The Political Elites’ Response Discourse towards Prabowo’s Speech Entitled “Indonesia Punah” on Kompas.com and Republika.com

The background of research was developed by the responses of political elites to the statements of figures. The research problem was how the discourse of response and aligments from Prabowo speech entitled “Indonesia Punah” published in Kompas.com and Republika.com, which were the material objects of the research. A qualitative approach combined with a descriptive analysis techniques were applied in the research. Analysis was done by using Michael Foucault`s power relation theory. The research indicates that Kompas’ writing style tends to accentuate Jokowi’s government side as a comparison in responding to Prabowo’s speech. As for Republika, it dominates a clear description of the figure who gives the response. Then, the results of the power relations between Moeldoko and Hidayat Nur Wahid show that Moeldoko comments on behalf of the government by linking Jokowi’s performance. Meanwhile, Hidayat Nur Wahid gives a response to save the reputation of the stigma embedded in him, namely the religious figure, deputy chairman of the People`s Consultative Assembly (MPR) of the Republic of Indonesia, and Prabowo’s party bearer cadre.


INTRODUCTION
Political communication is a connecting tool for all existing political systems, both from the present and the past. Thus, aspirations and interests are converted into various policies. Broadly speaking, political communication is an important part of a way to achieve order and harmony in the area of state life. In addition, there are two important things that are the function of political communication; one of them is a counterbalance to the running of government politics (Anggraini, 2014). The year 2019 is a political year for the Indonesian people. On 17 th April 2019, the political events are held through presidential elections (pemilihan presiden) and legislative elections (pemilihan legislatif). These events become valuable moments for the community. These moments make all the residents put their hopes on the elected state leader and mandated their aspirations to elected legislators to bring Indonesia to prosperity.
In a democracy, people are the determinants of the future of this nation. It means that people's choices are the dream determinant of the nation's future. However, in reality, the election results often become advantageous for one particular party and a loss for the other party. The idealized conditions of all people are difficult to be realized. As a result, the pinned promises are also a figment of the elected politicians. This phenomenon is a manifestation of the political education failure in the community or the dirty game by political elites in this country. Both of the reasons have bonded relations. It could be the politicians acted 'dirty' because of mere power ambitions. On the one hand, the people do not have a critical political awareness yet. Some of them chose without rational consideration but tended to be emotional, pragmatic, and follow crowds. It could also be possible that society becomes emotional, pragmatic, and practical because the dirty political world is deliberately formed by the political elites themselves.
As a result, political malpractice has become a culture, and hegemony in society might happen. It stigmatizes the community to think so about politics, "Even though it is not good but it is usually done". In fact, the political meaning itself has become pejorative from what is originally a noble act, the activity of managing society, becoming something that seemed arrogant, dirty, and cruel.
In addition, the role of mass media that connects the political world to the public has been controlled by certain parties who have dirty modes. The mass media actually plays a role in forming opinions on the community in accordance with the 'order'. The paradigm of political discourse is dirty. The power struggles and conflicts between groups with different political choices are the results of mass media discourse. Based on the results of Hamad (2007), the mass media have not carried out their function well, which is mediating political affairs, so that the people do not get the right political education. The mass media should be more objective in proclaiming each political party's programs and performance rather than focusing on reporting someone's personality. The mass media, as forming public opinion, will certainly preach a variety of news, in loading the news that can be formed a positive and negative public opinion for the government. Moreover, there are still many media that present news trapped by the 'paradigm' of bad news is good news, not only good news is good news (Ardianto, 2012).
The condition and situation of politics in this country still portray such figures until the presidential and legislative elections. The situation is coupled with the presence of social media in cyberspace. The existence of social media is very influential for the political stage in Indonesia. Political chaos is often triggered by social media. The role of social media has a strong influence in turning someone into a 'ruler' in determining the direction of Indonesia's political policy. Other perspectives of parties with an interest in politics deliberately use their power to give noise in politics and sought to conduct hegemony through social media.
The election is actually people's democracy party to channel their aspirations in a healthy manner. Unfortunately, social media becomes a place to fight each other between supporters through emotional and irrational ways. The mass media produces discourse so that it influences the way of thinking and acting in society. The produced discourse becomes knowledge, and it may contain certain powers. The power in the form of discursive practice of certain ideologies and understandings can be transformed into knowledge in society through media. Knowledge is born because of power that can be perpetuated by knowledge.
