Peacemaking diplomacy and democracy in Southeast Asia

Michael Vatikiotis ,  Singapore   |  Thu, 04/24/2008 12:26 PM  |  Opinion

Four years ago, Southeast Asia seemed on the brink of an era of creative regional diplomacy. In Malaysia, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi preached the message of civilizational Islam, or "Islam Hadhari" at a time the world needed to hear the voice of constructive, moderate Islam.

In Indonesia, newly elected President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono talked up an activist foreign policy that would harness his country's newly minted democratic credentials to engage with authoritarian countries like Myanmar and North Korea.

It seemed that Southeast Asia had emerged from the dark years of financial crisis and political instability under new leaders, armed with strong popular mandates and a determination to improve the neighborhood. More importantly from a global perspective, here were two Muslim leaders who gave hope in the wake of devastating terrorist attacks that filled the world with dread about the march of Islamic extremism.

Sadly, none of these visions has materialized. Both leaders soon learned that clever concepts and finely crafted speeches don't translate so easily into policy directives in more vibrant but still emerging democracies.

Abdullah Badawi's reassuring vision of moderate, civilizing Islam appealed to those worried about the advance of extremist views among Muslims. But in a country where the contest for Muslim Malay votes revolves around outward shows of piety and conservatism, Badawi found himself contradicting his own philosophy by bowing to religious edicts on the treatment of Muslim converts and demolition of Hindu temples. These controversies helped undermine confidence in his leadership.

Over in Indonesia, high minded idealism has also given way to pragmatism in the face of popular pressures. In his first major foreign policy speech, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono declared: "We are the fourth most populous nation in the world. We are home to the world's largest Muslim population. We are the world's third largest democracy. We are also a country where democracy, Islam and modernity go hand-in-hand."

These, he said, "are the things that define who we are, and what we do in community of nations." He went on to boldly announce plans to be "a peace-maker, confidence-builder, problem-solver, bridge-builder."

Following up on these fine words, the President's team made plans to help solve the nuclear impasse in North Korea, engage with Hamas in Palestine, and talk to Myanmar's thoroughly undemocratic generals. There was much enthusiasm and support for these moves from a wider world that was awed by Indonesia's genuine transition to democracy. There were high hopes of Indonesia's stint on the UN Security Council as a non permanent member.

But instead of leaping boldly onto the world stage, Indonesia has trod warily and often in wrong places. This is partly because Yudhoyono is a hesitant man by nature, and as elections draw nearer he has become more concerned about his image at home.

Early on, for example, the newly elected president visited Myanmar, determined to impress upon the junta that Indonesia's transition from military rule to democracy was a good example to follow. There were also high hopes for Indonesia's role in the Middle East.

As a moderate Muslim nation and a democracy, many in the West saw Indonesia as a constructive influence on increasingly disillusioned and radicalized elements in the Palestinian community, specifically Hamas.

But the opportunity to play discreet honest broker was lost because of the government's insistence on playing to the domestic gallery. What should have been very private diplomacy of peacemaking became rather public grandstanding in response to a freewheeling and increasingly raucous parliament that has way too much power and influence over government policy and virtually no sense of responsibility. Confronted with criticism for no rhyme or reason, the government's reaction has been to compete for popular sentiment.

There are lessons to be learned here. The first is that whilst Southeast Asia's newly minted democracies demand more openness and transparency from their leaders, they lack the proper channels for making sure that foreign policy decisions are not irresponsibly mixed in with narrow minded or selfish domestic interests. This inhibits creative diplomacy, which requires discipline and discretion.

Most of the democratic institutions of government are weak, badly managed, and still subject to the patrimonial impulses that put political loyalty and ambition before rational decision making. Indonesia's parliament may no longer be a rubber stamp, but it is unruly, its membership motivated by personal greed and ambition.

The second lesson is that a few decent men with good ideas cannot change the way a country acts without fundamental change and reform of society. Abdullah Badawi believed that his personal probity and belief in moderation would be convincing enough, but he was up against entrenched religious conservatism in the bureaucracy.

Badawi squandered the powerful mandate he won in the 2004 elections by not moving fast enough on root and branch reform of a system in which the very values of religious tolerance and harmony he preached have been leached out by years of privileged special interests for the majority Malay Muslims.

There is still time for Badawi and Yudhoyono to make a contribution to peacemaking; Indonesia should press ahead with its engagement with Iran and Myanmar -- as well as in the Middle East. Malaysia's influence on the Islamic world could be even more powerful in the wake of an election that saw an avowedly Islamic Party link hands with non Muslim parties to form a peaceful and effective opposition coalition. But making this happen will involve profound changes to the internal circuitry of institutional decision making and the conduct of diplomacy.

Principally it would help if leaders could delegate and entrust the work of conducting sensitive diplomacy to professionals with enough power and autonomy to work effectively and discreetly. It makes a lot of sense for Indonesia to reach out to Iran as a moderate Muslim democracy, for example, but it became controversial when Indonesia's President was seen sharing the stage with Iran's leaders lashing out at the West and defying the United Nations.

It would also help if officials saw their role more as professionals rather than as subordinates competing for promotion and reward. Too often an initiative that requires delicate and sophisticated handling like dealing with Iran, the Arab world or Myanmar's generals, has been undermined by petty squabbling and inter-departmental rivalry, thus undermining the thrust of creative diplomacy. Interlocutors in sensitive situations find that one element of the decision making structure has no idea of what the other is doing.

In the short term, the combination of newly-won democratic freedom and lingering paternalistic mentality makes it hard to imagine that many of these policy prescriptions will be easily followed.

Yet both Badawi and Yudhoyono came to power with idealistic notions of restoring prestige and respect to Islam as modern Muslim leaders. They have significant convening power as regional and international peacemakers. They should be encouraged and helped to translate their ideas into concrete action.

The writer is Asia Regional Director of the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.