Stage for Presidential Candidate Debate

The campaign period has entered an important phase, especially with regard to debates of presidential and vice-presidential candidates to be held. Basically, there are rights and needs of the public that must be met from a series of five debates to be held by the General Election Commission (KPU). In principle, the debates are not merely a theatrical ceremonial stage. Debates are a public test to convince the heart and strengthen the reasoning of the voters.

Not enough just an orchestra of words or a mirage image. Debates require the existence of data-based arguments and the clear orientation of solving national problems. In the study of political communication, debates can be a way of persuasive communication to the voter base besides having an important dimension of political education.

Candidate pairs’ perspective

Debates must be able to optimize the benefits not only for the candidate pairs, but also for the public, especially voters. In the perspective of the interests of the candidate pairs, there are at least two benefits of the debates. First, having instrumental meaning, namely to be the stage of impression management. Borrowing the term of Erving Goffman (1922-1982), an interactionist sociologist in his book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1990), debates become an inevitable part of the front stage dramaturgy, where the candidates present their roles and characters to persuade the audience watching it.

Instrumental conditioning while on the debate stage is done through the power of rhetoric. As a communicator, of course, the presidential candidates and vice presidential candidates must be skillful in combining three important aspects in the rhetoric of the style of the Greek philosopher, Aristotle. Ethos aspect includes efforts to build trust from the audience through their own credibility. Pathos aspect is related to dimensions that touch emotions. Meanwhile the logos aspect, its dimensions are related to the use of logical arguments and facts that can support it.

Of course each candidate has a different communication style which has been developed for a long time. However, their style must be quick to adapt the situation which is so tightly regulated by the General Election Commission and television stations that broadcast the debates. What will be their differentiating factors on the stage later is the depth of data research on a number of debated materials (inventio aspect). For example, in the maiden debate regarding the themes of law, human rights, terrorism and corruption.

Another thing is how to compose messages (aspect of dispositio). The speaker style chooses words and uses the right language to package the message (elucatio aspect). The ability of the candidates to remember the main things that become the flagship message (memoria aspect). Submission techniques (aspect of pronuntiatio) such as facial expressions, gestures, speech volume, forum management to convey messages at a limited duration of time, namely 89 minutes 55 seconds, and divided into several segments. Rhetoric as an art of speaking becomes an important instrumental aspect that must be mastered by candidates on the stage of the debates later.

Second, substantial meaning. The benefits of the debate stage for the candidates are the commitment pledges of potential national leaders to the people, through vision, mission and programs that are presented more comprehensively. This commitment, which for the first three months does not resonate well, has even beem distorted through the war of diction and political gimmicks on the surface. The two pairs and their success teams from September 23, 2018, to the present are more dominant in producing, reproducing, and distributing verbal aggressiveness targeting the emotional aspects of the voters.

According to Dominic Ifanta in his writing, Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness (1996), the basic argumentation is the logic of thinking, reasoning and consideration of common sense. Meanwhile, verbal aggressiveness is packaged and managed through attacks that strike other people\'s ideas, thoughts, and honor, such as the issues of the physical appearance of Boyolali people, genderuwo (a ghost in Javanese mythology), sontoloyo (foolish), and Indonesia which will become extinct.

Public perspective

It is interesting to see the results of the Kompas research and development section’s poll on January 3-4, 2019. Data shows only 33.93 percent of respondents said they got information about vision, mission, and programs of the presidential and vice presidential candidates. The rest said that they received information about campaign activities, the candidates\' daily life, candidate identities, hoaxes, or said that they did not know and did not answer. In fact, about 90 percent of respondents considered that knowledge about vision, mission, and programs of the presidential and vice presidential candidates was important and very important (Kompas, 07/01/2019). This means that there are public needs, especially those who become voters waiting for programmatic campaigns from the candidate pairs.

Debates can be the right momentum for the candidates to review more comprehensively what and how they will do in the next five years. The candidates can use the debate to build narrative rationality at the end of the campaign period. Walter Fisher in his book, Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value and Action (1987), reminds, not all narratives have the same power to be trusted. Two principles that must exist in narrative rationality are coherence and truth (fidelity).

Coherence appears when communicators build and develop campaign narratives that they present coherently and consistently to form a context. Their narratives are consistent between one time and the other time in the past. Finally, the solidity between the messages and their characters. Meanwhile, the narratives are considered true when elements of the narratives represent accurate statements about the social reality that occurs or is experienced by the community.

The public can assess whether the narratives as a pledge of promise built by Jokowi-Ma’rul Amin and Prabowo-Sandi have aspects of coherence and truth or not? If their performances on the debate stage are worthy of being trusted, of course, they will contribute votes, especially from those who have not made a choice.

Borrowing the Social Judgment Theory approach developed by Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn Sherif as quoted by Richard M Perloff in his book, The Dynamics of Persuasion (2003), for every voter, at present polarization of strong voters has actually been formed. They accept or reject one candidate pair, and those who have not committed to choose anyone.

The support groups of Jokowi-Ma\'ruf Amin and Prabowo-Sandi have had their respective points of reference from the outset. Therefore, debates may not affect behavior change in choosing them.

However, persuasive communication through debates is still possible to target groups who are waiting for the issue dynamics and surprising program offer by the candidates ahead of the voting day.

The causative factor is who can touch the involvement of voters’ ego (ego involvement). This refers to the importance of offering candidates\' ideas and programs to improving the quality of life of voters who are still uncertain about their choice. In the 2019 general election, never ignore the number of voters who are still undecided. For example, the sphere of young voters who may still be influenced. If the approach of the candidate pairs touches their characteristics and needs, it could also help change the vote map.

The debates that will be held for five times can actually form three stages of persuasive communication to strengthen opinions and choices. The first debate (between the presidential and vice presidential candidate pairs) to be held on January 17 must be able to form a stage of brainstorming that shifts hoaxes and gimmicks to the substance of ideas and programs, both in social media and mass media. The second to fourth debates can be a stage of consolidation. The fifth debate, the stage that makes a solid stage. The debates must present dialectics openly rather than be facilitated to pretend or merely talk about dramaturgy.

(Gun Gun Heryanto, Executive Director of the Political Literacy Institute, Political Communication Lecturer at UIN Jakarta, and ISKI Expert Board Member)