The upcoming 2024 election has sparked immense anticipation among the public, unfolding as a captivating narrative since the previous year’s end. Alongside the spirited campaigns of the three candidate pairs, the presidential and vice-presidential debates have ignited discussions among the populace.
These debates, convened five times and orchestrated by the General Election Commission (KPU), are pivotal platforms for public deliberation. Dr. Mada Sukmajati, a lecturer and political observer at UGM, offered his insights after being invited as a panelist in one of these debates.
“One measure of a debate’s success is its ability to stimulate further discourse post-event. In my view, the first, second, and third debates have successfully ignited public engagement. Despite the regulatory constraints imposed by election laws, these debates have not stifled public discourse,” remarked Dr. Sukmajati.
He noted that each debate round has evoked compelling public reactions, with the candidates’ visions, missions, and elaborated programs leaving a lasting impression on the electorate.
Yet, while significant, the presidential and vice-presidential debates constitute a fraction of the broader electoral landscape. The candidates’ campaign activities, program elaborations beyond debate sessions, and individual track records warrant equal consideration.
Dr. Sukmajati stressed the necessity for continued public debates to ensure a comprehensive understanding among voters. He also referenced a survey indicating that last year’s debates influenced only 10-15% of public preferences, though the proliferation of information technology has amplified their impact in this electoral cycle.
“The debate’s content often reverberates across social media platforms, shaping voter perceptions and potentially altering voting behavior, particularly among the sizable 30% of undecided voters in the 2024 elections. This underscores the pivotal role of social media in driving public discourse surrounding the electoral contest,” explained Dr. Sukmajati.
However, he cautioned against the downside of social media, which has become a ground for the propagation of misinformation, undermining the electorate’s ability to discern factual information from falsehoods.
The massive exposure of content often confuses the public and leads them to follow media trends without knowing their accuracy. Therefore, the implementation of presidential and vice-presidential debates holds an important position as the primary information agents for the public. As one of the panelists in the debates, he outlined some evaluations for the KPU to conduct in future debates.
“There are several aspects to evaluate. Firstly, the conduct of supporters during debates has occasionally disrupted proceedings. Secondly, moderators should ensure time management and facilitate candidates fully articulating their ideas within the allotted time,” Dr. Sukmajati suggested.
Effective time utilization emerged as a recurring theme, with candidates sometimes falling short of fully expounding their viewpoints.
Additionally, Dr. Sukmajati emphasized the need for comprehensive evaluation by all stakeholders, including the public and the candidate pairs, to navigate this discourse judiciously. He advocated for substantive debates that refrain from personal attacks, emphasizing that while certain issues are fair game, others, such as religion, ethnicity, and race, should remain off-limits.
In addition to the design of the presidential and vice-presidential debates, evaluation is also needed by the participants, both the public and the three pairs of candidates, to interpret this debate arena more wisely. Mada Sukmajati also agreed that the debate substance should not attack personal matters.
“Debate substance should not delve into personal attributes bestowed at birth. However, issues about wealth, past performance, and relevant cases are valid subjects for debate,” Dr. Sukmajati concluded.
Author: Tasya