Debate Of Vice Presidential Candidates, Mirrors And Bets Of Indonesia's Future

The debate of vice presidential candidates (cawapres) which took place on Friday, December 22, followed by Muhaimin Iskandar, Gibran Rakabuming Raka and Mahfud MD can be called important moments in the Indonesian political arena.

This is because the debate is more than just a policy knowledge contest, but also reflects the ability of candidates to engage, persuade, and articulate their vision for the nation's future.

Researchers from PARA Syndicate, Virdika Rizky Utama assessed, from the three candidates, Mahfud appeared the most insightful, giving an appearance that combines the depth of knowledge with a calm attitude, although rather monotonous. However, Mahfud's appearance is also without any shortcomings. How to deliver, even though informative, but lacks dynamics and emotional involvement that can often affect public opinion.

"In a political debate, where public perception plays an important role, the lack of emotional resonance in its delivery limits its appeal to a wider audience. In future political engagement, instilling its response with more enthusiasm can improve its relationship with voters," he explained, Saturday, December 23.

On the other hand, Gibran brought a different taste in the debate. Known for his assertive style, Gibran's confidence is clearly visible. According to Rizky, Joko Widodo's eldest son was able to navigate the debate with full certainty and orders. Unfortunately, this firmness sometimes turns into too confident, which causes strategic errors.

He gave an example, Gibran's response to Mahfud's question about social infrastructure shows this. Instead of answering the question directly, Gibran instead discussed sanitation and stunting.

"Although these two things are undoubtedly important issues, they need to be aligned with the focus of the question, which shows the lack of strategic coherence in Gibran's argumentation," he added.

In addition, Gibran's tendency to use an obscure technical jargon and abbreviation may be to interfere with his opponents, especially Cak Imin, is a double-edged sword. While highlighting his understanding of complex subjects, this tactic risks insulating spectators. This can be seen as an attempt to embarrass rather than get involved in a constructive debate.

Rizky continued, Gibran's bold move to mention Cak Imin's inconsistency in the issue of IKN is attracting attention, as well as showing his willingness to challenge and be confrontational. However, this firm style, although attracting attention, sometimes covers the substance of its policy argument.

Gibran's tactical opacities and sharpness are evident, but his approach is sometimes less subtle and inclusive as needed for constructive debates. His technical expertise must be balanced with an easy-to-understand communication style and appeals to broader audiences, "he explained.

Meanwhile, for Cak Imin, Rizky considered his appearance not quite attractive. His opening speech, which questioned the feasibility of the debate platform, was in a defensive tone. Throughout the debate, the PKB chairman also often uses the term sleptomics, a term that has no clear definition and fails to translate into a coherent policy narrative.

Cak Imin's most significant stuttering, he said, occurred when he struggled to answer Gibran's question about the State of the Global Islamic Economy (SGIE). According to Rizky, this moment highlights his need for preparation and raises questions about his ability to adapt to unexpected challenges in a high-risk environment.

In addition, poor time management, often exceeding the specified time, reflects the need to be more disciplined in its debate strategy. These shortcomings are critical in situations where accuracy and clarity are as important as content.

Cak Imin's appearance is a reminder of the importance of strategic preparation and execution in political debates. His approach requires more clarity and specificity to make cases persuasive to voters," explained Rizky.

He emphasized that the vice presidential debate is an event that has many sides, which not only displays the knowledge of candidates' policies, but also strategic thinking, communication capabilities, and their ability to connect with the audience. In addition, this debate is also a show that reveals the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates.

This debate is an opportunity to learn for candidates, provide lessons in terms of communication, strategy, and public involvement that will undoubtedly affect their political efforts in the future. In the end, the vice presidential debate is a concrete picture of the ongoing democratic process in Indonesia. This debate provides a glimpse into the thoughts and styles of those who aspire to lead, reminding voters of the importance of informed decision-making," explained Rizky.

Public Speaking observer Ongky Hojanto also highlighted the communication style of each candidate in the vice presidential debate. He revealed that Cak Imin started the debate by venting a little where it was not an important point in the debate so his appearance became less interesting.

According to him, there are several contexts that Cak Imin should not have done, namely venting and joking because of the short debate time limitation, four minutes is not enough. In addition, there are important points that Cak Imin did not convey, namely about strengthening the santri economy. "This is what I regret. Cak Imin doesn't raise the things he is good at," he added.

As for Gibran, Ongky assessed that Prabowo Subianto's companion mastered the topic of discussion in a debate, namely about the digital economy. However, what Gibran needs to improve is his expression.

"I see Gibran's expression in the debate is very tense. It's not like what Gibran usually does. If we are more detailed, Gibran often tastes his mouth, it causes disturbances," he said.

Meanwhile, Mahfud MD is considered successful in withdrawing the points he controls. By saying economic growth can be better if there is no corruption. Ongky appreciated Mahfud's debate pattern from a matter he understood. This is something interesting because it succeeded in influencing the debate.

"However, what he needs to improve is of course there must be supporting data. How much corruption disturbances to economic growth," he said.

Regarding the question and answer session, Ongky saw Mahfud dare to attack other vice presidents. Meanwhile, Cak Imin is good at playing words and Gibran looks like there is a teasing expression when other candidates do not manage to answer his question.

He emphasized that this teasing behavior should be eliminated. Supposedly, Gibran doesn't care about people who can't answer. I think this is not good enough to do and can influence the public as voters," concluded Ongky