SINGAPORE: Indonesia’s 2024 election campaign is now at a pivotal stage: A series of five televised debates among the contenders.
Until a week before the first round took place on Dec 12, there was still confusion surrounding the debate format and rules. This confusion was primarily whether there would be a clear distinction between debates featuring the presidential candidates (three rounds) vis-a-vis the vice-presidential candidates (two rounds).
Now, the General Election Commission has decided that all candidates will be present at every round. But in the two vice presidential rounds (on Dec 22 and Jan 21), the presidential candidates will accompany their prospective running mates and while the former may speak, they cannot dominate the stage.
The inaugural debate focused on six themes: Law, human rights, governance, corruption eradication, bureaucratic reform and the fortification of democracy. Moderated by two hosts, the event featured 11 panelists comprising subject matter experts who had meticulously formulated the debate questions and were responsible for randomly picking questions for the three candidates to address.
The participants could pose selected questions to one another and there were some heated exchanges, mainly between Prabowo and Anies. However, in a display of political finesse, all three seasoned politicians adeptly navigated the harder questions without providing definitive answers.
In this author’s view, the standout performance of the night belonged to Anies Baswedan, who presented himself as a candidate advocating for change. He appeared assertive and went on the offensive early, clearly positioning himself as a catalyst for transformation.
Leveraging his intellectual background, Anies was exceptionally at ease and energetic in the debate. He skillfully incorporated data to bolster his arguments. By making “change” the central theme and mission of his campaign, Anies strategically drew a sharp contrast between himself and President Jokowi’s administration, establishing himself as a formidable opposition figure.
On the flip side, Prabowo Subianto appeared defensive, particularly when addressing his first question on past human rights violations in Papua and Anies’ challenge to him on the Constitutional Court’s decision allowing Gibran to run as a vice-presidential contender.
Answering the charge that he was behind the kidnappings of pro-democracy activists in 1997-98, Prabowo countered that those problems had already been resolved. He bluntly asserted that even democracy activists who were once victims of kidnappings now supported him. An activist who was imprisoned during the New Order era, Budiman Sudjatmiko, former head of the leftist People’s Democratic Party, visibly endorsed Prabowo by raising his hand from the audience stand at that point.
Ganjar Pranowo assumed a middle ground and appeared somewhat uncertain about his stance, while avoiding drawing sharp contrasts with Jokowi. Ganjar’s positioning, seemingly vying for the role of Jokowi’s successor against Prabowo, might prove risky in the election. Ganjar’s debate performance lacked memorable moments even though he seemed at ease and confident, as it left voters with little to recall.
Prabowo and Anies undeniably commanded the stage. When Anies further probed Prabowo’s human rights record, it revealed Prabowo’s quick temper and tendency to condescend. Near the end of the debate, Prabowo defiantly declared he did not fear losing power. To the audience’s (albeit mainly his supporters) delight, he mocked Anies at least twice by shaking his head when addressing him, and even engaging in a gesture from his "goyang gemoy" dance.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar