Role Legitimation in Foreign Policy: The Case of Indonesia as an Emerging Power under Yudhoyono's Presidency (2004–2014)

Abstract

This article analyzes how foreign policymakers legitimize their enactment of role conceptions to play a more active role at the global level toward a potentially reluctant domestic audience. In order to reduce the likelihood of domestic role contestation while at the same time subscribe toward ego and alter expectations, it is necessary for policymakers to legitimize role conceptions and their enactments toward domestic audiences. This article develops the notion of role legitimation to capture this process and puts forward two mechanisms through which role legitimation is performed. The first mechanism is the revival of roles from a specific period in time that is deeply entrenched as an inalienable historical feature of the state. The second one is the reproduction of the international expectations into the domestic political discourse. To illustrate the argument, this article utilizes the case of Indonesia's foreign policy during Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's Presidency (2004–2014), particularly its engagement at G20, its objective to make the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) a global player, and its agenda to promote democracy and moderate Islam at the global level.

Role Conception of the Asia-Pacific Middle Powers: Comparative Analysis of Indonesia, South Korea, Australia and Vietnam

“…Much of the literature has shown that Indonesia is an emerging middle power because of its capability, diplomatic posture and growing international reputation as an emerging power especially during Yudhoyono’s presidency (2004–2014; Acharya, 2014; Fitriani, 2015; Karim, 2021). During his presidency, it appears that Indonesia tried its best to improve its standing in the international system—one of its many efforts is by exploiting Indonesia’s status as the world’s largest Muslim-majority country by repositioning itself to the status while sticking to secular democratic norms that are at the heart of Western civilisation (Karim, 2021).…”

“…Despite Indonesia being of strategic importance to the US, the country chose not to align themselves with the US during the Cold War. After the collapse of Suharto’s authoritarian regime in 1998, Indonesia has transformed into a middle power after years of growth and stability (Karim, 2021). Indonesia is now the world’s third biggest democracy, the largest Muslim-majority country, the leader of ASEAN and a member of the G–20.…”

“…Indonesia has traditionally been seen as the leader of ASEAN (Anwar, 1994; Jemadu & Lantang, 2021; Leifer, 1989), stretching back to the founding of the organisation in 1967. Ever since its creation, ASEAN has held an importance and centrality in Indonesia’s foreign policy, which focuses mainly on making sure the region is free from great power intervention (Karim, 2021).…”

Deepening Connectivity and Mobility in Post-Pandemic ASEAN

“…The objective of increasing ASEAN connectivity is to maintain ASEAN centrality amidst the growing regional tension. This is why Indonesia, as the largest country in Southeast Asia, puts so much emphasis on ASEAN connectivity, given Indonesia policymakers continue to view ASEAN as its priority for Indonesia's ambition to be a global player and regional manager (Karim, 2021;Rosyidin & Pattipeilohy, 2020).…”

Contested Interpretations of Indonesia’s International Leadership in the Foreign Policy of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Joko Widodo

“…Indonesia became one of the founding members of ASEAN in 1967 and enjoyed a recognition as an informal regional leader of the association in the 1970s until 1980s. Karim (2021) focuses on how President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (Yudhoyono, hereafter) tried to legitimize Indonesia's international leadership role by referring to Indonesia's historical experience in conducting such role and using international expectations to ensure domestic support for the president's foreign policy endeavor. Thus, Karim's argument points to the key role of a state leader in determining the nature of his foreign policy endeavor.…”