BLURRING THE LINES OF RESPONSIBILITIES
This approach creates an awkward dynamic for those invited. Public figures often participate in good faith, believing they are contributing to national debate – but they can become associated with decisions they did not make. The burden of explanation shifts from the government to those who participated in the consultation.
Over time, this practice blurs lines of responsibility. Debate shifts from why a decision was made to how particular figures responded. Independent voices become informal intermediaries between the executive and the public, lending legitimacy to decisions that were already made, even without explicit endorsement.
Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has long been known for its careful policy preparation. Major diplomatic initiatives traditionally passed through extensive internal discussion within the ministry and across government.
Recent controversies suggest this process may be weakening. Confusing or inconsistent explanations indicate that established channels of diplomatic deliberation may be increasingly bypassed or compressed. As foreign policy authority becomes concentrated in the executive, professional expertise risks being sidelined.
This matters not only for domestic governance but also for Indonesia’s role in the region. Jakarta has established diplomatic credibility through consistency, caution and a consultative policy style, helping it build influence within ASEAN and beyond. If major foreign policy decisions become reactive, that credibility may erode.
The internal debate over imposing a toll on Malacca Strait illustrates this risk. The initial remark from the Minister of Finance was quickly followed by rejection from neighbouring countries, criticism from scholars and a rebuttal from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, before the Minister of Finance walked back the proposal.
Read the full article here
