PANDANGAN HUKUM DAN HAM JOKO WIDODO DAN PRABOWO SUBIANTO PADA DEBAT CAPRES PERTAMA 2019: SEBUAH ANALISIS WACANA KRITIS NORMAN FAIRCLOUGH

Abstract

The debate between presidential and vice presidential candidates is a moment that the public has been waiting for to find out which candidate they will choose. From this debate, the public can determine their choice to become president and vice president. Therefore, in this research, the author chose the presidential and vice presidential candidate debates as the research object seen from the perspective of critical discourse analysis. This research is entitled "Joko Widodo and Prabowo Subianto's Legal and Human Rights Views on the 2019 First Presidential Candidate Debate: An Analysis of Norman Fairclough's Critical Discourse". This research aims to determine the linguistic aspects used by Joko Widodo and Prabowo Subianto in representing their views on law and human rights, forms of discourse practice, and the social or cultural traditions behind the emergence of this discourse. This research uses Norman Fairclough's analytical theory to look at ongoing social and cultural practices through text dimensions, discourse practice, and sociocultural practice to see the original reality that makes the discourse appear. To find out these three things, four stages were used, namely (1) using debate transcripts software Express Scribe; (2) linguistic analysis of the debate text; (3) discourse analysis of the debate text; (4) relating the social and cultural context to the debate text. Meanwhile, the method used in this research is a qualitative descriptive method, namely a method that aims to provide a systematic description of the data, characteristics, and relationships of the phenomena to be studied. Based on the results of the analysis, it was found that Jokowi views law and human rights as a unity. procedures that all have mechanisms so that when there are human rights violations they can be dealt with according to legal procedures. Meanwhile, Prabowo views law and human rights as regulations that can be controlled by the President as the highest head of government. These views are supported by their background and the work program presented. Apart from that, due to the social context built into the debate, they tried to attack each other with various case examples to defend their opinions and attract the hearts of the public.