DKI Jakarta's political constellation is heating up. In the last period of campaigning, the visions, missions and programs of the three pairs of candidates for governor and deputy governor have become more intense in order to gain sympathy. Voting, which took place in a matter of days, required the public to be observant in making choices, especially in situations where the information that came in related to each other's candidates was difficult to believe. As voters, the people of DKI Jakarta have the right to obtain valid and balanced information on the track records of all candidates. What about their integrity, especially in their commitment to eradicating corruption, which according to several Populi Center survey findings always occupies the top 5 (five) main issues that must be handled by the DKI Jakarta government. So how does the public respond to it?

The Populi Center discussed this in the Jakarta Perspective program, through a public discussion on February 7 at the Jakarta media center of the Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) secretariat, with the theme "Traveling the Integrity of Candidates for Governor and Deputy Governor of DKI Jakarta". The discussion, which was attended by many media, featured 3 (three) resource persons; Donal Fariz (Coordinator of the ICW Political Corruption Division), Masykuruddin Hafidz (National Coordinator of JPPR) and Usep S. Ahyar (Director of the Populi Center).

At the beginning of his presentation, Donal highlighted the issue of the DKI Jakarta Pilkada which became a highlight as well as a miniature of a national scale battle. According to him, the DKI Pilkada is a "battle" for three big powers, namely SBY pole represented by candidate number one, Jokowi by number 2 and Prabowo by number 3. It is not impossible that the three poles will fight in the upcoming 2019 presidential election. Apart from that, without denying other regions, as the region with the largest APBD in Indonesia, which is more than 70 trillion, plus being the center of the Indonesian economy and easy access to the media, winning Jakarta is one step towards winning the presidential election.

Furthermore, with regard to the integrity of the gubernatorial candidate, Donal's view can be seen from his track record in commitment to transparency and eradication of corruption as well as campaign finance issues. Candidates number 2 and 3 are considered to have experience in the bureaucracy so you can see how they were in office. Number 2, for example, as the incumbent has proven an effort to create a transparent, accountable bureaucracy and a serious commitment in efforts to eradicate corruption in DKI Jakarta. Even though there were several issues such as Sumberwaras, it was clear that there were no problems from a legal perspective.

Likewise with Candidate number 3. According to him while leading the bureaucracy in one of the Ministries, he showed a commitment to change even though it was not complete. Meanwhile, candidate for Governor number 1 himself admitted that it was difficult to measure integrity because he had never been involved in the bureaucracy. However, according to him, this can be measured from transparent and accountable campaign fund management and reporting efforts. In his observations, candidates number 1 and 3 were the most "stakeholder" in campaign activities and strangely, based on information, only 1.9 billion was spent by candidate number 1.

In line with Donal, one of the discussion participants from the media, conveyed his experience when confirming the question of using and reporting campaign funds which was answered by one of the candidates that this was the authority and regulated by the success team. Responding to this matter, Donald firmly, if there is a candidate who answers like that, clearly reflects a lack of integrity. Because according to him, how can one manage such a large APBD well if one cannot manage relatively small campaign funds. "Transparent and accountable management of campaign funds is a measure of a candidate's integrity." he explained.
Furthermore, Maskyur added that the issue of integrity is actually a similarity between words and actions. In this case, he assessed the vision, mission and programs submitted by the candidates. He regretted that there was an interesting propaganda program but did not explain how the target could be achieved. Apart from that, there is a promotion of programs offered to the public which, when seen in the official documents of the programs submitted, are actually not listed.

He clearly mentioned the example of the 1 billion fund program for RW/RT which was not found in the official documents submitted and did not explain how this target could be achieved. According to him, this is strange and unrealistic. However, he hopes that whoever is elected will not hesitate to adopt another candidate's program if it is good. In the context of transactional politics, he is very worried that this will happen even more deeply if it is covered with the issue of SARA which is rife, especially regarding hate speech.

Unlike Masykur, Usep Ahyar refers to the findings of the Populi Center survey which shows that the majority of voters in DKI Jakarta are rational voters. The program's vision and mission factor is the main point in determining the choice. For this reason, he invited all contestants and sympathizers to avoid campaigns with SARA nuances which could actually be detrimental to themselves. Regarding the integrity of candidates based on the results of the Populi Center survey, Usep explained that candidate electability is always directly proportional to popularity and acceptability. For example, the findings of a recent survey show public dissatisfaction with the performance of Plt. Governor

At the beginning of her presentation, Dahlia Umar explained that although the first debate went well, she admitted that there were several evaluations including suggestions from various community groups, including: The issue of duration which was deemed insufficient (90 minutes). In the second debate, it will be added to 120 minutes excluding commercial advertisements. In addition, in the first debate there were still many issues presented by the candidates that had not been fully explored. Dealing with this problem, Dahlia added that in the second debate, the moderator will be given the freedom to explore issues that the candidate feels have not answered optimally. In the second debate, the format will be almost the same. It is hoped that the addition of 2 (two) Moderators namely Imam Prasodjo and Tina Talisa can collaborate to guide the debate better.

Next, Yayat Supriatna explained some important notes for the evaluation of the second debate later. First, he regretted that the candidates took dissimilar data sources so that what appeared to the surface seemed as if what was important was different and blamed other parties. According to him, data is not only about numbers but also talks about strategies for achieving these targets. Unfortunately not all candidates understand this well. When asked which candidate understands the issues and strategies the most in the first debate? Yayat explained diplomatically that each candidate should understand well the vision, mission and programs of other candidates. So what will emerge is how he does not only criticize other candidates but more substantively convinces the public that his program is better than the others. At the end of the delivery Yayat reminded that the program carried out by each candidate was a "debt" that would be accounted for when he was elected. For this reason, he hopes that the programs offered are realistic. "Every candidate should have a realistic program vision and mission orientated towards a structure that builds culture so that solving Jakarta's problems is not only done alone but based on community awareness and participation." he concluded.

So how does the debate affect voter behavior? Usep S. Ahyar emphasized that DKI voters are rational voters so it is certain that the debate has an influence on voter behavior. At least this is reflected in the findings of the Populi Center in the post-debate survey. First, more than 80% residents of DKI Jakarta watched the debate. This proves the enthusiasm of the public as well as a reference in making choices, especially for novice voters. there are 16% swing voters sound moving experiencing sound changes after the first debate last. Compared to the findings of the December 2016 survey, the movement of votes in the first post-debate survey was spread among the three candidates. There are candidates who are reduced and increased votes. With regard to the holding of the debate, Usep appreciated the KPUD's performance. However, he hopes that in the second debate, more substantial issues will be explored. "The debate is not just about programs and arguments, more than that the essence of the debate is political education for the people." Close it.