Debating the debate

· 3 minutes read

Indonesia’s political dynamics increasingly involve the public. This was seen in the recent election debates, with many viewers checking rather than instantly accepting the veracity of facts and data cited by the candidates.

This is a positive development in the world of journalism and politics. Although not perfect, the media collaborated in checking facts about the data revealed by presidential candidates Joko Widodo and Prabowo Subianto. The presidential and vice-presidential candidates cannot monopolize the truth of the data, because their claims will be checked against other sources of information.

When the data cited is accurate and correct, the legitimacy of the data will be strengthened. Conversely, if the data is not entirely appropriate, the legitimacy of the data will be in doubt. This trend of fact-checking must improve awareness about the importance of data in the world of journalism, as well as the interpretation of data and the use of diction. The limited duration of the debates makes it difficult to elaborate on data.

The debate on data and interpretation of data makes the post-debate arena more democratic. Debate involves the public. The public benefits from the increasing amount of data and the interpretation of data that is developing in the media. A more critical public will be able to measure which statements or analysis are merely emotional, which arguments are contrary to data and which views are out of context.

For example, during the latest debate, President Jokowi claimed his administration had built 191,000 kilometers of village roads. The data was not challenged by Prabowo at the time. However, Prabowo’s campaign team spokesperson Dahnil A. Simanjuntak responded,

“Jokowi claimed he had built village roads spanning 191,000 km. This [length] is equal to 4.8 times the circumference of the earth or 15 times the diameter of the earth. When was it built? What science did you use? This is a lie.”

Dahnil’s statement elicited a response from Eko Putro Sandjojo, the minister of villages, disadvantaged regions and transmigration. “Some people still don’t realize that Indonesia is a big country. There are 74,957 villages. If 191,000 km of village roads are divided by 74,000 villages, then each village will build 2.5 km per four years or 625 meters of village roads per year. Is that something unnatural?”

Claims over data happen. Questions about data are answered. However, it would be more convincing in this case if the claim was proven with additional data that is more convincing: Where were the roads built? How long did it take and how much did it cost? When data becomes more transparent and accessible to the public, the legitimacy increases. Digital technology can be used to facilitate monitoring.

Jokowi’s statement regarding the control of land by Prabowo is another example. In the debate, Jokowi said Prabowo controlled hundreds of thousands of hectares in Aceh and East Kalimantan. Prabowo confirmed his control of the land but said it was under the status of the right to cultivate (HGU). The land issue then triggered more data about political elites and corporations controlling vast areas. The sticking point is the imbalance of land control. This must be resolved by the two candidates, so that Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution is not just an article of the Constitution, but reality on the ground.

Editor:

debating the debate