The series of election debates ended with what analysts described as an “anticlimactic” finale, during which the three presidential candidates played it safe and shifted to a more conciliatory tone to avoid any negative sentiment in the final week before polling day.

Unlike in the previous two presidential debates, which featured tense, and sometimes heated, exchanges, all three contenders put in more reserved performances on stage for their third and final showing on Sunday night, when they tackled issues of education, health and social welfare.

Political analyst Agung Baskoro said candidates were acutely aware that playing hardball and going on the offensive could be a double-edged sword less than two weeks before voters cast their ballots.

A survey conducted by Indikator Politik Indonesia on Jan. 10-16 found frontrunner and Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto widening his lead over Anies Baswedan and Ganjar Pranowo, despite his military-procurement strategy being confronted in the second presidential debate on Jan. 7.

Anies was seen as putting on a strong showing in the first and second debates, during which he also attacked Prabowo sharply. But his electability rating slipped after the second debate. Ganjar, meanwhile, has seen his electability rating slip after distancing himself from fellow Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) member President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo.

Read also: Race heats up with testy first debate

Agung said that while a strong debate could help voters with higher educations to make up their minds, a sparring match that consisted of attacks could turn off those from lower educational backgrounds, as well as at the grassroots.

Popular

HSBC’s The Redefining Treasury Asia Pacific reveals shift toward real-time treasury

Why rules of corporate reputation are still ignored in Indonesia

Indonesia aims for top three at SEA Games as govt promises bigger cash prize