What Does Jokowi’s “Pro-People Diplomacy” Mean for ASEAN?

November 24, 2014/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

Retno Marsudi, Minister of Foreign Affaris, Republic of Indonesia.
Source: progresivenews.com/

By Ahmad Rizky Mardhatillah Umar, research assistant at ASEAN Studies Center, Universitas Gadjah Mada

Foreign Minister H.E. Retno LP Marsudi has launched her first speech on Indonesia’s Foreign Policy in Wednesday (29/10). At that speech, she embraced several new ideas on what she will do in her term as Foreign Minister and how Indonesia’s foreign policy will be directed under her leadership, including what is now popular as “Pro-People” Foreign policy.

Three important points are highlighted in her speech. Firstly, she acknowledges that strengthening Indonesia’s economy will be a priority in Jokowi’s administration. Therefore, Indonesia’s foreign policy should go side-by-side with economic development policy.

Secondly, Indonesia’s bilateral relations with strategic partners will be prioritized rather than takes part with multilateral forums. In other words, Marsudi seems to put aside Indonesia’s energetic movement in endorsing multilateral talks and instead focusing on strengthening bilateral affairs.

Thirdly, she wants to reposits Indonesian diplomats not only as a negotiator abroad, but also as a ‘salesmen’ who takes part in promoting Indonesian products. Therefore, she insists that Indonesian diplomats should be able to do ‘blusukan’ in order to know what Indonesia has to be sold in international market.

Marsudi’s speech clearly indicates that Indonesia’s foreign policy, during Jokowi’s administration, will be served as a hub to strengthening economy in international level. Different with ‘Zero Enemy and Million Friends’ tagline brought by SBY administration, who aimes to posit Indonesia in global level, her ‘Pro-People Diplomacy’ seems to take inward-looking position in global politics.

This position can be understood by her intention to strengthen Indonesia’s bilateral relations rather than actively engage in multilateral forums, as well as making diplomacy as a means of enhancing economic development in international arena.

Nevertheless, we can also see that Marsudi’s speech has also sent a strong signal for the return of ‘national interest’ in Indonesia’s foreign policy. By crafting foreign policy with economic measure, Marsudi is not only abandoning SBY’s ‘million friends’ stance in international politics, but also she attempts to make Indonesia’s perspectives on global and regional environment firmer, that is to defend the state-defined national interest in his campaign.

Even though two previous ministers were also, to some extent, holding ‘national interest’ as a basis in foreign policy making, her stance in ‘national interest is quite stronger. During Hassan Wirayudha (2001-2009) ministerial period, Indonesia’s regional involvement is stronger. Wirayudha’s initiatives in ASEAN Political Security Community, as noted by Donald Weatherbee (2013), has made clear that Indonesia put ASEAN as a priority.

Not much different with Wirayudha, his successor Marty Natalegawa (2009-2014) also put Indonesia’s involvement in global level, particularly the South-to-South talks, as a priority in Indonesia’s foreign policy. His doctrine on dynamic equilibrium and peace doctrine was intended to support SBY’s vision on ‘Zero Enemy and ‘Million Friends’.

Compared with what Wirayudha and Natalegawa has done in previous years, Marsudi’s inward-looking approach will be less involved in positioning Indonesia in global and regional level. Her ‘pro-people’ approach will be focusing mainly on preparing Indonesia’s domestic economy to face economic integration in Southeast Asia.

Thus, what will this ‘pro-people’ stance, taken by Marsudi, implies to ASEAN, which aimed to be politically and economically consolidated after 2015?

Since the Second ASEAN Summit in Bali, 2003, Indonesia has been involved in integration processes in Southeast Asia. Indonesia has played important role in designing ASEAN Political Security Community as well as contributing in democratization in several states, thus contribute in driving political integration process in the region.

Former Foreign Minister Wirayudha spoke with at CSIS, Jakarta (24/10) that Indonesia has been actively provided intellectual leadership in ASEAN and it should be maintained in Jokowi’s administration.

