JAKARTA, KOMPAS – Many believed the second round of the 2019 presidential debates showed significant improvement from the first round. Both candidates touched upon important public issues, despite a lack of details on their programs.
Many believed that the second round of the presidential debates on Sunday evening (2/17/2019) showed significant improvement from the first round. The presidential candidates talked about issues that were important to the public, even though they were short on details when exploring ideas and in offering innovative solutions to these problems.
The second debate round on Sunday evening between Joko Widodo and Prabowo Subianto was themed energy, food, infrastructure, natural resources and the environment.
During the debate, the candidates expressed mutual appreciation for their opponent’s achievements. A Kompas R&D poll on Feb. 13-14 showed that 51.8 percent of 620 respondents in 17 major cities said that they were awaiting explanation on food issues, especially regarding the availability and affordability of food. Other issues that concerned the public were infrastructure, natural resources, environment and energy.
During the debate, a loud noise was heard in Senayan’s east parking lot around 100 meters from where the candidates’ supporters were watching the debate on a large screen. Jakarta Police chief Insp. Gen. Gatot Edy Pramono said that the source of the noise was a firecracker, not a bomb. No casualties were reported and the incident did not disrupt the debate.
Better flow
Both Jokowi and Prabowo highlighted food security issues during the debate. They spoke about the impacts of Industry 4.0 on agriculture, fishery and farming businesses, many of which are small.
Jokowi talked about the importance of human resource development to prepare such businesses in welcoming the next industrial revolution. Prabowo, on the other hand, said it would be difficult to overcome the challenges of the fourth industrial revolution if the government could not guarantee farmers’ welfare and affordable food prices.
In infrastructure, Jokowi spoke on the government’s achievements, such as in constructing toll roads and rural access roads to support regional interconnectivity.
Meanwhile, Prabowo criticized the infrastructure projects as inefficient, and that they were undertaken without proper studies or any consideration of public interests.
Compared to the first debate round, the debate on Sunday evening had a better flow and was more spontaneous. The flexibility of the debate and the fact that the candidates were not given a rubric of the debate questions resulted in more spontaneous arguments. It was also observed that both seemed better prepared.
“The lack of any prior knowledge on the debate questions and more flexibility in the one-on-one open sessions apparently caused changes in the candidates’ strategies and communication styles,” said researcher Arya Fernandes of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
After watching the debate from his residence, Vice President Jusuf Kalla also said that it appeared more open and relaxed.
Short on details
Economics professor Bustanul Arifin of Lampung University said that both candidates only offered generic descriptions of their food policies. He said Jokowi talked about his administration’s achievements in increasing corn production, but did not talk about rice production, while Prabowo talked about his vision on food self-sufficiency and providing fertilizer for farmers, but did not elaborate on how he would provide the fertilizer.
Executive director Enny Sri Hartati of the Institute for Development of Economics and Finance (Indef) said she found that the debate on the role of infrastructure development in improving competitiveness and reducing logistics cost was interesting.
“The incumbent said that time and process were needed to change people’s behavior, although the public is waiting for an explanation on how infrastructure development will improve efficiency and competitiveness,” she said.
On the other hand, Enny said that Prabowo talked about inclusive infrastructure development, a new idea, but that he did not elaborate on it.
Executive director Aditya Perdana of University of Indonesia’s Center for Political Studies said that the lack of in-depth exploration of the topics in the second round was due to too many topics. As a result, the candidates could not elaborate on their ideas.
Following the debate, Jokowi-Ma’ruf Amin national campaign team executive Moeldoko said the President offered solutions to the four major debate topics. Meanwhile, debate director Sudirman Said of the Prabowo-Sandiaga Uno national campaign team expressed regret over Jokowi’s use of invalid data. (AGE/SAN/APO/NAD/FER/E17/NTA)