The role of the legislature in determining foreign policy

Yayan GH Mulyana, Bogor, West Java

The new members of the Indonesian legislature have already been inaugurated. Commissions are also, by now, founded, and Commission I remains mandated to address foreign policy and security affairs.

Its greater role is already evident under Article 13 (2 & 3) of the amended 1945 Constitution, regarding the nomination of Indonesian ambassadors and the acceptance of foreign ambassadors. With a pervasive way of providing pertimbangan (consideration), the Commission's exertions had caused a transient inter-agency stringency with the executive government.

One notable fact can be gathered from the early activism of the House of Representatives in foreign policy: The growing confidence of the Commission was not coupled with efforts to develop the rules of the game governing its role in foreign policy, vis-a-vis the role of the executive government. Nor was it equipped with the appropriate know-how and competence in the field of foreign policy. Another important factor is that its activism was deficient in tradition and character.

In Western developed states, for example, a taut check-and- balance type of interaction has evolved, whereby legislators have a high level of literacy in foreign affairs.

They work with the support of professional staff, and with an unremitting supply of updated information related to foreign and global affairs. Small states, like Israel, and entities, like Taiwan, have also developed a similar pattern. This pattern has generally been shaped by the constant presence of looming external conditions.

Variants exist in the relationship between the two branches of government in the developing world. The relationship occurs in patterns ranging from accommodation to collaboration, tension, and competition.

A study by Carter and Scott (Policy & Politics, 32:1, March 2004) shows that, within the legislative branch of government, there are individuals who become "foreign-policy entrepreneurs". These individuals attempt to lead the branch to initiate action on the foreign-policy issues they care about, rather than awaiting action by the executive branch on these issues. Within the context of the American Congress, the study concludes that those individuals become increasingly salient players in the foreign-policy process.

What then is the latitude for the foreign-policy activism of new members of Commission I? What measures should they take so that they become competent foreign-policy entrepreneurs?

The amended 1945 Constitution provides some leeway through which the House could be constitutionally inquisitive about foreign-policy issues. Article 20A (1) of the Constitution authorizes the House to deal with three aspects of foreign policy: legislation, budgeting, and oversight.

One law-making activity is the ratification of international conventions. The House also has a degree of control over the budget required for the regular expenses of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and for achieving particular priorities through diplomacy. The House could supervise the use of the budget and the practice of diplomacy.

Article 20A (3) allows the House to pose questions, as well as to make suggestions and put forward opinions to the executive government concerning foreign policy-related issues. The practice of this mandate seems to work well hitherto.

As far as becoming competent foreign-policy entrepreneurs is concerned, first, new members of Commission I should develop the attitude that their foreign-policy activism is not intended to create competition, but rather to complement the actions of the executive branch.

Second, it is pertinent to develop the rules of the game for the House's foreign-policy activism based on the principles and provisions enshrined in the amended 1945 Constitution, taking into consideration Law No. 37/1999 on Foreign Relations and other relevant laws and regulations. Consultation with the executive branch of government in developing the rules of the game is a must. This consultation could help prevent uninformed decisions on various aspects of the regulations.

Third, it is essential for foreign-policy entrepreneurs to have a high level of foreign-policy literacy. There will certainly be a learning process before the new members of Commission I are able to grasp various foreign-policy issues. In order to expedite the learning process, they could use the assistance of professionals in foreign relations or international affairs, including scholars, experts, analysts, practitioners, or retired diplomats.

They also could develop information-system management so that they keep updated with foreign and global affairs that affect or could potentially impinge upon Indonesia. Technical assistance and capacity-building programs to strengthen the resources of Commission I could also be sought.

And fourth, the legislative branch could practice inter- parliamentary diplomacy aimed to support the diplomatic endeavors pursued by the executive branch of government. One important vehicle for such diplomacy is the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) that has representation at the UN General Assembly. Serving as a focal point for worldwide parliamentary dialog, Indonesian legislators could use the forum to voice Indonesian concerns and mobilize support for Indonesia's position on various issues vital to national interests.

Carter and Scott's study also confirms that congressional foreign-policy entrepreneurs are more likely to be senators than representatives. This is because of foreign-policy powers constitutionally mandated to the senators, their longer tenure, and greater access to legislative processes. Thus, can members of the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) play a role similar to that of senators? The amended 1945 Constitution does not seem to provide them with the authority to play such a role. In accordance with Article 22(d) of the Constitution, however, members of the DPD could seek out a sort of activism when the foreign-relations aspect touches on regional autonomy. Accordingly, it might also be relevant to the DPD members to have a sufficient level of literacy in foreign affairs.

The writer is head of the Secretariat for Advisers and Special Envoys of the President at the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The ideas expressed in this article are his own. He can be reached at yanvontsazik@yahoo.com.