T

he first presidential debate has failed to live up to the expectations of many. To some extent the event last Thursday was not even a debate, let alone a presidential one that could put the incumbent at serious risk.

People may try to weigh who won the debate, which addressed the topics of human rights, corruption and terrorism. In terms of stage performance, Prabowo Subianto and his running mate Sandiaga Uno clearly stole the show, due to their style of firmness and upfront public speaking skills in words and in body language. They also seized a good share of the speaking time by throwing questions or giving answers to the rival pair collaboratively.

By contrast, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s style and body language projected weak posture and a lack of firmness as adopted different postures and gestures. He and his running mate Ma’ruf Amin did not speak as much as expected in a debate.

As if to project consistency, we saw the same pattern during the unofficial delivery of the candidates’ visions and missions, televised separately, where Jokowi chose to go alone, informal, interactive and within a small, prepared audience.

Prabowo, meanwhile, stood on a huge stage with a formal suit, accompanied by his running mate, firmly and enthusiastic. Collaboration is a powerful message, which Prabowo has shown and Jokowi lacked.

Furthermore, in delivering his vision and mission, Jokowi emphasized in particular his achievements in the infrastructure sector, while Prabowo focused on goals and expectations of how to make Indonesia triumphant in economic terms.

Strikingly threatening to the incumbent is Prabowo’s massive use of propaganda. He used propaganda techniques during the speech such as by appealing to authority (by quoting prominent figures to support a position or an idea), creating a bandwagon effect (by persuading the voters to take the course of action everyone else is taking), and so on. He named national heroes, uttered a uniting gesture in his speech by naming all religions and ethnicities in Indonesia in a positive tone and espousing harmonious relations. It seems Prabowo is more willing to work hard and give it all by taking more risks.

This might sound silly, but in the context of a televised debate, visual aspects speak equally strong, if not stronger, than words. These visual messages create impressions that can shape voters’ perception of leadership capacity and fitness to be president or vice president. And in politics, it only takes a swing of perception to win an election, regardless of the quality of the discourse around the debate.

Prabowo had a fatal drawback though. He and his running mate had a tendency to give examples that were easily debunked by a single sentence, such as with the issue of criminalization or politicization of the law. They simply lacked preparation and research.