The connection between people and politicians, the existence of social media with the direction of politics are in line with Foucault's theory of power and knowledge. Eriyanto (2011), Syahputra (2010), Abadi (2017), and Kamahi (2017) have revealed that power, according to Foucault, is not only owned by someone or a group of people who want to dominate others but everything that surrounds the style of thinking, the style of one's attitude and becoming basis, foundation and a base in doing an act. Power is everywhere, spread in society, and interconnected. The power would be present in a society that runs naturally in human interaction. The power does not make negative and receptive, but it runs normally through regulation and becomes a truth accepted in society. Foucault views the claims about truth as something created, produced, and carried out in a discursive practice depending on the power enthroned in the system and disseminated by the discourse. These views are in line with the opinions of Eriyanto (2011), Syahputra (2010, and Kamahi (2017).
In approaching the 2019 presidential election, two candidates carry out various campaign efforts, one of which is by clashing arguments in a speech. The speeches of the two candidates contain a lot of reaction from the public and political observers. Even the jargon or terms used in speeches are often produced in various ways, and versions such as caricatures, memes, and so on becoming viral in the community. This phenomenon, in the context of the elections, is certainly very interesting. Discursive war is felt in the effort to win historical truth.
One of the presidential candidates, Prabowo Subiyanto, makes a speech or political speech as one of his campaign strategies. Definitely, Joko Widodo, as the other candidates, also makes his own speeches. However, the rhetoric of Prabowo's speech based on research is considered more interesting. Based on the result of the study conducted by Ninik and Rejeki (2011), Prabowo is a speaker who has a strong, firm, and authoritative style with the content of the speech is based on the data, facts, although sometimes a little bit excessive. Prabowo has good public speaking skills, even though the content of his speech often triggers the birth of pros and cons in society. One of Prabowo's speeches that trigger pros and cons is entitled Indonesia Punah, which delivers at the Sentul International Convention Center (SICC), Bogor, West Java on Gerindra Party National Conference, Monday, 17 th December 2018. However, the research's focus is not on Prabowo's speech but the pros and cons of the speech. Both pros and cons comments would be analyzed through a study of Critical Discourse analysis by Michele Foucault's theory of power relations and knowledge.
Critical discourse analysis, according to Fairclough and Wodak (Eriyanto, 2009), is an activity in analyzing the use of language in practice among society. The use of language in a society becomes a discursive practice if associated with ideology, the situation, the social structure that shapes it, and the power behind it. The use of intergroup language raises an interdisciplinary struggle, each of which has a truth claim and tries to dominate the episteme. Analysis of critical discourse in Foucault's view is not only in the form of descriptive explanation, but it tries to reveal the cause and effect of an in-depth discourse (Munfarida, 2014). It looks for relations between discourse with the power that surrounds a text. Power is sought by analyzing sentences or language from the context of the speaker's ideology, life and political outlook, also based on the power of the media based on research that has been done. Foucault's view does not only contain descriptive explanations but also trying to uncover excuses produced in profounding discourse. Searching for inter-discourse relations with the power of discourse that surrounds the text of power is sought by analyzing sentences or languages from the speaker's ideology, understanding life and political views, and using media (Hamad, 2010).
Critical discourse analysis on the pros and cons of Prabowo's speech has a focus of study on the discourse created between the two opposing parties in responding Prabowo's speech and examining the power behind the discourse they roll out. The discourse that would be sought through its power is related to the views of life and political views of figures. It conveys discourse, characteristics, and alignments of the media that present discourses and ideologies of power that influence the opinions and thought of the leaders.
In the research, Norman Fairclough's critical discourse analysis model is used to examine the text, text production, and socio-cultural practices in reporting the responses of political elites to Prabowo's speech Indonesia Punah. It aims to find the reality of the discourse of a news text presented. Prabowo's speech Indonesia Punah becomes a consideration because it is adjusted to the viewpoint of critical discourse analysis, always looking at texts, conversations as practices of values and a reflection of certain missions (Eriyanto, 2011). In the research, the problem involved is how the discourse of response and alignments of Kompas.com and Republika.com in Prabowo's speech Indonesia Punah. The purpose of the research is to describe the discourse of responses and the alignments of Kompas.com and Republika. com in Prabowo's speech Indonesia Punah.

