Quality of Presidential Campaign

Almost without noticing, the 2019 presidential campaign is heading towards the third debate round.

The presidential debates are one of the most awaited events of an electoral campaign. For voters, the debates are useful to learn about the candidates\' personalities and their position on issues and policies. However, the post-debate constellation should not be ignored, as it can be said to be equally important.

This is because following a debate, public exposure to information on the debates’ content continues, in all manner of variations. Generally, the candidate that receives negative coverage also tends to receive negative ratings from voters (Fredkin et al, 2008). Aside from the mass media, exposure to the presidential debate also occurs in conversation, generally with people who have the same preference. In other words, post-debate discussions are more likely to reinforce a voter’s predisposition towards their preferred candidate (Cho and Ha, 2012).

In the context of the 2019 presidential election, exposure to the second debate occurred with enthusiasm, especially on social media. The supporters of both camps emphasized what they considered to be their opponent’s weaknesses, for example through the #jokowibohonglagi or #prabowogagapunicorn hashtags. This was accompanied by the supporters’ efforts to rationalize and/or apologize for the appearance and statements of their preferred candidate. Sometimes, their interpretations deviated from the actual debate. More importantly, each camp claimed their candidate’s victory.

The enthusiastic post-debate conversation ended with each camp making an effort to change the landscape of the contest. The last two surveys from Charta Politika (October 2018 and January 2019) showed that the electability of both Jokowi-Amin and Prabowo-Sandi was relatively stagnant. Each camp needs only a single, small upsurge to maintain a safe margin (in the case of Ballot No. 01) or to catch up (in the case of Ballot No. 02). Even though the difference in their electability is wide (53 percent versus 35 percent), the potential for change remains very high.

Moreover, around 12 percent of each candidate’s supporters claim they are not certain about their choice, while 12 percent of voters either have kept their choice secret or are undecided. Therefore, the two camps will continue to intensify and diversify their tactics, including hoping for or forcing their opponents to slip up in speech or action.

Excitement does not necessarily mean it is interesting. For some, the 2019 presidential election is less attractive because it is a repeat of the 2014 presidential election: not just because the presidential candidates are the same, but also because much of the content are simply copies and/or merely an extension of the previous presidential election. The 2019 presidential election is also unattractive because of a combination of factors: widespread hoaxes; arguing over unimportant issues enlivened by sound bites rather than argumentation on policy issues; the taint of infighting over religious symbols and ulema, neither of which actually indicates commitment to advancing the people’s economy; and being overwhelmed by the tendency of candidates that send confusing signals about their position on a number of vital issues.

Negative messages dominate. Although they are perhaps intended to influence swing voters, negative messages are more effective in cementing the predisposition of voters who already dislike a particular candidate (Klein and Ahluwalia, 2005). In other words, negative messages (including hoaxes) are more instrumental in crystallizing preconceived views. Opinions are crystallized whenever any content is seen as critical or extreme (for example, hoaxes about Jokowi\'s connection to the PKI) and matches the belief embedded in the voters’ minds. The stronger the spread of hoaxes, the stronger the voters’ dissatisfaction with non-preferred candidates will become. As someone’s opinion becomes further crystallized, it will become increasingly difficult for that person to change their opinion (Sciarini and Kriesi, 2003).

Political polarization also encourages voters to be willing to change their views on an issue in line with the position of their preferred candidate. This is inevitable when the voter’s preference for an individual is stronger than their preference for a policy stance (Abramowitz, 1978).

Without more substantive programs and/or extraordinary events, the electability of candidates No. 01 and No. 02 will remain stagnant. In a situation like this, electoral dynamics are very likely to be determined by "field operations" to sway those pragmatic voters who refer to candidate handouts (money, staples and other goods) for their choice. From the above descriptions, the assessment emerges that the 2019 presidential campaign is likely to end without any improvement in quality, as the very mention of “campaign quality” assumes that the campaign (activities) is the key determinant for voters.

Quality coverage

An optimistic approach to assessing the campaign (discourse, rhetoric, media coverage, attention to short-term campaign factors, etc.) possesses the power to influence voters in assessing the candidates’ policy issues. This does not mean negating the importance of voters’ (retrospective) evaluation on the incumbent’s performance. The campaign is a space for voters to consider the alternative policies that the candidates propose (Maisel, West and Clifton, 2007).

Electoral campaigns are said to have quality if they are deliberative, informative, prioritize policy issues rather than personal image, and involve deep discourse rather than arguing over trivialities. Voters are expected to participate and engage. Good campaigns are marked by a change in voters’ beliefs (Gardner, 2009). Furthermore, quality campaigns are marked by an alignment between candidates and voters on key policy issues, which becomes evident in voter support through the election results (Buchanan, 1999).

