The aim of this study is to demonstrate the validity of the thesis that in Indonesia one can find institutions that characterize two power-sharing models which are considered opposites of one another in political theory – centripetalism and consociationalism. In consequence, the Indonesian power-sharing system should be viewed as a hybrid, or mixed, system, and not a typically centripetal system as is usually the case in the literature. At the beginning of this article, a short analysis of Indonesia's political situation is given for the purpose of defining the factors which determined the introduction of inter-segmental power-sharing solutions in that country. This is followed by a description of the specificity of consociationalism and centripetalism. The article goes on to discuss specific institutions of both power-sharing models which exist in Indonesia and ends with some concluding remarks on the thesis advanced at the outset. 

Although a current and marketable term in the literature and political discourses, the notion of ‘international role’ still lacks a clear and succinct, let alone consensually applicable, definition. This article posits that, from the actorness perspective as a point of departure, the concept of “international role” may well be assessed through the lenses of the quad-element “PIPP” analytical model, which is herewith developed. Thereby, the analysis of actor’s international role has to make a long conceptual sojourn from power, influence presence to performance (PIPP). These four embedded concepts (PIPP model) help assess the explanandum, i.e. “actor’s international role”, in a theoretically-informed, systematic and holistic way, thus avoiding the pitfalls of sporadic (mis) usage found in common parlance.