METHODS
The approach of the research is a qualitative method with descriptive analysis techniques. The research materials are online media: Kompas.com and Republika.com regarding the report on the response of the political elites towards Prabowo's speech entitled Indonesia Punah. The news was accessed on December 20 th , 2018. The analysis is carried out by intensively reading the text of Prabowo's speech. Then, the comparison between opinions expressed by Moeldoko and Hidayat Nur Wahid is also being analyzed. Afterward, examining the contents of the text in depth by looking for relationship among various information about the ideology, life views, and politics of the person who speaks and the media's side of writing.
The steps to obtain and process information are carried out as follows. First is a literature review of Foucault's theories of power relations and their relationship to political discourse. Second is an analysis of the formal object in the research by Faucalt's scalpel. The last one is the comparison of the power relations between the two media with the figures that appear.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The behavior and utterances by the presidential candidate would always be in the public spotlight. Moreover, the digital era makes everyone possible to document it. It means also, there is easy access for everyone to get that information. Furthermore, political opponents who take advantage of the moment in finding faults are made as delicits. The media also often looks for loopholes to be able to proclaim news that would shape public opinion. Here, the dysfunction of media happens lately. The existence of the authorities behind the media is believed to be the reason. The political world is rich in strategies and ways to gain people's votes. In a democracy, the people would become the determiner of who would be the mandate holder. Therefore, various efforts are made to gain people's sympathy. In Foucault's theory, this is included in the framework of psychoanalysis, where humans are always in a situation of ignorance and unconsciousness when they are under pressure from their context system. Humans always hide or turn off their original desires because of system pressure (Khozin, 2012).
The discursive war between supporters of two presidential candidates is not inevitable. The two pairs appear to display their own discursive. Similarly, the political elites on the two sides show different discursiveness. One example is discursive between Moeldoko and Hidayat Nur Wahid. In simple terms, Moeldoko, who was Jokowi's stronghold representing the discursive nationalist, and Hidayat Nur Wahid from Prabowo's side show the discurfacing militant Islam. The following are news from Kompas.com and Republika.com as materials object from the research. The two discourses are carefully examined through the concept of Foucault's power relations. The researchers use Foucault as a formal object of the research in examining the tendency of the media and the responses of the political elites presented in the text. The researchers want to examine the common thread between the relations of the authorities and the media. The media becomes dysfunctional, which is not just an information conveyer but also the existence of powerful parties behind the media. The presidential election, which is divided into only two candidates, makes the political atmosphere heated up. The emergence of speeches such as the use of hashtags of #2019gantipresiden, #jokowi1kalilagi or the terms of 'cebong' or 'kampret' are the pictures of a heated political atmosphere. Although it is heated up, it would revive democracy if it is balanced with healthy and clean politics. Table 1 presents to look at the differences in alignments between Kompas.com and Republika.com.

PKS yakin Prabowo tak ingin Indonesia punah
The giving of news headlines on Kompas.com gives the character's name, not the title. Meanwhile, the news titles on Republika.com are based on their political organization, not the names of the figures. Kompas.com writes the name of Moeldoko, whose position is indeed the Head Staff of the President. Whereas Republika.com uses the word PKS (Partai Keadilan Sejahtera) rather than Hidayat Nur Wahid (hereinafter abbreviated as HNW). The title of the news is the first thing seen from discourse in the media. Moeldoko represents himself, while implicitly, Kompas.com shows that Moeldoko's figure is indeed on Jokowi's side. It is possible for Kompas.com to write 'presidential staff' and does not immediately mention it.
The opposite thing is done in the discourse of Republika.com, which actually writes the party name. Based on the body of the discourse, the content is the response of the HNW as a figure. Republika.com seems to express itself more explicitly in favor of 'Islam' by emphasizing the opinion of HNW as the opinion of PKS. PKS has been known for its image as a militant Islamic party and the most influential Prabowo support party. HNW is considered as an overview of PKS that displays politeness and religious figures. Both figures of Moledoko and HNW have the power to respond in each proportion.
