Many are hoping that the second round of the presidential debates will focus on the big ideas the candidates plan to carry out in the next five years if they win the election, especially for establishing an effective, accountable and democratic government. This agenda is seen as deeply urgent by the public, especially among the political elites who understand such issues.
Since 2014, legislative candidates have felt just how arduous and hurtful political contestations can be, due to chaotic election regulations that can often lead to party members fighting with one another for seats in legislative bodies. However, the struggle of all components of society is needed to achieve such hopes, especially by political decision makers. This is because, the closer we get to voting day, the closer our political contestation is to the boiling point.
The symptom: social media is bombarded with comments that exploit primordial hatred and malice and words that lead people to be pessimistic, disappointed, angry, afraid, sad and frustrated. Loss in a presidential election will seemingly cause Armageddon, the collapse of government and the domination of certain groups of the country, as other groups become pariahs.
The mobilization of provocation can be even more dangerous, as anxiety is wrapped in a primordial feeling that can easily lead to collective anger. Political contestation has sanctified the need, interest and desire for power.
It is hoped candidates will build optimism and convince the people that Indonesia will be a great and advanced country, populated by prosperous people. Such a spirit is necessary, considering the highly complex chaos the country is facing. Intelligence, breakthroughs, hard work and carefulness are needed to carry out improvements. Such complexities cannot be explained in an excessively skeptical atmosphere that will only undermine the public’s common sense.
Challenges are becoming more serious as the wave of populism and post-truth politics is causing public opinion to be disrupted by the mass production of lies that are intentionally and consciously fabricated in sophisticated ways as part of the strategy to win political contestations.
Power struggles will rely on digital technology as the main weaponry to wield against political opponents. Lies and the exploitation of hatred and malice caused by economic reasons and primordial bonds will be sophistically packaged through the digitalization process as part of the strategy to expand state hegemony (The Future of Political Warfare: Russia, the West and the Coming Age of Global Digital Revolution; Alina Polyakova and Spencer P. Boyer, March 2018).
Therefore, the second round of the war of words must be dialectical. It is hoped candidates will be able to acknowledge the truths of what their opponents are saying and find a synthesis that crystallizes differences of opinions in a healthy way that ennobles the people. Debating is not just about winning. Rather, it is part of our effort to obtain a leader that will struggle for the interests of the people.
To borrow the words of Al Gore, former US vice president and presidential candidate, “The presidency is not a matter of talk shows or public debates, but it is a matter about how to fight for the people”.
The second debate must also be intelligent. For any sane candidate, serving a selfish opponent that believes all of his own lies will only be a boomerang. The metaphor of the “animal kingdom” with the lion serving as king clarifies such a narrative. As the fable goes, the donkey insists that the grass is blue, while the tiger insists that it is green. Each of them staunchly believes in their own opinion.
In the end, the donkey meets with the lion king and reports the tiger for his stubborn opinion that the grass is green. The king then sentences the tiger to five years’ imprisonment. Before he goes to prison, the tiger asks the king why he is punishing him. The lion then says that the tiger is being sent to prison not for insisting that the grass is green but, instead, for insisting on debating the stupid donkey. The moral of the story is that we must not debate those who only believe their own lies.
Meanwhile, mainstream and social media must push the public to understand the candidates’ ideas and strategies to help the nation achieve progress. Abstaining from voting is an insult to democracy, which requires the people’s active participation.
Without it, the people are no longer the holder of state sovereignty, as democracy will be hijacked by political elites that act in the name of the people. The risk is that elite oligarchs will end up crushing the people. It needs to be noted that state power has penetrated into all aspects of citizens’ lives, from policies to achieve prosperity and justice to the most intimate matters like “who you are sleeping with in your bed tonight?”.
J KRISTIADI
Senior Researcher, Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)