Most of the news in the mainstream media and on social media in the past two to three weeks have been dominated by corruption, including the mass number of politicians and public officials arrested by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), and online prostitution. Unfortunately, the reports have gone so far over the line that the victims have been subjected to trial by media.
The convergence of the three – corruption, politicians and prostitution – has occurred for thousands of years and many attempts have been made to mitigate it to prevent disrupting the balance of power. Politicians and prostitutes have been linked at least since Ancient Roman times, including politicians’ efforts to regulate the “oldest profession in the world” (Thomas A.J. McGinn, Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Ancient Rome, Oxford University Press, 1998). It appears that state management is incredibly complex, especially in overcoming physical pleasures and the lust for power.
Therefore, it is highly apt that the topics for the first round of the presidential debates are law enforcement, corruption, human rights and terrorism. The people have long yearned healthy and serious political discourse on issues at the heart of public concerns.
This first round of the debates is expected to influence the three months remaining in the presidential campaign to cut out rhetoric, exploitation of primordial hate, sensitivities, anxiety and blind hate speech against political opponents. The public hopes that this first round will be an oasis of fresh ideas in the political contest, as well as serving as a test of the candidates’ skills and creativity to offer solutions in tackling the issues that have drawn public interest.
However, we need to acknowledge that public debates are a battleground for gaining voters, in which the two sides are expected not only to rely on facts but also to use powerful oration to grab voters’ hearts. Demagogy can be a method to defeat political opponents. Therefore, another dimension that must be observed is the characters or personality traits of the presidential pairs.
In the previous election, the University of Indonesia (UI) political psychology laboratory, the Association of Social Psychology, the Association of Clinical Psychology and Padjadjaran University (Unpad) school of psychology conducted a study on the personalities of the 2014 presidential and VP candidates.
The study involved psychologists with expertise in personality assessment, which covered consistency in public behavior through analyzing speeches, recorded interviews, personal biography and key life events.
Graded on a scale of 0 to 10 in the personality component under behavior, Joko Widodo scored 6.36 and Prabowo Subianto 8.64 in motivation to rule; Jokowi scored 7.73 and Prabowo 6.66 in solid ideas for resolving national problems; Jokowi 7.61 and Prabowo 6.20 in foresight and creativity to resolve national problems. In agreeableness (propriety, politeness, modesty) on a scale of 0-10, Jokowi scored 8.36 and Prabowo 5.23; in deliberation and decision-making (0-10), Jokowi scored 7.05 and Prabowo 5.81; in foresight and perseverance in tackling problems, Jokowi 7.38 and Prabowo 5.95.
Meanwhile, under emotional stability, which measured calmness in facing grave problems, Jokowi scored 7.67 out of 10 and Prabowo 5.16. Under predictive psychology, including the ability to work under the pressures of heavy and complex problems, Jokowi scored 7.56 out of 10 and Prabowo 6.08; in the probability of becoming embroiled in political scandals, Jokowi scored 4.46 and Prabowo 6.74.
In protecting or supporting corruption eradication, Jokowi scored 76 percent and Prabowo 42 percent; in protecting minority rights, Jokowi scored 78 percent and Prabowo 37 percent; in the inability to adjust to unusual conditions (maladaptive), including showing fear, suspicion and disorganization in assessing reality, on a scale of 0 (least likely) to 7 (most likely), Jokowi scored 4.19 and Prabowo 6.15.
It must be noted that this study was conducted in mid-2014 and there may have been some changes since then. However, considering that both candidates are of a mature age, substantial changes are unlikely. Such studies are necessary, as debates are not magic lamps that can turn illusions into reality. Furthermore, a country experiencing social upheaval and confusion is in dire need of a leader that possesses authenticity in his character and personality.
The presidential campaign must foster hope while urging public awareness on the dignified nature of political contests and political literacy, so the people can make an informed decision. The wrong decision could lead to total national bankruptcy. (J. KRISTIADI, Senior Researcher, Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS))
