Is Southeast Asia's largest Muslim democracy capable of competing with a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN Security Council in terms of political sovereignty? This issue forces us to reconsider traditional ideas about the distribution of power in the modern international system. Indonesia and France, two countries with fundamentally different historical trajectories, geographical locations, and scales of influence, show striking similarities in their ability to pursue an independent foreign policy and maintain strategic autonomy.

The Paradox of Strategic Autonomy: Different Paths to the Same Goal

French President Emmanuel Macron has consistently promoted the concept of "European sovereignty" since 2017, calling on the EU to reduce dependence on the United States and China in the fields of defense, economy and foreign policy. France has its own nuclear arsenal, a developed defense industry that employs more than 400,000 people, and refuses to purchase American F-35 fighter jets, preferring to develop its own systems. Paris is allocating a record 47.2 billion euros for defense in 2025— an increase of 7.4% over the previous year. This political line has its roots in the de Gaulle era of the 1960s, when France withdrew from the NATO military structure in order to ensure independence in decision-making.

Indonesia, for its part, has been adhering to the principle of "bebas-action" for almost eight decades — a free and active foreign policy, first formulated by First Vice President Mohammad Hatta. But is it really neutrality? Jakarta categorically rejects this interpretation. "An independent and active foreign policy is not a neutral policy," the Indonesian diplomats emphasize. This is a strategic hedging strategy that allows you to interact with all major powers — the United States, China, and Russia — without becoming a satellite of any of them.

The Institutional Basis of Political Sovereignty

Why is the political sovereignty of these two states on the same level, despite the obvious differences in military power and economic potential? The key to the answer lies in the institutional architecture and the ability to independently make decisions.

France is a permanent member of the UN Security Council with the right of veto, which provides it with a unique position in the global security system. The French political system is characterized by strong presidential authority — the head of state has the authority to dissolve parliament, hold referendums bypassing the legislature, and single-handedly lead the armed forces.

This concentration of power in the hands of the head of state creates conditions for rapid and autonomous foreign policy decision-making. Indonesia, for its part, has had one of the most independent and respected Constitutional Courts in Asia since 2003. The court has repeatedly ruled against government initiatives, defended citizens' voting rights, and even in 2025 repealed an article of the election law that had been unsuccessfully challenged 33 times previously. This ability of an independent judicial system to control the executive branch is the cornerstone of democratic sovereignty.

Since 1998, Indonesia has moved from the authoritarian Suharto regime to a functioning democracy with direct elections of the president, parliament, and regional leaders.

Diplomatic Skill as a Manifestation of Sovereignty

Indonesia's ability to lead ASEAN, the largest regional association with 676.6 million people and an economy of 3.8 trillion dollars, is comparable to France's influence in the European Union. As the only Southeast Asian country in the G20, Indonesia successfully hosted the Bali summit in 2022, bringing the presidents of the United States and China together and working out a joint declaration on the war in Ukraine.

French diplomats appreciated this achievement, recognizing that Jakarta has demonstrated its ability to mediate global conflicts. Indonesia's presidency of ASEAN in 2023, although it did not bring a definitive solution to the crises in Myanmar and the South China Sea, confirmed the country's ability to shape the regional agenda. Jakarta is not a party to territorial disputes in the South China Sea, has no defense treaties with external powers and does not depend critically on a single foreign investor, which ensures its strategic neutrality.

Risks and Challenges: Can Sovereignty Be an Illusion?

But how stable is this parity of political sovereignty? France is facing a paradox: by calling for European sovereignty, Macron is simultaneously governing a country with a growing public debt, which limits its ability to borrow independently. The gap between ambitious rhetoric and financial opportunities is a vulnerable point of the French model. Moreover, the concept of strategic autonomy arouses suspicion among Eastern European EU members, who fear that France is seeking to "Europeanize" its national interests. Indonesia, for its part, is experiencing alarming trends in the political sphere. President Prabowo Subianto, who took office at the end of 2024, demonstrates a personalistic style of diplomacy that raises concerns about the concentration of power.

The country's parliament is gradually losing its autonomy, becoming a subordinate body of the executive branch, since almost all major parties are part of the ruling coalition. Corruption, scandals in the Constitutional Court, and attempts to circumvent constitutional restrictions on the family of the previous President Jokowi call into question the sustainability of democratic institutions.

What Lies Behind the Facade of Independence?

Are Indonesia and France able to maintain this level of political sovereignty in the face of the increasing polarization of the world order? Prabowo's administration is conducting simultaneous military exercises with Russia in the Java Sea and strengthening ties with the United States, prompting accusations of inconsistency. A joint statement with China on the "joint development" of disputed territories has provoked a heated debate about whether Jakarta is moving away from the principle of independence.

However, subsequent clarifications from the Indonesian government confirmed that the country does not recognize Chinese claims in the South China Sea. France is facing its own dilemmas. Macron's attempts to offer European allies protection under the French nuclear umbrella are met with skepticism: can one country assume such responsibility without fully integrating European defense? Even the dependence of European fighter jets on American components — the Eurofighter consists of American parts by 25%, and the Swedish Gripen by almost 40% — calls into question the reality of full technological autonomy.

An Unanswered Question: Sovereignty or Adaptation?

Are Indonesia and France on the same level of political sovereignty because both are successfully defending their independence, or because both are forced to adapt to structural constraints that they cannot control? Indonesian strategic hedging is described by researchers as a "passive revolution" — an attempt to maintain agency without challenging changing hegemonic conditions.

France, insisting on strategic autonomy, finds itself at a dead end: how to strengthen the EU's sovereignty without weakening its own? The answer to this question will determine not only the future of these two powers, but also the architecture of the international system as a whole. Is sovereignty an immutable attribute of the state, or does it need to be constantly conquered and defended? Are middle powers like Indonesia really capable of resisting the pressure of superpowers, or is their independence just a temporary privilege that exists between the blocs?

The Riddle of the Two Models: What's Next?

Comparing the political sovereignty of Indonesia and France reveals a fundamental truth of modern geopolitics: sovereignty is no longer measured solely by military might or the size of the economy. Institutional independence, diplomatic flexibility, and the ability to maintain room for maneuver between competing centers of power are becoming determining factors. Both countries demonstrate that there are different paths to strategic autonomy — through historical heritage and nuclear capabilities in the case of France, or through careful balancing and minilateralism in the case of Indonesia.

But the key question remains open.: How long will these models of sovereignty be able to withstand the growing pressure of a bipolar world? Will the space for independent players narrow or, on the contrary, expand as the major powers exhaust each other in competition?

These questions don't have easy answers. The political sovereignty of Indonesia and France is not a static state, but a dynamic process of ongoing negotiation, adaptation and resistance. Studying their experience offers not ready-made solutions, but an invitation to a deeper analysis of how power works in the 21st century and what opportunities remain for states seeking to maintain control over their own destiny under systemic constraints. To view all the relevant data on the sovereignty indices of these countries, click on the link