication skills, Efendy said.

Both Efendy and Turnomo gave credits to panelists who appeared on the first day for their ability to maintain independence.

"The dialog was saved by them. Of course, most of them are polite, but they were able to raise direct questions," Turnomo said.