Gaston Malindir, Hamzah Jamaludin, Adi Prayitno

COMPARISON OF THE ANIES AND GEMOY URGENT CAMPAIGN MODELS IN THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Introduction

Comparison of the anies and gemoy urgent campaign models in the 2024 presidential and vice presidential elections. Compare 'Desak Anies' & 'Gemoy' campaign models in Indonesia's 2024 Presidential Election. Analyzes strategies, target youth, and voter reception, noting Gemoy's broader appeal.

Abstract

Entering the campaign period on January 21, each pair of candidates used various unique campaign models which were considered effective in attracting the hearts of the Indonesian people. Since the start, the public has been excited about Gemoy, which is the trending campaign model of candidate pair number 02 Prabowo-Gibran, while pair 01 Anies-Muhaimin has also attracted attention with the latest campaign model introduced by Desak Anies. This research uses a descriptive method with a qualitative approach. Data collection techniques in this research include literature study and field study. The research results show that there are significant similarities and differences between the Desak Anies and Gemoy campaign models. The similarity between the two lies in the target of the campaign model used, namely the young generation in the age range of 17-40 years with a percentage of 53% of the number of voters in Indonesia. On the other hand, the fundamental difference between the two lies in the ideas put forward in Desak Anies and Gimik which are put forward through the Gemoy campaign model. Specifically, the differences between these two campaign models can be seen using eight comparative variables referring to Nowak and Warneryd's Campaign Model theory which includes; Intended effect, Competing communication, Communication object, Target population & receiving group, Channel, The message, The communicator/sender, and The obtained effect. Despite this, the results in the field show that the majority of people tend to be interested in the Gemoy campaign model compared to the Desak Anies campaign model which tends to be intellectual, characterized by a debate of ideas.

Review

This paper offers a timely and relevant examination of emergent campaign strategies in the highly contested 2024 Indonesian Presidential and Vice Presidential elections. Focusing on two prominent and contrasting models – "Desak Anies" and "Gemoy" – the research aims to provide a comparative analysis of their characteristics and perceived effectiveness. Employing a descriptive method with a qualitative approach, the study utilizes both literature and field studies to gather insights into these contemporary political communication phenomena. The chosen subject matter is particularly pertinent given the significant role of novel campaign tactics in modern electoral contests, especially in a populous and digitally-savvy nation like Indonesia. The abstract effectively outlines the study's core findings, revealing both significant commonalities and divergences between the "Desak Anies" and "Gemoy" campaign models. A key similarity identified is their shared strategic targeting of the young generation (17-40 years), which constitutes a substantial portion (53%) of the Indonesian electorate. Crucially, the fundamental difference lies in their respective approaches: "Desak Anies" emphasizes intellectual discourse and the exchange of ideas, while "Gemoy" relies heavily on "Gimik" or popular gimmicks. The application of Nowak and Warneryd's Campaign Model theory, dissecting the models across eight specific variables, suggests a robust analytical framework that promises a nuanced comparison. The intriguing finding that the "Gemoy" model, despite its more superficial nature, garnered greater public interest compared to the intellectual "Desak Anies," offers a compelling preliminary insight into contemporary voter preferences and the evolving landscape of political persuasion. While the abstract presents a clear outline of the research and its preliminary findings, several aspects warrant further elaboration in the full paper to enhance its scholarly contribution. The term "urgent campaign models" in the title is not clearly defined or justified within the abstract, leaving the reader to speculate on its precise meaning and significance. Furthermore, while "field study" is listed as a data collection technique, the abstract lacks specifics regarding its methodology, such as the number of participants, locations, or the specific qualitative methods employed (e.g., interviews, focus groups, observation). This omission makes it challenging to assess the robustness of the claim regarding the "majority of people's" interest in the "Gemoy" model. A detailed discussion on the implications of a "Gimik"-driven campaign's success over an intellectual, debate-focused approach for the quality of democratic discourse in Indonesia would significantly enrich the study. Clarifying these methodological details and expanding on the broader implications will undoubtedly strengthen the paper's overall impact and credibility.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.