With Foreign Minister Marsudi send the first signal on Indonesia’s foreign policy in the upcoming years, it will be interesting to see how Indonesia involve in regional politics. Given her pro-people approach in diplomacy, it can be predicted that there will be hope and concern from Marsudi to Indonesia’s position in ASEAN.

I will start with the hope. By taking a ‘pro-people’ approach with emphasis on economic diplomacy, Indonesia can be more prepared in facing the upcoming ASEAN Economic Community. With economic diplomacy, we can hope Jokowi’s administration can be more focused on developing Small and Medium Enterprises to deal with regional market.

ASEAN Studies Center, Universitas Gadjah Mada has mapped small and medium enterprises’ (SMEs) preparedness in ASEAN Community and it is found that many SMEs are not yet prepared to compete in regional level. Public should push Jokowi and his cabinet to be more serious in this issue.

However, we should also be concerned that ‘pro-people’ diplomacy can also make Indonesia’s leadership in several regional forums, particularly the ASEAN Political Security Community, will be weakened. So far Indonesia has driven several agenda in promoting democracy and human rights in the region.

By focusing on bilateral relations, Indonesia is less likely to continue its effort in becoming ‘the largest muslim democracy’ in the world that, to some extent, will implies on Indonesia’s passive stances in multilateral forums. Indonesia can also less involved with other multilateral groups such as G-20.

This concern shall be answered by our Foreign Minister Marsudi under her leadership. Indonesia should maintain the ‘ASEAN Centrality’ in dealing with regional issue, while strengthening bilateral relations with strategic partners.

Other than that, our foreign policy should also address many changes in global politics that will be occurred in the upcoming years, particularly with the political succession in the US which will influence Indonesia’s position among other states as well as Southeast Asian politics.

Notwithstanding that, Marsudi’s innovative paces are still to be awaited in the future. Will she able to build a new style of leadership in the region is still the biggest challenge in the future. And most importantly, she is expected to make sure that ‘pro-people’ diplomacy can goes hand-in-hand with Indonesia’s intellectual leadership in ASEAN.

Latest Articles

ASEAN Spice: The Connecting Culture of Southeast AsiansJune 1, 2024 - 3:49 am
RELIGION: BOON OR BANE FOR DEMOCRACY?December 20, 2023 - 12:32 am
Redefining Commodities in International Trade: ASEAN Blue Carbon Initiative and Its Role in Navigating Climate Crisis in the Southeast Asia RegionDecember 18, 2023 - 12:05 am
Korea-Indonesia Cooperation Forum in Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of Diplomatic RelationsDecember 6, 2023 - 3:53 am

Facebook

RELIGION: BOON OR BANE FOR DEMOCRACY?December 20, 2023 - 12:32 am
In December 2022, the Indonesian government passed a law that penalizes sex outside marriage. This is only one of the many changes in the criminal code that observers warn of the increasing conservatism in the country.

Indonesia houses the largest Muslim population in the world and is also a republic whose democratic experiences and milestones have been widely studied by scholars within and beyond the region. This makes Indonesia a compelling case for reflection on the nexus and tensions between religion and democracy. Is religion compatible with democracy? What opportunities and challenges does the “Islamic Renaissance” entail in the country? Democracy on Religion

Liberal democracy espouses secularism, the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. In an “ideal” democratic system, the state must not endorse nor support any specific religion while guaranteeing the free exercise of religion among citizens. This is essential in a democracy for many reasons. Religious freedom is a crucial civil right that enhances citizens’ individuality and relations with others. It stops one religion from dominating society, hence promoting diversity and co-existence. At the same time, it prevents policies from being framed according to religious beliefs, which may result in discrimination and repression of fundamental human rights.

