Trying to make sense of Indonesia's presidential dialog

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.