Was first Indonesian presidential debate a game-changer as ‘articulate’ Anies outshines Prabowo?
- Anies Baswedan impressed with his oratory skills, while Ganjar Pranowo scored points by reminding voters of Prabowo Subianto’s past human rights controversies
- But analysts noted the first election debate was ‘not substantive’, with Indonesians yet to hear any concrete policies from the presidential hopefuls
The three candidates squared off on topics including governance, law, human rights, corruption eradication, democracy and public service during the two-hour debate, the first in a series of five leading up to the vote on February 14.
Although Anies may have impressed with his public-speaking skills, political analyst Ujang Komarudin said the debate contained more drama than policy details.
“Rhetorically, Anies was good, better than Ganjar and Prabowo, because he has a lecturer’s background. However, this rhetorical side must still be accompanied by a substantive side,” Ujang, an academic at the Al-Azhar University in Jakarta, said on Wednesday.
“Last night’s debate was still not substantive, the candidates did not comprehensively explain their programmes, such as how they would eradicate corruption and the legal mafia,” he added.
Firman Noor, a political researcher at the National Research and Innovation Agency, also praised Anies for being the only candidate who “could articulate his answers in a short time, and in relevant manners. He could even kick back some attacks, especially from Prabowo, which are also quite personal”.