Will Televised Public Dialogues in Indonesia Have Any Impact on Voters' Decisions?

Producer: Bharati Jagdish
First broadcast: 8 June 04, Radio Singapore International

As Indonesia braces itself for its first direct presidential election, due to take place on the 5th of July, the election commission has decided to schedule televised public dialogues instead of political debates.

The dialogues will involve campaign teams, civic groups and academics.

Through the dialogues, political candidates will be able to convey their political missions and programmes to the public.

This is seen as the beginning of the process of political education in Indonesia so that voters, who traditionally cast their votes based on candidates' charisma and cultural identity, can make more informed decisions.

But why has the election commission opted for public dialogues instead of political debates which usually give voters a chance to compare candidates' strengths and weaknesses?

Bharati Jagdish (BJ) put this to Dr Arief Budiman (AB), Head of the Indonesian Studies Department at the University of Melbourne.

AB: "Actually, political debates on television will be more useful for Indonesians, but in Indonesia we have to be mindful of cultural issues such as not openly insulting or discrediting someone to his face and this will inevitably happen during a political debate. So political debates are being considered as having the potential to be harsh or ugly to a certain extent. A political dialogue in which the candidate explains his or her political mission and programme is thought to be better because it would avoid open confrontations between candidates. Also, there may have been some objections to political debates by candidates like Megawati Sukarnoputri who may not be very adept at public debates. She is a quiet person who doesn't really articulate her ideas very well, so she may not be too fond of political debates. But I think the main thing is that political debates are not yet part of the culture of Indonesian politics at the moment."

BJ: You said earlier that political debates would actually be more useful than public dialogues? Why exactly is this so?

AB: "Yes, because in political debates, when candidates are pitted against each other, they will be forced to address their weaknesses openly. But during a political dialogue, the candidates can just choose to articulate only the positive aspects of their personality and capability. During a debate, your opponent will naturally bring up your weaknesses and that is good for the process of political awareness. The public can then make a more objective decision based on a debate where both the bad and the good points of each candidate will inevitable come to the fore."

BJ: Now, analysts and people on the ground say that generally, people vote based on the candidate's personal charisma and cultural identity, so would televised public dialogues which discuss political visions and programmes have much of an impact on the voters' psyche and ultimate decision?

AB: "Yes, there is some impact on the educated voters in the big cities, but I think in the village where the majority of the voters are, the impact will be small, because they vote based on the personality and cultural identity of the candidate, not on the political capabilities of the candidate. For example, people who have been followers of Sukarno will vote for Megawati just because she is his daughter. Followers of Nadhlatul Ulama will vote for Hasyim Muzadi and Megawati no matter what their political programme is."

BJ: But what about political education for the voters - to help them understand the process of democracy and the importance of political programmes in the election process?

AB: "We have to move in that direction, but it will take a long time because the majority of Indonesians are in the villages and have different perceptions. Among the educated people, there is an awareness of a need for political education, but I can't see this education taking hold of all Indonesians within the next ten or twenty years."

BJ: Analysts say these televised public dialogues would be some sort of a beginning of the political education process. Would you agree?

BJ: What is the level of political awareness amongst the majority of Indonesians?

AB: "In general, none of the decisions are very informed. I spoke to some rural folk in Central Java and Megawati was there at the time and she was holding a political rally. People turned up in droves but were not interested in her political platform. They just believe that if they attend the rally and support her during the election, they will receive blessings from the powerful Sukarno. So people attend the rally more for spiritual gain rather than for understanding Megawati's speech."

BJ: What are the techniques that need to be adopted in order to drive the process of political education?

AB: "I think we need to have more political discussions on campuses and grassroots associations and talk about the electoral process."

BJ: And in the villages? Can non-governmental organisations (NGOs) perhaps drive this process?

AB: "Yes, some non-governmental organisations are doing this already, but not on a large scale, because I think there are monetary concerns and they are not able to fund such programmes. I know of one such organisation in Central Java. This NGO got some foreign funding for voter education purposes. They went into the village to explain what elections really mean, who the candidates are, and demonstrated that elections are very important to the future of Indonesia and all Indonesians."