Trying to make sense of Indonesia's presidential dialog

Ivy Susanti, Jakarta

The idea behind staging a televised presidential dialog -- not a debate -- was to give voters the opportunity to learn more about the candidates' platforms, and what could be expected of them if elected president. The result of the three-day dialog may have been to boost one of the candidate's popularity, but it is too early to conclude that an increase in popularity will generate more votes.

It is assumed that the limited campaign schedule, in which the candidates were only allowed three days of campaigning prior to the election runoff on Monday, was settled on because the public is already familiar with the candidates.

However, local newspapers have hinted that the results of the dialog will not significantly sway voters. This is likely true, given the reports of the overall indifference with which much of the public greeted the dialog.

Opinion polls released before the dialog by national and international pollsters showed Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono leading incumbent Megawati Soekarnoputri, but the nagging truth is that we really have no idea of what will happen inside the voting booths.

This may lead us to conclude that the dialog merely served as a forum for the exchange of information, with the candidates giving explanations to the panelists, some of whom were handpicked by the candidates for the occasion.

Given this, why did they waste time and money briefing "uninformed" (so to speak) panelists, as well as pushing our favorite prime-time TV programs off the air?

Let's leave the panelists behind. When we ponder the dialog with sharp eyes and a critical mind, it is obvious we have been denied our right to get a better understanding of our presidential candidates through this strategic medium.

There are certainly no polls or research on what the public expected from the dialog, but we wish we could have gotten more of a look at each of the candidate's personality, to avoid making a bad choice on election day. The audio-visual nature of television certainly would have permitted this. Similarly, the candidates could have used the forum to gain the public's trust.

However, the questions and answers failed to reveal some of the important qualities that could have helped us assess the candidates, such as their consistency and ability to build political support.

Questions started with "how", or asking for "the concrete measure" of something, which took us nowhere because they only gave viewers the impression the candidates had a full understanding of "technical" matters. Many times, however, their answers belied this perception.

Eventually, the candidates' responses to these types of questions sounded like mere rhetoric, or even pretense, because they disregarded the complexity of the matter in question.

A question on the government's fuel subsidy policy was raised during the dialog on Wednesday.

Though asked by an economist, it is essentially a political- economic issue, as it illustrates the dilemma that will be faced by the next president: whether he or she will end the fuel subsidy at the risk of mass demonstrations, and perhaps social violence.

Both candidates indicated they would raise fuel prices, though one quickly added the postscript that the government would not burden the poor.

While their answers showed up in newspaper headlines the next day, we were left to puzzle out exactly how they would do it -- which is the question of the leader's strategy, such as how he or she would gain support from legislators and the media for what would be an unpopular decision. And how can we receive assurances they would take responsibility for such a decision?

Another example: questions on how to improve security were met with suggestions of strengthening cooperation and increasing the capacity of the security apparatus -- particularly intelligence units -- through the procurement of more modern hardware.

These suggestions are slightly misleading to the public. The focus of any security policy should be the general public; a strong and reliable security force is the result of sound policy.

In this regard, procuring more high-tech equipment and boosting cooperation should be viewed as tools and methods for realizing a professional security force, in order to build and maintain a safe community, which should be everyone's first and foremost concern.

Curiously, no panelist followed up by asking where the money should come from to fulfill this plan. And, of course, there was no question of accountability. Blame it on the severe time restraints imposed on the panelists, maybe.

If the presidential dialog, which was called a "fresh start for democracy in our country", fell short of convincing us of the quality of our presidential candidates, what else will do?

And, most importantly, we still have no clue about what the next president should focus on in the next five years.

The writer is a journalist at The Jakarta Post.