Keeping a Promise: Roles, Audiences and Credibility in International Relations
| Author | Bernardo Teles Fazendeiro |
| DOI | 10.1177/0047117820961816 |
| Published date | 01 June 2021 |
| Date | 01 June 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117820961816
International Relations
2021, Vol. 35(2) 299 –319
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0047117820961816
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
Keeping a Promise: Roles,
Audiences and Credibility in
International Relations
Bernardo Teles Fazendeiro
University of Coimbra
Abstract
States, governments and leaders often reject one another’s role prescriptions. They stick to
enacting their role, what they consider to be their central purpose and main promise within
a given international society. By applying the main tenets of role theory, this essay looks at
the reasons why actors sometimes reject the prescriptions of others, including attempts at
bargaining. Rather than claiming that those prescriptions are rejected on account of the pursuit
of self-identity or ontological security, this essay suggests that those positions have more to do
with defending the public credibility of one’s master role, the core promise made by an actor
to (domestic and/or international) audiences. Master roles have to do with the main promises
of an actor in a given social and political order, thereby providing credibility to a domestic and
international audience. Without maintaining credibility, the actor is unlikely to be able to fulfil
master and auxiliary roles as initially set out. The essay contributes to role theory in three ways:
by looking beyond explanations centred on identification and ontological security, by conversely
building upon public credibility, and also by showing how audiences and roles matter to illiberal
regimes. To illustrate the argument, the essay addresses the government of Uzbekistan’s attempt
to keep credibility in the face of Russian altercasting in the 1990s.
Keywords
credibility, identity, ontological security, role, role theory, Uzbekistan
Introduction
Rarely do leaders, governments, political parties and domestic constituencies welcome
warnings or gestures – that is, prescriptions – seeking to alter the role to which they have
Corresponding author:
Bernardo Teles Fazendeiro, Universidade de Coimbra, Faculdade de Economia, Av. Dr. Dias da Silva 165,
Coimbra, 3004-512, Portugal.
Email: btfazendeiro@fe.uc.pt
961816IRE0010.1177/0047117820961816International RelationsTeles Fazendeiro
research-article2020
Article
300 International Relations 35(2)
publicly committed themselves. Those who once promised to become defenders of
human rights, for instance, are unlikely to embrace public overtures which aim to change
or else question their pledge. So much so that another’s prescription is potentially
rejected, I argue, once it fully questions master and auxiliary roles, the core components
to which an actor has committed. In such cases, actors face nothing less than a major
challenge to public credibility.
As many role theories predict, once actors are unable to locate compatible international
roles between themselves, growing tensions – perhaps even armed conflict – are increas-
ingly likely.1 This essay deals not with existing conflict as such, much less armed conflict,
but with situations that prompt political tensions.2 It seeks to understand how tensions arise,
particularly the circumstances under which governments reject the prescriptions or over-
tures of others. It also contributes to role theory by elaborating upon concepts which some
role theorists invoke but only sometimes conceptualise: public credibility and the matter of
(domestic and international) audiences. Several role theorists presuppose that conflicts and
tensions among actors arise once individuals or groups become uncertain about themselves
over the course of interaction, uncertainty that contributes to an identity crisis, ontological
insecurity or cognitive dissonance.3 While seemingly intuitive, such assumptions speak of a
coherent collective self where none need exist. Instead, I show that upholding a role has
more to do with remaining believable than with locating oneself from a social-psychological
point of view; taking a role is partly about keeping a promise. In the event of promises sel-
dom being kept, political authorities (which for the purpose of this essay are specific actors
whose public visibility is greater by virtue of representing an office or speaking on behalf of
a certain government, state or institution) open themselves to pressure to change their course
of action. To that end, a focus on credibility allows scholars, role theorists and practitioners
to address plural domestic and international audiences, without presuming the psychological
– as in subjective – need for identity affirmation. It also considers the performative strategies
that authorities apply to maintain public credibility.
To make sense of how credibility is relevant to role theory, I cover the latter’s main ten-
ets, including its problematic and by no means necessary relationship to self-identity and
ontological security. Thereafter, the essay problematises credibility in relation to legitimacy
and the strategies by which credibility is maintained. To illustrate the argument, I show why
authorities in Uzbekistan, who had in Russia a key audience, rejected the latter’s prescrip-
tions in the mid-to-late 1990s. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, authorities in
Uzbekistan – the most populous Central Asian state and itself a former Soviet republic –
increasingly sought to become as independent as possible from Russia and other so-called
‘great powers’; a pursuit they voiced to domestic and international audiences. As a result, as
Moscow sought to take a ‘great power’ role, positioning several former Soviet counterparts
as ‘faithful allies’, Uzbekistani authorities rejected those overtures. This case is therefore
relevant to role theory because it highlights why roles are defended when a coherent national
identity is otherwise lacking, and why it also matters for regimes other than liberal.
Role theory: key concepts and arguments
Social interaction, based on mutually understandable roles, offers a promising lens
through which to conceptualise why tensions arise and prescriptions are rejected. Most
To continue reading
Request your trial