- 27/05/2024
- Category: Commentaries
Author: Timothy Pieter Christian Siahaan
Editor: M Perdana Karim
Two months have passed since the election and people have made their decisions. The vote counting is also finished, but yet the public is still extending their debate about who should be elected – if unwilling to be labeled as disappointed by the current results – as Indonesia’s leader for the next five years.
Each candidate is a good leader in their own way. They are all architects who connect the vision to the everyday lives of voters. The presence of candidates, among other things, in the digital realm suggests that efforts are being made to empower and envision change with society directly.
At its best, it is believed that dialogue between society and potential leaders can spark institutional change.
In my research[1] on advocacy and its role in public policy, I observed people’s attitudes in the midst of problem. It mostly addressed the Klitih phenomena and a few other issues, such as the withdrawal of the music law draft[2].
My research indicates that the lack of a formal institutional framework that offers a space for mediation is the reason why people are swarming to digital media to express their discontent with the government. At their worst, debates about how to solve societal issues get entangled in episodic perception-manipulation and emotionally uncontrolled.
In the electoral context, one way to capitalize on this phenomenon is to simplify campaign tactics on social media.
Sometimes, perception is more important than just an intention.
One of the areas of focus in my research was leadership attitudes within crisis conditions. In a similar vein, leaders can adopt either a transformational or transactional approach when campaigning.
Leaders with transformational appetites tend to capture people’s interest by attempting to change their beliefs, assumptions, and behavior; emphasizing the importance of collective outcomes[3]. Ideally, this situation encourages voters to look beyond their own interests to achieve common goals. Dialogue is then used to increase congruence with voters.
In reality, dialogue has high operating costs, such as time, barriers to participate, and an extended attention span. I observed the same two symptoms:
First, dialogue that results in significant ultimate aspirations at the same time leaving individuals unable to perceive the connection between the discourse and their everyday lives; and
Second, even those who find their future leaders’ aspirations appealing will be driven only if they see how their daily problems relate to them.
In the end, dialogue might be an example of isolated purpose, hazy, and disconnected from day-to-day activities.
To avoid vague aspirations and gain large numbers of votes quickly, electoral candidates use practical and deterministic campaigns, in which social media plays a significant role in these efforts.
With the rise of short-form video content platforms like as Tiktok and Reels, these tools are intended to alter people’s perceptions of leadership and encourage a flexible attitudes and personality. The challenge derives from how society defines leadership differently for various people[4]. At the most surrendered point, leadership becomes just transactional, delivering instant gratification in order to swiftly win public perception.
It therefore shouldn’t be that surprising where it comes to satisfying public needs, candidates may over report their image in order to be socially acceptable. Situations like this contribute to echo chamber dynamics in grabbing a large number of people’s attention by selectively sharing just the most attractive, pragmatic, and non-substantive marketing styles. In a transactional leadership campaign, serving the desires of individuals rapidly becomes a shortcut to gaining votes; it is precisely at this time that dialogue becomes ineffective.
Trickling down the dialogues
Social media has made our lives more convenient, thus society deserves more than just a ceremonial campaign. But there is still a long way to go.
Consider X (Twitter), for example. One can fairly believe that requesting government responses during a crisis is part of treating people with respect. However, one may argue that what constitutes a reaction is subjective: what appears satisfying to one person may appear pointless to another on Facebook. Second, the distribution of the discussion determines its fairness. Giving the same thing to everyone is frequently perceived as unfair, especially if some of the benefits go to X users rather than those who foment conflict in Tiktok comments.
In the end, it’s important to challenge transactional appeals and highlight the diverse effects of dialogue on different social groups. These effects include how dialogue has remained still insensitive to what people with technological lag demand and fails to highlight their efforts; how follower groups can elevate the dialogue more equally and contextually across platforms; and, most importantly, how dialogue can reinforce the core leadership virtue of listening.
As I said before, it is still a long way to go.
[1] Siahaan and Susanto (2023)
[2] See Alifiarry and Kusumasari (2021)
[3] Jacobsen and Andersen (2015)
[4] See Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT) by Lord et al. (2020)
