Democracy and foreign policy-making in Indonesia: a case study of the Iranian nuclear issue, 2007-08.

• Author: Gindarsah, Iis

Although foreign policy-making remains a state-centric and essentially executive-driven process in Indonesia, domestic political forces have begun to play an increasingly influential role in the conduct of the country's foreign relations. In line with political reforms introduced over the past decade, constitutional amendments allow the Indonesian Parliament (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, DPR) to review the country's foreign policy and ratify international agreements signed by the government. (1) In addition, in recent years, Indonesian society as a whole has become much more aware of foreign policy issues, both in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. The impact of these two factors on foreign policy decision-making in Indonesia is clearly demonstrated in the case of the country's voting behaviour in relation to two United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions concerning Iran's nuclear programme. Having been elected as a non-permanent member of the UNSC for the period 2007-08, the Indonesian government engaged in high-level decision-making on a variety of international security issues, including Iran's nuclear programme. In 2007, Indonesia supported UNSC Resolution No. 1747 which imposed international sanctions, including an arms embargo, against the Iranian government for its uranium enrichment activities. (2) However, in 2008 Indonesia abstained in voting for Resolution No. 1803 that imposed additional sanctions on Iran, such as travel bans, and commercial and financial prohibitions. (3)

How Indonesia handled this issue in the arena of domestic politics presents an interesting case study that supports a long established theory in International Relations literature on the domestic accounts of foreign policy-making. (4) Following Indonesia's support of Resolution 1747, President Susilo Bambang Yudhyono's administration was subjected to sharp criticism from many socio-political groups, most notably Muslim mass organizations. (5) Meanwhile, less than two months after the adoption of the resolution, President Yudhoyono announced he would reshuffle his cabinet, a move that displeased some political parties in the ruling coalition. (6) Many party elites went on to condemn Resolution 1747, while members of Parliament exercised their "right of interpellation" (hak interpelasi) to summon the President to explain why his government had supported the resolution. (7) This article will argue that such political manoeuvres on what was ostensibly an international issue were in fact intimately linked to squabbles and disenchantment over cabinet posts. (8)

Despite the technocratic nature of Indonesia's foreign policymaking, domestic political forces have gained new powers in the post-Soeharto political system. These actors are most likely to exert their influence on Indonesian foreign policy if it affects their collective aspirations and political interests. This article seeks to analyse the political context in Indonesia that led to the government's decision to abstain from voting for Resolution 1803. The paper is divided into three sections. Firstly, it provides a conceptual framework on the position and role of domestic political forces in shaping Indonesia's foreign policy. Secondly, it examines how each social-political actor perceived Resolution 1747. Lastly, it assesses the extent to which these groups have been able to influence the dynamics of the Indonesian government's decisions in voting for UNSC resolutions on Iran.

Conceptualizing Indonesia's Contemporary Foreign Policy Formulation

Foreign policy is state-centric by nature. It comprises a set of measures and guidelines pursued by a state towards external actors or specific international issues. Foreign policy-making is essentially an executive-formed and elite-driven process. The executive actor here refers to agencies and officials within the government's bureaucratic structure. Functionally, these actors hold the primary responsibility to formulate and implement foreign policy decisions. (9) The executive, however, does not operate autonomously when making foreign policy. In that process, decision-makers develop a reciprocal relationship with multiple domestic actors. (10) On the one hand, the government requires political support from the latter to implement its policies throughout the country. In return for their support, domestic actors attempt to influence government policies and decisions to further their interests. (11) There are many ways for decision-makers to build political consensus on a specific policy issue, while domestic actors also have a number of channels available to convey their interests to the former. (12)

As this article seeks to analyse the impact of domestic politics on foreign policy-making in Indonesia, it will concentrate on the role of domestic actors outside the government's decision-making structure. Identifying key domestic actors in foreign policy-making requires one to take cognisance of the nature of the contemporary political setting in Indonesia. (13) After more than a decade of political reforms, Indonesia has adopted an open political system with democratic institutions and mechanisms. Legal and constitutional reforms have resulted in greater parliamentary oversight, the adoption of a multi-party system and the emergence of civil-society organizations. Democratic reforms have also led to greater freedom of speech and more open political debates in the mass media. This article identifies three key societal and political actors that have the capacity to influence Indonesia's foreign policy-making, namely public voices, interests groups and partisan organizations.

Public voices refer to the popular discourse or opinions in the public domain that are aired and circulated through news articles or programmes in the mass media. Under the current political system, decision-makers may calibrate foreign policy on the basis of public approval. In that sense, opinion polling and other measures of gauging public sentiment are invaluable sources of information for decision-makers to approximate the levels of public approval of the government's performance and political support for the incumbent or aspirant candidates in upcoming elections. (14) An interest group is a collection of individuals with common aspirations or identity--material, ideological or otherwise--attempting to achieve their objectives through the mobilization of relevant resources to gain support from other social-political groups. In a democracy, there are a wide range of associations and social groups with diverse organizational interests and approaches that inform their respective power bases. In the following section, Muslim mass organizations (organisasi massa) emerge as groups that can be included in this category. Given their ability to mobilize the masses, interest groups exert a more direct, insistent type of pressure on decision-makers than public opinion alone. (15) Lastly, a partisan group refers to party elites and members of the legislature (i.e. Members of Parliament, MPs) that play a key role in absorbing and transforming interest groups and public aspirations into concrete political demands. Political parties can influence decision-making through voting, lobbying, legislative inquiries and other forms of pressure. Partisan organizations are likely to pay greater attention to foreign policies and decisions that are of interest to their respective constituents. (16)

With the advent of democracy, foreign policy-making in Indonesia has become more complex due to legislative oversight by Parliament and the proliferation of diverse political groupings. Although the executive remains the key decision-maker, Parliament has become more influential and sometimes plays a critical role in foreign policy formulation. Parliament has the constitutional right to conduct legal inquiries into the country's foreign policy, ratify international agreements signed by the government and approve or reject presidential nominees for ambassadorial posts. (17) In practice, the parliamentary review process and Indonesia's political culture, which favours coalition-building between the President and political parties, have increased the burden of the executive's responsibility in foreign policy formation. Electoral politics further complicates the "risk calculus" in foreign policy-making. Hence, a "radical" foreign policy that is out of favour with mainstream public opinion becomes politically risky for an administration which is dependent on a multi-party coalition. Although government policy may not satisfy the demands of all political factions, it should at least meet the minimum expectations of its constituents. (18)

In this context, the dynamics of Indonesia's voting behaviour over UNSC resolutions concerning Iran's nuclear programme provides an interesting example of the impact of domestic politics on the country's foreign policy. Given the Parliament's right of policy review, MPs are likely to exercise this right when two conditions occur. First, when public opinion is diametrically opposed to a particular international policy; in other words, the policy does not meet the public's aspirations. Second, when MPs, unhappy with political arrangements within the coalition, politicize a foreign policy issue in order to gain political leverage over key decision-makers. This notion corresponds to the central argument of this paper that Indonesia's approval of Resolution 1747 went against mainstream societal aspirations and the political preferences of various domestic political forces, resulting in a correction of the government's foreign policy.

The following sections highlight the two key conditions under which societal elements and political actors within Indonesian society exert their influence on the government's voting behaviour in the UNSC. On the one hand, Indonesia's approval of international sanctions against Iran incited...