By: Ahver Latuconsina) *
After the first presidential election debate, various public responses continued to roll. Even after the debate has succeeded in giving rise to many public responses both positive and negative. On the other hand there are many assumptions if the results of the debate will influence the public’s choice of the presidential candidate. Debates are indeed not like volleyball games that have clear parameters, so they can be objectively glimpsed. In volleyball games, of course anyone can see which team is superior by just watching the scoreboard.
More than that, the debate is an arena for political education so that voters understand what the vision – mission, work program and strategies will be used to achieve all of their noble ideals. In the case of different activities such as candidate debates also have electoral functions for each candidate, to convince voters who have not made their choice. The Indonesian Survey Circle (LSI) Denny JA, conducted its analysis of the public response to the first round of the presidential debate. LSI researcher Adjie Alfaraby explained that based on the perception of public judgment, in the first debate, the Jokowi – Ma’ruf pair was as much as 54.8% while for the Prabowo pair – the password was 31%.
These results are reaffirmed based on perceptions of public assessment, because they generally have their own choices. LSI notes that in the context of the first debate there are 5 dimensions that are used in the assessment indicators. The first dimension is related to ability in communication. In this case, Alfaraby said that if Jokowi – Ma’ruf excelled with 39.4% and the Prabowo Pair – Password was 33.7%. While related to the material mastery dimension, the Jokowi – Ma’ruf pair was superior at 37.7% while the Prabowo – Sandi pair was 31.2%.
The third dimension is related to the work program, the perception of the superiority of Jokowi-Ma’ruf is more powerful by 45.2% compared to the Prabowo-Sandi pair which is only 26.2%. Only in the dimension of compactness and complementarity, Prabowo’s partner – the password is superior by 46.0% while the Jokowi Ma’ruf pair is superior by 30.6%. And the last is related to the dimension of strong perceptions of leadership. In this case LSI noted that the Jokowi – Ma’ruf pair was back ahead at 39.4%. And conversely the pair Prabowo – Sandiaga is superior at 34.9%
In assessing this dimension, the Jokowi – Ma’ruf pair won 5-1 from the Prabowo pair – Sandi. The survey uses a multistage random sampling methodology. With the initial number of respondents 1200 respondents. With the face-to-face interview technique respondents use questionnaires with a margin of error of 2.8 percent. In the initial debate it appears that in general, what was conveyed by Prabowo only shows the chaos of the data and the inconsistencies he has.
The public certainly can see and hear when what is delivered by Prabowo is not in accordance with the actual facts. For example, a statement stating that Central Java is bigger than Malaysia, this error is certainly quite fatal. In addition, in the first round of the Presidential Election debate, Prabowo seemed unprepared in answering a number of questions from Jokowi. Prabowo’s attitude – The password on the debate stage was also assessed only to look for the gimick sensation that was done.
When Prabowo was given the opportunity to answer, he immediately appeared to show emotion and immediately answered the question, even though at that time Joko Widodo had not finished explaining the questions. During the debate, Prabowo also did not show the substance of the theme presented in relation to Law, Human Rights Corruption and Terrorism. At that time Prabowo provided a solution by increasing the salary of bureaucrats, of course this answer was not substantive. Because the issue of corruption is a mental problem. In fact, even high-paying officials were also not affected by the KPK’s arrest operations. This certainly hurts the people, because officials are there to serve and do not seek wealth for themselves.
Whereas the incumbent proved to be calm but also able to be offensive, his questions were raised so sharply that Prabowo was emotional. So that Jokowi can really master the atmosphere, with him knowing when to attack and when to calm down. And proven emotions can be controlled and do not need to arrive at the action of massage to relieve emotions. As an incumbent, Jokowi certainly has its own advantages, this is because Jokowi’s incumbent has mastered numbers and data. And also very understand the actual conditions in the community.
number 02 also made a blunder when Prabowo claimed that his party had the most female candidates. Prabowo also stated that Gerindra had 40% of female candidates. However, based on data from the KPU, it is true what is said that Gerindra has almost 40% of female candidates. However, for the DPR RI the percentage is not achieved by Gerindra but PKPI (Indonesian Justice and Unity Party). In addition, when Jokowi explained that former corruption prisoners were made candidates, Prabowo had time to cut and answer him even though it was not the time for him to express his opinion.
Ira Koesno, the moderator of the Presidential Candidate debate firmly immediately reprimanded, “Not May”. The audience also laughed for a moment because Jokowi’s time was still there. Even though Prabowo always talks about food but is more about rhetorical aspects, Jokowi speaks based on real experience. It even brings a breakthrough in building energy sovereignty.
Jokowi is considered to have given more concrete examples. This is reasonable because as a potential incumbent he also often gets reports from his subordinates. He also knows the reality that is right in many regions. Jokowi’s good fortune has been used well, so Jokowi can provide a shot and can be used to attack his political opponents during the initial debate he has been running.
) * The author is a student at Unpatti University