Religion and its Tensions with Democracy: The Case of Indonesia

This is particularly important for Indonesia. While the country is predominantly Muslim, Indonesia also has many ethnolinguistic groups with different cultures and practices. It is a challenge in itself to build one nation with an immensely heterogeneous society. The diversity in the country resulted in years of ethnic conflict and violence. Even a religious minority, the Ahmadiyya, faces intimidation and oppression in the exercise of their faith. Indonesia’s dilemma points to the longstanding debate in human rights discourse and practice – are human rights universal, or are they relative to culture and local customs? While I am more inclined to support the former, it is important to be aware and carefully consider the context of a country when designing human rights advocacy and interventions.

However imperfect, the democratization process in Indonesia has assisted in facilitating efforts for reconciliation and balancing competing interests in the country. Recently, the President stunned the world when he acknowledged past grave human rights abuses in the country, including an anti-communist purge in the ’60s and the arrest of democracy activists during the Suharto presidency.

Indonesia sits in between secularism and theocracy. The country’s fundamental law espouses Pancasila, which is the foundational political theory of Indonesia. Through its five principles, Indonesian society believes in one God and aspires to create a just and civilized humanity, unity, democracy, and social justice for all. This tells us that, by principle, Indonesia gives importance to pluralism and citizenship. Scholars and practitioners of the law also adopt legal pluralism and believe that different legal systems are complementary rather than contradictory. For example, community practices and customs are considered along with national and local regulations in settling disputes and conflicts at the village level.

However, in recent years, Indonesia has seen the expanding role of Islam in the country’s social and political life. Aside from Islam being a “source of ethical and cultural guidance”, many Islamic organizations have secured formal power, which allows them to easily introduce measures within the state apparatus that cement their own interests. Hardliner Islamic groups have also proliferated, and fundamentalist thought and practices are becoming more and more widespread. Islamic identity politics have also been evident since Widodo coalesced with conservative Islamic factions and appointed Amin, an influential Islamic figure, as his vice president. The new penal code tends to be more religious than secular. This has implications for Indonesia’s supposed secularism and diversity. How can the Indonesian government best represent the interests and aspirations of all?

As Indonesia continues to modernize and extend its economic and political ascendancy in the region, rapid changes in its social relations and dynamics are also expected. This demands a more careful look at the kind of laws and “social controls” that the government enforces. Suppose conservative forces are forwarding laws in the name of protecting tradition and keeping Indonesian values in check. In that case, it should not be at the expense of fundamental civil and political liberties, nor should it be to repress vulnerable groups even further, such as women, LGBT+, and ethnic communities. Admittedly, this is easier said than done. Hence, political representation must reflect the diversity and vibrance of Indonesian society. If only one group dominates political and policy discourse, it ultimately jeopardizes the general will.

When religion becomes the yardstick for crafting rules and policies, it creates biases, whether intended or not. Propositions that are credible and necessary but “contradictory” to a certain religion may be rejected simply because they do not fit the personal convictions of decision-makers. Integrating religion into politics usually leads to oppressive and harmful policymaking. Religion is also a form of heuristics or cognitive shortcut that devalues deliberation and discussion. Instead of scrutinizing issues, people may resort to using their religion as the sole basis for their position on a particular matter. Democracies ought to be deliberative and pluralistic.

Human rights activists and organizations in Indonesia have sounded the alarm on many changes in the criminal code that could stifle individual freedoms and lead to setbacks in the country’s democratic progress. Aside from banning sex outside marriage, the government also reinstated laws that criminalize insulting the President and other state officials and institutions. They also increased the punishment for blasphemy. These laws can be disproportionately used against individuals and groups with legitimate criticisms and concerns about the government. It may also render already marginalized communities even more vulnerable. Religion, Populism, and Repression

This trend is not only unique to Indonesia. Much of the world has seen the rise of “nationalist” movements, often within the pretext of religion and safeguarding culture. India’s Modi has exhibited Hindu nationalist tendencies, which have meant greater intolerance against the Muslim minority in the country. Myanmar’s Tatmadaw has weaponized Buddhism to rally support from the public and account for its atrocities.

