National refugee policy, individual and state level of analysis

The foreign policy process is very complex. Analysts untangle the intricacies by studying foreign policy making from three perspectives termed levels of analysis. Thus, it is of uttermost importance as students of social science to learn about the three perspectives in order to add it to your repertoire of knowledge and use it practically when the need arises.

Individual level of analysis can be approached from three different perspectives. One is to examine fundamental human nature. The second is to study how people act in organizations. The third is to examine the motivations and actions of specific persons.

The human nature approach examines basic human characteristics, including the cognitive, psychological, emotional, and biological factors that influence decision making.

The organizational behaviour approach studies such factors as role (how people act in their professional position) and group decision-making behaviour, including group think.

The idiosyncratic behaviour approach explores the factors that determine the perceptions, decisions, and actions of specific leaders. A leader's personality, physical and mental health, ego and ambition, understanding of history, personal experiences, and perceptions are all factors.

State levels of analysis assumes that since states are the most important international actors, world politics can be best understood by focusing on how foreign policy is influenced by the political structure of states, the policy-making actors within them, and the interactions among the policy actors.

Foreign policy is not formulated by a single decision-making process. Instead, the exact nature of that process changes according to a number of variables, including the type of political system, the type of situation, the type of issue, and the internal factors involved.

States are complex organizations, and their internal, or domestic, dynamics influence their international actions.

Another set of internal factors centers on the policy-making impact of various foreign policy-making actors. These include political leaders, bureaucratic organizations, legislatures, political parties and opposition, interest groups, and the public. Each of these influences foreign policy, but their influence varies according to the type of government, the situation, and the policy at issue.

Usually, heads of government are the most powerful foreign policy-making actors. Bureaucratic organizations are normally the second most power actors.

When you compare the explanation of both the individual and the state level of analysis by Rouke as shared in the paragraphs above, it helps us to further understand foreign policy analysis as a sub-field of study. You can identify the difference between the two levels of analysis as well.

There are many questions about the National Refugee Policy formulated by the O'Neill/Pato regime in connection to the state level of analysis. For example, were there any interest groups that went against the decision of the government to endorse the refugee policy? Is this group continuing to advocate for the government to remove this policy? 

Furthermore, the EMTV news report showed what a few members of the public in Port Moresby said about the policy, but what about those in the rural areas and in provincial capitals? Ideally, we would like to see the public play a more influential role because when the policy is implemented fully the general public will be affected by the policy. 

In July this year, protesters across Australia demanded the closure of detention centres on Nauru and PNG. Thousands of people marched across major Australian cities of; Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra and Perth, calling for an end to the country's offshore detention of asylum seekers. 

Image from the article on Aljazeera about the rally

A report in The National newspaper shared the opposition's view on the Regional Resettlement Arrangement between Australia and PNG. The then opposition whip Tobias Kulang said he was shocked that a major foreign policy with immense socio-political and economic implications on the local economy was shoved down PNG's throat without much scrutiny.

For the matter to be reviewed by the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, it was not referred by a resolution of parliament. Similar to the National Refugee Policy, there is no interest group to lobby for support among the parliamentarians in order to get the Committee to review the policy. Apart from interest groups, we have the public as members of constituents who could pressure their particular representative to advocate or put forward a motion about the negative impact of the policy on our communities.

However, are we aware about the need to form interest groups and lobby groups to influence policy making? The parliamentary framework is in place, we need to pressure our representatives to table a motion asking the parliament to question the nature of the National Refugee Policy and the security risk the refugees pose to our communities in consideration of their mental well being. If parliament votes in favor of the motion then by law members of the executive government must explain the rationale behind the formulation of the policy and its security implications.

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee in the Australian Senate conducted an interesting inquiry into the serious allegation of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relations to the Nauru Regional Processing Centre, and any like allegation in relations to the Manus Regional Processing Center in 2017. The parliamentary committee's report uncovered some interesting information and is an example of how we should utilize our parliamentary committees.

The parliamentary committee system is workable and exist only in a Westminster democratic system of government. Australia and PNG are two good examples of countries with such a legislative bipartisan framework. Other systems of government have their own institutions or organs which does or does not provide policy oversight.    

Therefore, foreign policy making actors like interest groups, the public and the parliament including the opposition have a role to play. Most importantly, in a democracy they can scrutinize the decisions made by individual decision makers who are influenced by the different factors outlined in the individual level of analysis.