The essence of the news is about Moeldoko and HNW's responses to Prabowo's speech. However, Kompas.com has more news content on Moeldoko's comments on Jokowi's performance. The description of Jokowi's performance is presented to comment on Indonesia Punah. The comparative writing pattern, which is written by Kompas.com, discredits the contents of Prabowo's speech. So that, the contents of Prabowo's speech are only considered as a form of his incomprehension of the country management. The government should not have to respond to the contents of Prabowo's speech. The response is given by Jokowi's dual function as president and presidential candidate to seek a gap in his political opponent, Prabowo. Kompas, which writes the portion of Jokowi's explanation, is dominant than the direct response to Prabowo's speech. In contrast to Republika. com, the portion of HNW's response is actually more about Prabowo. HNW's response is more persuasive to the media and readers. The description in Republika is more dominant with the utterances of HNW and interrelating with each other.
HNW's response is more to the persuasive attitude to the readers and listeners to be more critical. HNW's oration invites people to ignore the political atmosphere that always causes even small things to be controversial. Other than inviting to criticize the contents of the speech, it is also important to criticize the discourse that is reported by the media. In Foucault's perspective, HNW responded so that there is at least three community stigma attached to the HNW figure. The first stigma is religious people. HNW often fills out Islamic Studies and gives lecturers. In addition, he is also referred to as a figure in giving his comments based on religion. Second, his position as chairman of the People`s Consultative Assembly (MPR). HNW also serves as deputy chairman of the MPR as the highest position in the government's legislative function. The voice that HNW released should not cause a split. The last public perception is a politician from PKS, who is also the party supporting Prabowo in the 2019 presidential election.
Since 2019 would be a political year, it is very reasonable when the dominance of the people's paradigm towards HNW's response refers to a party cadre. It is also possible that the public response to HNW is a form of advice as a religious and deputy chairman of the MPR. Due to the political year, people's tendency to respond is more to their politicians' side. His response, thus, saves the reputation of the three stigmas. His religious figure would not disappear because the public would consider that as advice from a religious figure to avoid the public noise. Even for people who have high positions in the legislature, Kompas.com compared with Jokowi's performance. The response was not explicit to Prabowo's statement, but rather presented his response to Jokowi's performance. his status quo as the holder of the people's mandate is saved. Similarly, as a functional person or cadre who supports Prabowo as a presidential candidate. His invitation to the media in hearing the speech in its entirety is one form of criticism of the media. The media often only cuts out the parts that are considered capable of giving broad public responses. The media should be able to be more objective.
Moeldoko speaks on behalf of the presidential staff and is also written as the Jokowi-Ma'ruf campaign team's vice-chairman. In other words, he speaks in his proportions as a supporter of the government in office and supporters of the presidential candidate, of course as the party that opposes Prabowo's speech. The discourse that Moeldoko displayed is different from the one shown by the HNW figure (Table 2).

CONCLUSIONS
The results of the analysis of the writing style of Kompas.com and Republika.com are responding to the text Indonesia Punah that according to Michael Foucault's theory of power relations. It is the first based on the alignments of Kompas.com seen from the writing pattern that compares with Jokowi's performance.
The tendency of Kompas.com could be seen from the writing pattern that compares with Jokowi's performance. Based on these comparators, Indonesia would not be able to become extinct. The response to the context of his speech is only at the end of the news by giving conclusions. The writer assumes that Kompas.com looks to instill the stigma that Prabowo has a pessimistic attitude, while Jokowi is very optimistic. It is different from Republika.com, which is also written by using the party name in terms of the title. Unlike Kompas.com, which directly mentions the person who commented, Republika.com focuses on Indonesia's political elite's responses. It does not compare with Jokowi's performance, which has two functions, as a president and a presidential candidate.
Based on the power relations (response discourse) of Moeldoko and Hidayat Nur Wahid, it shows that Moeldoko's response represents a person on behalf of Jokowi's presidential staff. Whereas Hidayat Nur Wahid comments calmly to be politically healthy and critical. His power relationship is to save the community's stigma that has been embedded in the figure of HNW, namely religious figure, the deputy chairman of MPR, and the cadre of the party supporting Prabowo as a presidential candidate.
Based on the results, the research is expected to contribute significantly to creating unequal social power relations among various social groups. The research implies that reality can influence and shape social practices. Therefore, the social structure that is part of reality is also dialectically related to social discourse or practice.