Presidential Communication Style and the Crisis of Legitimacy

Photo by Luthfiah VOI

JAKARTA - In an era when every statement by state officials can be widely spread in just a few seconds, political communication is no longer just a matter of style, but part of governance. Every sentence of a president can affect public perception, move the market, shape international opinion, and even determine policy direction. Therefore, the communication of a head of state is not only required to be interesting to listen to, but also accurate, measured, and responsible.

It is undeniable that every president has his own style. At least, it can be seen from the eight presidents who have ruled Indonesia, from Soekarno to Prabowo Subianto. According to the Presidential Special Staff for Political Communication for the period 2009-2014, Daniel Sparingga, every Indonesian president carries a communication style that reflects his ideological background, historical position, and relationship with the community.

Because, presidential communication is not only about delivering information, but also building narratives, forming identities, and managing public perceptions. Daniel describes the figure of Sukarno as the only Indonesian President who remains identical to Indonesia in the international arena. Sukarno is known as a charismatic orator who combines cultural symbols, nationalism, and ideology in every speech.

"Other people may be similar to him, but he will always be President Soekarno. The turban, the command stick, and the style of Soekarno's language are not just attributes, but part of the political projection and the creation of a post-colonial national identity," he said.

In the New Order era, President Soeharto's communication was seen as much calmer and consolidated. Although known as "The Smilling General", his communication style was very centralized and controlled, with development as the main narrative. Harmoko as a spokesperson became an instrument to shape the public perception that Soeharto was the sole figure who controlled all aspects of national life.

"Development communication is very important, but it also gives rise to a culture of fear and strict media control. The end of the New Order was a period of trust deficit, where political communication became a tool of power that was no longer trusted by the people," said Daniel.

A major transformation occurred during the Reformasi era, when Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) took office. Daniel assessed, SBY introduced a more dialogic, moderate, and reflective approach. SBY is known as a leader who likes to read and think deeply. Communication with the public began to open through digital channels such as email, social media, and even YouTube, which was a new thing at that time.

"SBY as a figure who avoids confrontation and believes that major changes take time and continuity. He is not the type of leader who makes sensation, but rather the type of leader who contemplates and processes," he added.

Unlike his predecessors, President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) has shown a strong populist communication style in the public sphere. By building his image as a humble and simple figure, Jokowi has built a strong self-image. He is willing to go down to the gutter, interact directly with the community, and use social media as the main means of political communication.

However, Daniel reminded that this style is not without problems. The reason is that Jokowi often ignores the bureaucratic structure and relies more on a direct approach. This makes him popular, but also carries risks in policy making. "Jokowi's communication strategy is heavily influenced by the role of influencers and active social media users, which if not managed carefully, can have a negative impact on public confidence," he continued.

Meanwhile, President Prabowo Subianto's political communication style is said to be militaristic, pragmatic, and emotional. With a strong military background, Prabowo prioritizes national unity rhetoric, but tends to underestimate the importance of public opinion in policymaking. "He is impulsive and doesn't listen much to internal criticism. This leadership style has the potential to close open communication," he explained.

This style of communication ala President Prabowo is often in the public spotlight. One of the most discussed moments occurred during the National Awakening Party (PKB) Birthday Anniversary. On this occasion, the President openly chose not to use the prepared speech script. He preferred to speak spontaneously in front of the audience.

For some people, this attitude is seen as a form of honesty, spontaneity, and closeness to the audience. Speeches that flow without text are often considered more alive, more natural, and able to build emotional relationships with the public. Not a few world leaders are known for their ability to speak without relying on a script.

However, when the position that speaks is a president, the issue becomes much more complex. The head of state not only expresses personal opinions, but also represents the country, the government, and all the institutions he leads. Therefore, every statement has political, legal, economic, even diplomatic consequences. This is where it is important to distinguish between the public communication of a political figure and the state communication of a president.

Unprepared speeches do provide room for spontaneity. However, spontaneity also carries risks. Without a structured guide, a leader is more likely to use exaggerated metaphors, multi-interpretable analogies, or even make claims that do not have adequate data. As a result, the substance of the policy that should be the focus can shift to a debate about the speech itself.

In the context of political communication, this phenomenon has been studied by political scientist Jeffrey K. Tulis through the concept of The Rhetorical Presidency. Tulis explains that in the development of modern politics, presidents tend to rely more on direct communication to the public through rhetoric than building institutional-based arguments and policy deliberation processes. As a result, political communication is played more on the emotional than rational aspects.

The theory does not necessarily mean that every spontaneous speech is something wrong. However, the theory reminds us that when rhetoric is more dominant than fact-based arguments, the quality of democracy can decline. The public is more busy debating viral sentences than evaluating the substance of government policies.

Spontaneity and the Betting on State Credibility

Lecturer in Communication Science at Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta, Yanti Amiliani revealed that in a democratic state, the president's speech should not stop as a rhetorical performance. He must be a medium of public accountability. The public needs a clear explanation regarding the direction of development, the achievements of programs, the challenges being faced, to the scientific basis of every policy taken by the government.

Data-based communication is becoming increasingly important in an increasingly critical society. In the digital era, the public no longer just hears speeches, but also checks, compares, and verifies every piece of information that is delivered. Therefore, accuracy is the main capital in building public trust.

On the other hand, when communication is built more through spontaneous statements that are minimally data-rich, the space of interpretation becomes wider. Statements that are actually intended as illustrations can be understood as official policies. Jokes can be considered as government attitudes. As a result, public energy is sucked into the polemics of communication, not into policy evaluation.

Another risk that should be noted is the emergence of a tendency to personalize power. When government communication is too focused on the personal style of a leader, the state institutions slowly lose their space. In fact, in the modern democratic system, public policy is not built on the basis of individual intuition, but through the bureaucratic process, academic studies, data analysis, and checks and balances mechanisms.

"The president certainly has the right to speak in his signature style. However, as a head of state, every speech ideally remains within the corridor of accurate, measured, and accountable public communication. Because, what is being built is not just the image of a leader, but the credibility of the country," explained Amilia.

"This does not mean that every speech must be read rigidly from the beginning to the end. Too formal communication also has the potential to lose its human touch. What is needed is a balance. The speech script is not a shackle to the creativity of a leader, but a fence so that every message delivered remains within the right policy track," he continued.

In the practice of government in many countries, the speech script is prepared not because the leader is unable to speak, but because every sentence has gone through a cross-ministerial verification process, legal examination, to consideration of political and economic impacts. One wrong sentence can affect diplomatic relations, shake the market, or cause public unrest.

On the other hand, the public also needs to be proportionate in assessing a president's communication. Not every spontaneous expression must be interpreted as a fatal mistake. However, the public still has the right to hope that state communication increasingly prioritizes data, arguments, and transparency rather than just rhetoric that stirs emotions.

Amilia emphasized that the quality of leadership is not measured by how often a president speaks without a text or how impressive his rhetoric is. Leadership is judged by its ability to explain policy directions clearly, convey facts openly, and build public trust through consistent and evidence-based communication.