The use of religion to justify repressive and oppressive regimes is apparent. Religion is an effective tool to unify a group of people and subject them to a specific set of beliefs and values, which may be highly prejudiced and absurd. Religion acts as a moral compass that defines what is right and what is wrong. Because religion is subjective, it can easily be manipulated to serve political objectives. Populists and autocrats can bastardize religion to create a public enemy, instill an “us vs them” mentality, and sow further polarization.

Failed democracies thrive out of fear, whether it is real or manufactured. Religion can be a potent force to ingrain this fear. This hysteria against change and modernization is easy to whip up when people already have preexisting beliefs. It is not too difficult to segregate people and label them as the “other”. When this distinction is entrenched, it is convenient to normalize discrimination and violence.

It is said that Indonesia is a model for “Moderate Islam” when compared to the Middle East; the “Indonesian way” can complement Western values and democracy. It also has the potential to correct Islamophobia and promote Islam as a religion of peace. On the other hand, if Indonesia cannot find its balance and condone fundamentalist and hardliner Islamic groups to flourish, Indonesia will certainly regress in its hard-won democratic gains.

Religion has inherent contradictions with democracy. Subscribing to a religion and structuring a supposedly diverse society using its tenets is monopolistic and can bring about intolerance. It is paramount for democracies to ensure that civil, political, and socioeconomic rights are not deprived based on religion and other forms of cleavages. The access and exercise of power should be as widely distributed as possible. Public office should not be limited to certain political clans or religious organizations. For instance, at the village level, cultural and socioeconomic elites must share power and administration with vulnerable and historically marginalized groups. There are more reasons and illustrative cases, present and past, to posit that religion is more of a bane than a boon to democracy. At the moment in world history when (dis)information is fast and instant, we must maintain vigilance in dealing with autocratic agendas in the guise of “respecting” values and tradition. It is easier to believe and conform than to reflect and deliberate. But democracy dies when we rely on shortcuts to define what is good for us. Democracy dies, slowly and deliberately, when we allow a few to sabotage our freedoms and liberties to increase their own. Demagogues and despots are usually cunning and do things “in the name of God”.

REFERENCES

Evans, M. S. (2014). Religion and political decision making. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 53(1), 145–163. http://doi:10.1111/jssr.12088

Evans, T. (2012). Separation of Mosque and State in Indonesia. Policy, 27(4), 35–39.

Głodek, A., & Grzywacz, A. (2020). Indonesia – between religion and democracy, Warsaw: Boym Institute. Retrieved from https://instytutboyma.org/en/indonesia-between-religion-and-democracy

Jaffrey, S. (2020). Is Indonesia Becoming a Two-Tier Democracy?, Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Jamaluddin, M., Chen, H. & Watson, A. (2022). Indonesia bans sex outside marriage as parliament passes sweeping new criminal code, Jakarta: CNN.

Klinken, G. v. (2019). Living in a Sacred Cosmos: Indonesia and the Future of Islam. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, 175(1), 81–135. http://doi:10.1111/jssr.12088

McWilliams, E. (2018). Democracy in Indonesia: A Progress Report, Washington D.C.: The Foreign Service Journal.

Nagda, A. (2020). The Diplomat. [Online] Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/the-islamization-of-indonesias-foreign-policy/

Omelicheva, M. & Ahmed, R. (2018). Religion and politics: examining the impact of faith on political participation. Religion, State, and Society, 46(1), 4–25.

The World Factbook. (2023). Indonesia, s.l.: Central Intelligence Agency.

Wieringa, S. E. (2006). Islamization in Indonesia: Women Activists’ Discourses. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 32 (1), 40–27.

Short Biography:

Kay Conales is a student of the Asia Pacific-Master of Arts in Human Rights and Democratization of the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies (IHRP) of Mahidol University (Thailand). She also studied in the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences (FISIPOL) of APMA’s partner-university Universitas Gadjah Mada (Indonesia). She can be reached through e-mail at ksconales@gmail.com.

What Does Jokowi’s “Pro-People Diplomacy” Mean for ASEAN?

ASEAN STUDIES CENTER UGM

CONTACT US