The Narrative Rationality of Power
There were interesting things in the speech given by Barack Obama, the 44th US president, when he campaigned to support a Democratic Party gubernatorial candidate in New Jersey and Virginia, on Oct. 19, 2017. Part of the interesting speech, which became an impressive political message, related to the current situation in the US, which is colored by sharp polarization in the community - an impact of the US presidential election won by Donald Trump.
"If you have to win a campaign by dividing people, you\'re not going to be able to govern them. You won’t be able to unite them later if that’s how you start." This is a piece of Obama\'s speech, which is interesting to discuss in the context of the phenomenon of electoral contests that often become a "horrible procedural ritual" because they frequently justify any means to obtain or maintain power.
Political responsibility
In our eyes, the political agenda comes one after the other. After the Jakarta gubernatorial elections, which was energy-draining because it was tainted in various ways that tended to hurt the spirit of being us, now a contest is to be held again in 171 regions. The 2018 simultaneous regional elections have reheated power struggle tensions, which will reach their culmination point in 2019 when the legislative and presidential elections are held concurrently.
Persuasive narrative in campaigns, political publicity and propaganda will again brightly color the various channels of the citizens. There is nothing wrong with persuasion, but it must be continuously reminded that the campaigns, propaganda and political publicity used by anybody who wants to compete in the power struggle, have to be taken into account in that person’s political responsibility in the future. Don\'t let the persuasive narrative intentionally burn down the great house of Indonesia, a place of diversity, and cause political retrogression of nationality due to a lust for sectarian power.
Referring to the views of Michael Pfau and Roxanne Parrot in Persuasive Communication Campaign (1993), a campaign is a conscious, gradual and sustainable process that is carried out over a period of time with the aim of influencing a defined target audience. From the construction of the meaning of campaign, it is clear that every action of the campaign is a communication which has an objective, is conscious and is designed!
In the name of branding, positioning and segmenting in political marketing, candidates and their teams frequently move to the extreme poles, which endangers unity with the aim of getting a "place" by exploiting social primordial networks. Moreover, the candidates get mathematical-political justification from their political consultants that the segments being exploited are based on social networks, and that political mobilization in the name of civic engagement gives abundant electoral incentives. As a fighting strategy, it can be effective, but destructive for the democracy consolidation process at present and in the future.
Indeed it is true that any candidate needs to penetrate voter groups persuasively. In the approach of the SocialJudgement Theory, developed by Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn Sherif as quoted by Richard M. Perloff in his book, The Dynamics of Persuasion(2003), the audiences being persuaded are in three zones. First, the latitude of acceptance -candidates are accepted and tolerated. Second, the latitude of rejection–the individual resists or opposes the position of a candidate. Third, the latitude of noncommitment, where the candidates are not accepted, but also not rejected.
In order to get a place and the acceptance of the audience, many candidates finally fall into political strategies which intentionally divide the people, even though they frequently display dramatics on the stage that they are pro-diversity. If the effectiveness of the use of SARA (Ethnicity, Religion, Race and Intergroups) issues in the electoral contest gets media coverage and resonance in social media, and is later replicated in many regions where the regional elections will be held in 2018, and is then continued with the presidential elections in 2019, it is natural that an alarm has to be sounded now!
Winners\' narrative
Each candidate who wins a contest will be confronted with the same reality: having to fulfil their campaign promises. Anies Baswedan-Sandiaga Unoin Jakarta will be scrutinized everyday by all Jakarta residents.So too will Joko “Jokowi” Widodo and Jusuf Kalla, whom the Indonesian people will ask to honor every promise made during the 2014 presidential election campaign. A theorist of narrative paradigm, Walter Fisher, in his book Human Communication asNarration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value and Action (1987), wrote about the importance of building narrative rationality. For him, not all narrative has the same power to be trusted. He identified two principles in narrative rationality, namely coherence and fidelity. The narrative itself is interpreted as a symbolic action of words and/or action which has a sequence and meaning for anyone who lives, creates or gives interpretation.
The winning candidates have a tough task to present continuity of the narrative during their campaign with their actions when in power. Whether they turn their words into reality, or simply use campaign promises as a "spell" to spread charm which then loses substantial meaning. Coherence will arise when the winners as communicators build and develop narratives that can be presented rationally and consistently. An example is the narrative of Anies and Sandi who, during their campaign, clearly and strictly opposed reclamation. Will the narrative after winning remain clear, coherent and consistent like during the campaign? Also, does Jokowi’s mental revolution narrative, with his Nawacita programs, still have material, structural and characteristic coherence or not?
Structural coherence rests on the level at which elements of narrative flow smoothly, their red threads can be felt by the people. Material coherence refers to the level of congruence between one narrative and other related ones. More paradoxes will lead to the potential not to be trusted. Characteristic coherence refers to whether characters can be trusted in their narrative. During campaigns, candidates may temporarily surround themselves with good images on the stage. However, when they rule and exercise power, their leadership characters will shape their political reputation.
Another important thing in narrative rationality is the truth factor (fidelity), which is the reliability in a narrative. That is, a narrative is considered true when elements of the narrative represent accurate statements about social reality. No matter how good the words spoken, and how beautiful the diction used, if it is not proven in reality, it will cause a weakening and mistrust of that narrative in the future.
Power narrative frequently loses its narrative rationality. It is not easy to realize campaign promises that require the participation of various parties. It will be more difficult if the narrative built at the time to gain power divides the people, and there is no adequate commitment to re-unite them, as described by Obama as happening in the US now.
GUN GUN HERYANTO
Executive Director of The Political Literacy Institute and Political Communication Lecturer of UIN Jakarta