Introduction: A President’s High-Tempo Diplomacy
In his first year in office, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto has embarked on an unusually aggressive diplomatic agenda. With 32 foreign visits spanning 22 countries, the administration has prioritized presidential activism as a primary instrument of foreign policy. While this rapid-fire diplomacy has yielded visibility and momentum on several fronts, it also exposes a vulnerability: the need for stronger institutional alignment within Indonesia’s foreign policy framework.
What the High Tempo Achieves
Prabowo’s active diplomacy has helped to reassert Indonesia’s role on the Asia-Pacific stage, diversify strategic partnerships, and position Jakarta as a key broker in regional security conversations. The sheer volume of state visits signals a government-wide commitment to multilateralism, economic engagement, and soft power outreach. In practical terms, this approach can accelerate deal-making, promote investment, and advance Indonesia’s interests in global forums where leadership is crucial.
The Short-Term Gains
Short-term wins often hinge on personal diplomacy: the ability of the president to articulate a clear vision, seal high-profile agreements, and show tangible progress. When effectively coordinated, presidential activity can unlock rapid approvals for infrastructure investment, trade facilitation, and people-to-people exchanges. Such outcomes can translate into market confidence and a more assertive Indonesian voice in international norms and standards.
Risks of a Presidency-Driven Model
However, the risk profile grows when diplomacy rests almost solely on the president’s personal bandwidth. Without robust institutional backstopping, each breakthrough can become an isolated event rather than a durable policy trajectory. Fragmentation across ministries—trade, defense, foreign affairs, and finance—can lead to mixed messages, inconsistent commitments, and delays in implementation. Moreover, in the volatile terrain of global politics, a heavy reliance on presidential charisma may hamper long-term strategic planning and budgetary continuity.
Why Institutional Alignment Matters
Institutional alignment means harmonizing policy goals, decision-making processes, and oversight across government bodies. For Indonesia, this implies a shared vision across the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the coordinating ministries, state-owned enterprises, and regional governments. When institutions align, the same message is carried at home and abroad, negotiations become more predictable, and risks associated with leadership transitions are mitigated. A formal, transparent framework also improves accountability to the public and strengthens democratic legitimacy for foreign policy choices.
Pathways to Stronger Alignment
- Establish a standing foreign policy council that convenes quarterly, chaired at the presidential level, with clear mandates for each sector (security, trade, energy, climate, and development cooperation).
- Embed long-term regional and global strategy in a rolling 5-year plan that transcends administration cycles, with measurable milestones and budgetary anchors.
- Create cross-ministerial task forces to co-manage sensitive negotiations, ensuring messages are consistent and commitments are practically executable.
- Enhance data sharing and risk assessment across ministries to reduce delays in approvals and align legal frameworks with international agreements.
- Invest in public diplomacy that reflects a unified national narrative, ensuring citizens understand and endorse the government’s external engagements.
What This Means for Indonesia’s Global Role
Prabowo’s leadership can still deliver a compelling, high-visibility diplomacy, but the real dividend will come from institutional coherence. A well-aligned foreign policy can translate short-term diplomatic wins into durable economic partnerships, strategic resilience, and a more influential Indonesia on the world stage. The goal is not to curb presidential initiative but to channel it through a robust, transparent, and accountable system that can operate across administrations.
Conclusion
Active diplomacy is a powerful tool, yet it functions best when anchored in solid institutions. For Indonesia, combining the president’s high-energy outreach with a strengthened policy framework offers a sustainable path to greater regional leadership and resilient national development.
