The debate among the three vice presidential candidates on Sunday revealed little in terms of policy but shed much light on their characters, particularly that of Gibran Rakabuming Raka, the running mate of presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto. In the days after the event, social media users criticized the 36-year-old politician’s performance as juvenile and arrogant.

But whether this has dented the electoral standing of the Prabowo-Gibran ticket is another question. Most surveys still put them ahead of the other candidates, former Jakarta governor Anies Baswedan and his running mate Muhaimin Iskandar, chair of the National Awakening Party (PKB), as well as former Central Java governor Ganjar Pranowo and running mate Mahmud MD, the coordinating political, legal and security affairs minister.

In past elections, the VP position was not taken very seriously and little attention was paid to the debates of the candidates for that office. This time, the Indonesian public has taken a much greater interest in the VP candidates, almost exclusively because one of them is Gibran, the eldest son of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo and the mayor of Surakarta, Central Java.

If he and Prabowo are elected and something happens to the 72-year-old top of the ticket over the next five years, Gibran could find himself in the nation’s driver’s seat.

Many Gibran-watchers came away from the second vice presidential debate very disappointed with his performance. He simply did not take it seriously, throwing in gotcha questions, making snide remarks and using inappropriate body language with his two more senior opponents.

Gibran’s antics on stage may have drawn laughs from supporters, but he failed to impress undecided voters seeking clarity from the televised debates. He came across as unpresidential, raising doubts about his fitness to be a national leader.

Gibran, or perhaps his minders, should have learned the first time around that gotcha questions do not win debates. He had already been told off after the first VP debate for using foreign words and unnecessarily technical terminology when asking his opponents questions. He went on the offensive again with the same strategy last week, asking Muhaimin about lithium ferro-phosphate and Mahfud about greenflation. Both dismissed the questions as irrelevant and refused to answer.

Gibran must have drawn inspiration from his father Jokowi, who deployed a similar strategy against his opponent Prabowo in both the 2014 and 2019 presidential debates and went on to win the races. Given Jokowi’s small margins of victory in both races, his success in the debates may have been decisive.

But the novelty of rhetorical entrapment has worn off by now. By resorting to cheap tricks, Gibran has undermined the credibility of the debates, which are a crucial feature of our democratic elections and help many voters make up their minds for election day.

The strict rules of the debate, with only one or two minutes for participants to respond to questions, make it difficult for candidates to elaborate on complex policy issues, and we cannot expect too much substance from the format.

But with good training and preparation – and if they take the exchange of ideas seriously – candidates can still offer an illuminating performance and answer the questions in the time given. A little humor from time to time wouldn’t hurt, but no quip should cheapen the discussion.

The debates offer an opportunity for candidates to show voters their communication skills, their ability to respond to tough questions and their characters, good or bad.

One more official electoral debate remains, on Feb. 4, this time involving the presidential candidates. We hope they will put on a good, honest show, for our sake and for theirs.

May the best candidate win the debate – and maybe even go on to win the election.

Popular

PDI-P will likely be part of opposition: Ganjar

Indonesia one step from Olympics after beating South Korea

Bahlil leads task force to boost sugar, bioethanol production in Papua