On Foreign Policy, a Hawk and a Dove Square Off for Indonesia’s Presidency
Jakarta. Sunday’s presidential debate on foreign policy and national defense saw both candidates, Prabowo Subianto and Joko Widodo, take up a nationalist rhetoric.
Both candidates expressed their desire to build Indonesia into a formidable regional powerhouse. As election day draws nearer, both candidates are posturing to win the hearts of the nation in a tight two-horse race.
Two extremes converge
Presidential debates are seen as the public’s way of testing the mettle of potential leaders, says Ikrar Nusa Bhakti, a political expert from the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI). Candidates are evaluated based on their ability to preserve and guard national interests and unity.
Prabowo took his characteristic strongman approach to foreign policy issues, stressing the importance of national wealth and military might in achieving regional and global respectability.
“If the nation is poor … if we don’t have enough planes, helicopters… we will not have authority as a nation. We will not be respected, we will not be heard. On the contrary, will be mocked,” he said. “We can be diplomatic with words, but in the end, other nations will only see the national strength of Indonesia — the real power of Indonesia.”
His platform also appealed to the welfare of the people, saying that poverty was the root cause of most of Indonesia’s ailments.
“The best defense is the prosperity and welfare of the Indonesian people,” he said.
Joko, popularly known as Jokowi, pledged to build stronger relations between Indonesia and other countries through the three pronged approach of government-to-government ties, business-to-business contacts, and people-to-people exchanges. Military engagement, he said, should be the last resort in dealing with bilateral or multilateral disputes.
Yet even the soft-spoken, small-town star stated the importance of guarding national sovereignty.
“We want Indonesia to become a maritime power in this world. We want to win the seas,” Joko said in his opening remarks. “We want this nation to carry authority. We want this nation to be respected.”
In response to allegations that he is the pliant alternative to the steadfast Prabowo, Joko replied, “Don’t mistake me as not being firm. I am firm.”
Dangerous games
The common understanding is that rhetoric used by politicians is crafted to pull votes and garner support. Nationalist platforms used in campaigning tend to turn moderate in actual implementation. Yet the danger with grand proclamations is that the electorate will inevitably come back to capitalize on them.
“Prabowo is making an effort to build an image of himself as a general to defend Indonesia from external threats,” says Ade Armando, a communications expert at the University of Indonesia. “If you remember [during the debate], he spoke of and even asked about external threats.”
Prabowo’s list of “external threats” included his position on budget “leaks” — with an emphasis on outflows to foreign nations — and his remarks on the infamously mercurial Indonesia-Australia bilateral relationship. He maintained that any problems were not of Indonesia’s doing.
“I think the issue is that perhaps Australia has a suspicion or phobia toward us,” he said.
Ade said Prabowo was “intentionally making Indonesians assume that there exist external threats, for which the country requires a strong leader.”
Among those flocking to Prabowo’s support are conservative Islamic groups.
“It’s dangerous because… the rise in Prabowo voters has been built by nationalistic jargon, even xenophobia,” Ade says. “I believe that he must exploit it to pull interest and attract people. I believe that in practice, he might be moderate, but at the same time, the spirit remains the same.”
The danger, he warned, was if his hard-line supporters demanded he make good on his more extreme nationalist policies.
“There are two ways of viewing the world in international relations,” Ikrar says. “Realists are those who see it this way: for us to achieve world stability, we need strong military strength. On the other hand, [those] who view it from a constructivist point of view see the world as not being like that: The world does not need conflict… we can resolve things through co-operation.”
The two candidates could be seen as representing the two different camps, with one emphasizing power and the other emphasizing diplomacy.
Ikrar says realism in international relations stresses the importance of the balance of power as well as the pursuit of state self-interest in determining the course of international relations. Any shift in power, be it through wealth or through military buildup, will usually generate tension.
Ikrar points out this inconsistency in Prabowo’s approach to foreign policy, saying his emphasis on President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s “Good Neighbor” policy does not align with his military plans.
“On one hand, he always mentions good neighborly relations… But then he says we want to expand our military capabilities,” Ikrar says. “He tried to use the terms used by SBY — ‘One enemy is too many, a thousand friends are too few.”
On Joko’s performance, Ade recommends that he continue to cultivate his image as a man of the people, but also strive to recapture the conservative Islamic portion of the electorate that may have swung toward Prabowo.
Although Indonesia’s Muslims are by and large moderate in nature, religion still plays a sizable role in politics, and Joko’s move to declare his support for Palestinian statehood and full recognition by the United Nations served the purpose of “showing his Muslim-ness,” Ade says.
Performance politics
The debate on foreign policy and national defense marked the first time such an issue was ever selected for its own round of discussion, Ikrar points out. Many expected Prabowo to have the upper hand, given his military background and youth spent growing up overseas.
Businessman-turned-politician Joko, on the other hand, had the double disadvantage of being a civilian and lacking in foreign policy experience.
But the consensus after the debate seems to be that Joko managed to buck expectations, giving detailed answers on diplomatic strategies and talking about cyber warfare and drones. A poll on BeritaSatu.com, with which the Jakarta Globe is affiliated, showed that 64 percent of 841 respondents picked Joko as the winner of Sunday’s debate.
“Jokowi wasn’t any less smart when talking about defense issues, and Prabowo didn’t deliver what had been expected,” says Burhanuddin Muhtadi, the executive director of pollster Indonesian Political Indicator.
But issues of substance aside, Prabowo seemed to outshine Joko with his more fiery delivery and impassioned rhetoric once again.
“Eye contact with his opponent or the audience signaled that he [Prabowo] was confident,” political communication expert Fathurrahman Sidiq said as quoted by Suara Pembaruan.
“Jokowi’s line of sight when he looked to the left was a sign he was trying to remember something. I’m sure he had already built up his arguments beforehand. The ideas were not originally from him,” Fathurrahman said.
Joko was observed to be constantly looking down at his notes and taking on a serious demeanor, whereas Prabowo was fierce and more spontaneous in his delivery and diction.
The scene was reminiscent of the second presidential debate that took place two weeks ago, when the two met to discuss the economy.
“Joko’s target on the economy proved Prabowo’s incompetence, but the problem is, do people who watch the debate understand this?” says Yuventius Nicky Nurman, a political analyst from Yosef Ardi Corporation. “If the benchmark is the volume and tone of the voice, people who don’t really understand the substance could easily conclude that Prabowo was the winner of the debate.”
On Foreign Policy, a Hawk and a Dove Square Off for Indonesia's Presidency | The Jakarta Globe
