Communication for Reconciliation
Gun-Gun Heryanto
The 2019 general election is at a decisive stage following election day. Polarization is still very sharp in relation to victory claims. Even though almost all institutions that held quick counts and exit polls put Joko “Jokowi” Widodo-Ma’ruf Amin pair in the lead, the Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Uno camp also declared a win.
The political support of citizens has not subsided. The support could strengthen along with the variety of statements heating up the atmosphere. It is this political boiling point that must be guarded by all parties so as not to let it explode into wild maneuvers and endanger Indonesian democracy.
Relational dialectics
From a communications perspective, the days after voting up to the time of the winner\'s determination by the General Elections Commission (KPU) on May 22, 2019, must be monitored because they often present the phenomenon of relational dialectics. This term refers to a theory coined by Leslie Baxter in A Dialectical Perspective of Communication Strategies in Relationship Development (1988). In short, relational dialectics is a knot of contradictions in interpersonal relations, which is filled by interactions that tend to constantly oppose each other.
Another academic explanation to the question of relational dialectics was put forward by William K. Rawlins in A Dialectical Analysis of Tensions, Functions and Strategic Challenges of Communication in Young Adult Friendships (1988). The phenomenon is characterized by inter-individual conflict. Usually, tension and conflict arise and strengthen when someone imposes his wishes onto others.
The sharp polarization at the level of our national politics has actually been formed since 2014. At that time, after election day, there were also differences in victory claims and no new traditions of defeat speeches to ease conflicts among supporters. A repetitive political reality is happening now. After going through a long campaign period, almost seven months, voting day increased the tension.
The scientific method behind the quick counts have been ignored, with the various institutions conducting the counts referred to as liars. In reality, most of the institutions have released their data, thereby opening themselves up to being scrutinized.
We need a little comparison in the tradition of democratic symbolic expression. The day after the election was held in the US, to be exact Nov. 9, 2016, Hillary Clinton, though with deep sadness among her supporters, who gathered at the New Yorker Hotel, New York, delivered her concession speech. It was very painful, of course, for Hillary, because she was predicted to be the winner by almost all survey institutions, including the mass media. Reuters said the chances of a victory for Hillary was 90 percent.
The New York Times also predicted her chance of winning at 85 percent. In reality, the electoral vote calculation showed that Donald Trump won with 306 electoral votes, compared to Hillary, who only got 232.
This reality was responded to very wisely by Hillary. She delivered three main points in her concession speech. First, she expressed her gratitude and deep love for her supporters, campaign team and volunteers. Second, she stressed that she had congratulated her rival, Donald Trump, for being elected president. Third, she offered to cooperate with Trump in the interest of the country while at the same time hoping that Trump would succeed in leading the US. The three main points of the speech opened the door for reconciliation in the best interests of the country, which is very important to reduce tension.
Of course, Indonesia is not America. True, it is not right for us to demand that the presidential candidates and vice-presidential candidates deliver a concession speech shortly after the quick count results were published. Our electoral system requires that all parties have a high level of patience because the legitimacy of the victory will be obtained only after a tiered manual count is done. The counting of the votes will be completed and ready to be published between April 25 and May 22.
If one of the camps does not believe the data being released by institutions that held the quick counts or exit polls, it should also not express victory claims in an excessive way, or report these institutions to the police. Isn\'t it good for a data to be countered by other data, arguments with other arguments, so that the public can compare the sources of knowledge of each of the camps so as not to get caught up in claims of justification, not truth.
Instrumental conditioning
It would be best for all relevant parties to execute constructive communication. Instrumental conditioning in this context is understood as an effort to increase the probability of the emergence of the desired response and on the contrary decrease the chance for the emergence of an unwanted response. Communication for reconciliation as instrumental conditioning can be done in several ways.
First, the message or narrative of reconciliation reinforcement from the main elite and the winning team. Do not let the presidential candidates or vice-presidential candidates issue provocative and intimidating diction. That will confirm the antagonistic relationship of the respective supporters. They must avoid diction that could convey more than one meaning, like people power. This term can be misunderstood by grassroots society.
Second, create dialogue spaces to avoid communication apprehension (CA). The term CA refers to a theory presented by James McCroskey in Stephen W Littlejhon\'s book, Theories of Human Communication (1998), namely reluctance and even fear of communication caused by certain factors. For example, because of the strong formation of inter-support groups (a type of person-group communication apprehension). A get-together is the key to communicating and completing the stages of the election according to the applicable rules of the game. The idea of sending envoys from one camp to another is not only needed in the context of ZOPA (zone of possible agreement) lobbying and negotiation, but more than that, namely maintaining the integrity of the nation and state.
Third, the information roles carried out by the election organizers must be clear, assertive, professional and proportional. All the eyes and ears of the Indonesian people are focused on the KPU\'s real count calculation and their tiered manual counts. All data presented to the public and any information accessed by the media must be clear. Borrowing the term of communication expert Janet Beavin Bavelas (1990), refrain from vague communications, not too clear, when clear-cut information is needed.
Fourth, the role and function of communication from the mass media. Information that flows abundantly from various media must be oriented toward journalistic work, not propaganda. The construction of the symbolic reality displayed by the mass media frequently influences our political atmosphere. The mass media should not be trapped merely in political bubbles and sensations, but in the substance of managing reconciliation. Moreover, in the midst of the era of social media, which is flooded by hoaxes.
The contestation will leave only one winner. There is always an elegy behind the defeat in a fight. However, until the KPU announces the winner, of course we hope that the losing camp is able to pioneer a new tradition in our politics, namely delivering a concession speech that will certainly be remembered throughout our electoral history, even though of course there are still other rights as well to dispute election results that must be respected by all parties.
Gun Gun Heryanto, Executive Director, The Political Literacy Institute; Political Communication Lecturer, UIN Jakarta; Expert Board Member, ISKI