The scope of such “quality campaigns” is an ideal that must be relaxed to be grounded in reality. First, a permanent campaign trend has developed recently, in that voter predisposition formed before the election and voter predisposition formed during the campaign are less relevant. In the case of the 2019 presidential election, both Jokowi (supporters) and Prabowo (supporters) have been actively trying to persuade the people since the 2014 election. In line with the progress in priority development projects, the Jokowi camp has put forward many achievements in infrastructure. More specifically, some of Jokowi’s activities appear to be an effort to strengthen his populist image. On the other hand, the Prabowo stronghold, aside from its active rhetoric on the development failures of the Jokowi era, also continue to play on specific issues, such as claiming the threat of Chinese domination of Indonesia, the rise of the PKI and the threat against Islam in Indonesia.

Second, voter choices based on the personalities of individual candidates are not necessarily a bad way of determining their choice, as long as they have adequate information. In the case of the 2019 presidential election, gossip surrounds the personal identities of the two candidates because of the limited availability of information (for example, the issue of Prabowo\'s Islam) and/or the spread of false information (for example, the issue of Jokowi’s connection to the PKI). Third, a campaign cannot be said to be of bad quality simply because of minimal voter participation. The quality of a campaign can be deemed bad if the election does not offer the chance to participate in various campaign activities, including asking the candidates specific questions and getting their responses; or conversely, voters are actively participating, but mainly in persecuting and/or attempting to coerce those voters who do not agree with them.

In the case of the 2019 presidential election, voter participation can be said to be high, especially among partisan voters, especially on social media and in conversations with the media. The Prabowo camp has a group of emak-emak (housewives), the Jokowi camp has retaing groups from 2014 (like Seknas and Projo), but they also have many new groups that are not covered prominently in the media. What is troubling is that relatively minimal space exists for direct dialogue between voters and candidates. Blusukan (face-to-face meetings) are simply dictated by one-way communication and/or appear to be held only for the sake of media coverage. Moreover, persecutory incidents like stripping shirts or preventing access have occurred in several places. At the same time, verbal attacks through name-calling (like tadpole, bat, stupid) and other forms (prayers, poetry, social media posts) is becoming commonplace.

Fourth, the quality of a campaign does not always mean voter persuasion occurs, but presupposes at least the availability of adequate information. Voter persuasion presupposes a change in some belief, for example, a voter changes his predisposition about debt. If the voter initially believed that Indonesian debt was still reasonable, they become anti-debt and comes to believe that Indonesia\'s debt is excessive after they are exposed to rhetoric, reports and chats on the Prabowo camp’s WhatsApp group.

On the other hand, a campaign can be said to have quality if voters can obtain sufficient details on each candidate’s proposed program, such as on how candidate No. 01 is offering tolerance or how candidate No. 02 proposes to preserve cultural diversity. Another factor is the balance of information (at least explaining the similarities and differences) on the "Pancasila economy" or agrarian reform as the two candidate pairs have raised. In this regard, the availability of adequate information is also marked by the absence of fake news.

Therefore, an electoral campaign cannot be said to have quality when there is a deficiency of information. This is because the main actors of a campaign (candidates, media, voters) have different incentives and are affected by certain situational factors that prevent them from playing their expected roles (Buchanan, 1999). Candidates are supposed to offer their positions on policy issues, including the solutions they offer. However, the motivation that "the most important thing is to win" can, for example, make a candidate focus only on certain issues that are most likely popular, but are excluded form the priority national agenda and should ideally be broached during campaign discourses. In this case, the candidate deliberately avoids discussions that are deemed "difficult" and/or can put him in an unfavorable light among voters.

The media is supposed to provide space for voters to study the candidates. However, the media has an incentive to ignore this function for economic considerations, such as ratings (TV), clicks (online) and circulation (print). Therefore, they frequently report controversial issues, conflicts or dramatic issues like soap operas. The situation is even more complicated for social media, where voters have dual roles as content producers and consumers.

Work to do

It is assumed that voters are paying full attention to the information and discourse that the candidates or the media are distributing. The problem is, the voters frequently become selective in their attention and/or the information they choose to digest, paying attention only to information that is in line with their predisposition. Voters do not want to openly accept all explanations. Voters whose orientation is "the most important thing is to win" or "the most important thing is that the candidate they dislike must lose" also have an incentive to disrupt the flow of information. Some of these are to create and/or spread hoaxes and threats, to discriminate against voters who do not agree with them and to engage in money politics.

The three actors’ incentives differ depending on the context of the ongoing contest (the pressure of interest groups, economic recession, or others). This is expanded further by the dynamics between the actors. Candidates, for example, could choose to prioritize sound bites rather than comprehensively discuss policy issues in an effort to gain attention and media coverage.

In considering the quality as discussed above, it is very reasonable that various parties have determined that the 2019 presidential campaign does not have quality. However, it is also important to listen to Gardner, who warned that criticisms of electoral campaigns are more commonly because problems are only seen during the campaigns (2009), whereas what happens during campaigns is simply the repetition of everyday political communication. In other words, if we become used to hoaxes on a daily basis, it makes sense that the campaign is also full of the same thing. If this is the case, we clearly have much work to do that is far greater than simply reforming the presidential campaign.

Yunarto Wijaya

Executive Director, Charta Politika Indonesia