Debate TV Show is A Packaging and Branding Competition

The first debate of Indonesia's next president on Thursday, January 17,2019 have got broadly numerous comments and praises although some political experts think ,it didn't clarify some current problems of this country in laws and human rights. Both candidates who were accompanied by their vices performed below the expectation although both had tried their best to persuade their supporters.

The contents of the debate have been discussed and explained widely by some prominent observers but the visual sides have not been widely analyzed even though these objects told viewers more honestly like how those candidates spoke, thought, reacted and gave comments. The candidates probably did not realize that their performances were telecasted by national televisions meaning their close-up facial gestures and movements were open to observe whether they were comfortable or not on the stage.

Debate concept is different from speech that one way communication is uttered. Debate needs more seriousness in arranging mimics and expressions. How can you persuade your viewers if you memorize and and read your "holy" notes?

When you talk to camera , it means one viewer or more ones are treated similarly. Non-verbal communications have shown President Jokowi (JKW) and KH Ma'ruf Amin (MA) played safely and it can be accepted as the government holder, but the burden of the "conversation" should be carried by both not President Jokowi dominantly did himself. It seems the candidate number one looked lack of confidence and less spirit. Meanwhile Prabowo Subianto (PS) and Sandiaga Uno (SU) as the candidate number two and the challenger had shown their more "stylish" performance as they played their roles in balance.

Non-verbal presentations which include the wardrobe choice showed that PS and SU dressed more neatly and well-planned comparing to JKW and MA in that looked "ordinary" and "modest". The costumes worn by candidates during the show are effective language to tell who they are and what kind of messages they want to offer to viewers.

Some fashion observers have opinion that black- coloured costumes are bolder and more serious than the white-coloured ones which deliver weak messages. Some supporters of JKW and MA argued that white coloured dress reflected their kindness and sincereness. Nevertheless the "haute couture" costume choice is only one of accessories to perform but most audience in fact had been waiting for superb and sophisticated visions and missions, unfortunately, they were dissapointed as they did not watch and listen the messages from both candidates.

Although PS and SU who were considered, staged more well-prepared than JKW and MA, had lost some of their credibilities as they had stated some misleading information like saying the size of Central Java Province is bigger than Malaysia and "permission" of some of ex-corruptors to be next senators under his party, and the worst was when PS himself in his typical gesture revealed "as if" he tolerated corruptors and they may do their "forbidden" activity at least they take it "not much".Lol! Your style is your content and your examples are your thoughts, aren't they?

PS actually had chance to check JKW's seriousness in handling Novel Baswedan' s human rights case but PS did not do it. It is a big question because it implies the law case that touches ordinary person is treated differently with one that prominent government officers get involved. It also means Novel Baswedan's acid attack tragedy is not a big deal.   

JKW 's ambiguous impression was also questioned during the debate as he didn't answer satisfactorily PS'question regarding over supply of rice imports even though the Bulog (The Indonesian Logistic Bureau)  warehouses have surplus stocks. If PS had owned exact and accurate data of this issue, the problem could have been explained and informed to the viewers who had expected President's honest explanation. 

The President also gave such a 'naive' opinion by revealing his experiences when he had tried to become the Governor of Jakarta and he was very successful that he had not spent money at all. "Something" that is considered as ridiculous in this era (zaman now).  

Another "funny" thing occured when KPU (General Election Commissions) which had organized the debate session got complaints about the debate duration that is considered too "short", but in reality during the debate Presiden Jokowi and his vice, Ma'ruf Amin were unable to maximize their time allocations to respond and to ask, although people in the entertainment business have known the term "every second counts" noting how expensive to put commercials in 30 seconds time slot.

In summary all candidates have presented their ability and capability to show their prospects in leading the country in the next five years and they hope their packages are welcomed by viewers, especially for the floating voters who are still confused to select between those two candidates. Presidential Debate TV Show apparently is not a simple performance, it is a complete packaging presentation in order to attract more voters to take part in and to vote on the election day on April 17, 2019. So what pair is branding more successfully? See you in the second debate then next month.

"Democracy is hammered out on the anvil of discussions,dissent and debate" 

From some sources