Presidential tickets make no difference in dialog

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.