Presidential Candidate number 01, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo (left) and presidential candidate number 02, Prabowo Subianto, select a list of questions in the second debate of the presidential candidates for the 2019 general election in Jakarta on Sunday (17/2/2019).
The second presidential debate took place on Sunday. Overall, the substance of the second debate was better than the first debate even though some people are still dissatisfied.
Both presidential candidates Joko “Jokowi” Widodo and Prabowo Subianto have conveyed their visions in the fields of energy, infrastructure, natural resources and the environment. A number of issues, such as the policy of not importing food, which Jokowi had promised, were raised by Prabowo. Critique against his import policy was responded by Jokowi, albeit in general. He said the import was made as an effort to control prices. On the other hand, Jokowi also claimed to have succeeded in reducing corn imports, for example.
Likewise, the question about infrastructure that was raised by Prabowo was responded by Jokowi. We see that even though it did not discuss the details of the candidates’ program, the debate between the two candidates is better than the first debate. An exchange of views took place, so did mutual criticism. Prabowo’s positive recognition of President Jokowi’s achievements must also be appreciated. Several times, Prabowo expressed his support of what President Jokowi did even though criticism was also launched by Prabowo.
President Jokowi’s criticism of Prabowo’s land ownership was answered by Prabowo. Prabowo acknowledged that the land he owned was under the right of business use (HGU) scheme, which at one time, could be taken over by the state. Prabowo argued that it would be better if the land was managed by him instead of falling into foreign hands.
“Because I am nationalist and patriot,” Prabowo said.
In the debate, Prabowo openly supported the President’s policies. Prabowo’s attitude was certainly good and not just to criticize. As the opposition, he does not have to believe that everything his political
competitors had done was bad. If indeed there are achievements from the political competitor that must be supported, yes, they must be supported, and if there are shortcomings, yes, they must be criticized. Such a political attitude will make democracy more mature, making politics more rational and no longer emotional.
We appreciate the two presidential candidates for continuing to improve their appearance in the debate and still maintain a quality debate. Debates must remain an arena for contestation of ideas, offer programs and defend the programs from criticisms. Let the debate be a guide for voters who are still confused in making choices.
One other thing that deserves attention is an explosion nearby the place where people nonton bareng (jointly watch) the debate from a huge screen, close to the venue of the debate. It is the duty of the police to reveal who and what message is behind the explosion. The perpetrator surely tried to convey a political message, whatever it is. We encourage the police to uncover the explosion.
The elections must be maintained so that they follow prevailing regulations. The authorities must be able to detect the slightest effort that can disrupt the elections or disrupt the elections or cause fear. There are still three more debates. The General Elections Commission (KPU) needs to rethink whether an activity such as nonton bareng in open area is still recommended, considering the threat such as the explosion.
