This article analyzes the modes of organizing the political realm of society in Aceh, especially after the signing of the Helsinki MoU in 2005 by representatives of the Indonesian government and GAM as the two parties most interested in the social organization of Acehnese society. The post-conflict social and political phenomenon in Aceh is the fragmentation between democratic and customary institutions that can be directly observed by the public through their competition in local government elections. Former GAM leaders have chosen to revive Majelis Wali Nanggroe and Gampong as customary and cultural institutions to help the government organize the lives of Acehnese people post-conflict. This paper contends that the various relationships and networks of relationships present in institutional formations are understood and explained through the different rules and frameworks that define and regulate them. Data sources were collected through in-depth interviews with several key informants, such as former GAM members, DPRA members, university rectors, local Aceh mass media editors, and socio-political observers, field observations for eighteen days (5–22 August 2018), and literature studies. This qualitative research uses a new institutionalism approach that focuses on the dynamics of the social structure of Acehnese society, which was largely controlled by GAM before the Helsinki MoU and began to loosen after the elections and even formed fragmentation among former combatants in the struggle for leadership in local government institutions. This article finds that GAM elite divisions and conflicts after the conflict for official government positions occurred due to the absence of imagination of modes of organizing society that was able to connect structurally and functionally formal and informal institutions. Pragmatically, GAM leaders and negotiators tend to maintain identity politics as a resistance movement against the central government and at the same time, they continue to run governance in a special autonomy model that gives them a lot of constitutional, institutional and symbolic freedom.

1. Ambrose, T. K. (2018). Decentralisation, local governance, and path dependency theory. Utafiti, 13(1), 54—76. https://doi.org/10.1163/26836408-01301005
2. Aspinall, E. & Crouch, H. (2003). The Aceh peace process: why it failed. Policy Studies 1. East-West Center, Washington. https://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/aceh-peace-process-why-it-failed
3. Aspinall, E. (2012). Separatism in Aceh: From social rebellion to political movement. In Social Activism in Southeast Asia (pp. 40-55). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203100233
4. Barter, S. J. & Wangge, H. R. (2022). Indonesian autonomies: explaining divergent self-government outcomes in Aceh and Papua. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 52(1), 55—81. DOI: 10.1093/publius/pjab009
5. Billon, P. L. (2008) Corrupting Peace? Peacebuilding and Post-conflict Corruption, International Peacekeeping, 15(3), 344—361. DOI: 10.1080/13533310802058851
6. Boonpunth, K. C. & Saheem, N. (2022). Roles of civil society in peacebuilding in Southeast Asia: the case studies of Mindanao, Aceh, and Southernmost Thailand. Asian Affairs: An American Review, 49(2), 88—112. DOI: 10.1080/00927678.2022.2089522
7. Burns, T. R. & Flam, H. (1987) The Shaping of Social Organization: Social Rule System Theory with Applications. Sage Publications, London.
8. Cardozo, M. T. A. L., Affiat, R. A., Zaman, F., Irawani, M. & Srimulyani, E. (2022). Silent struggles: women education leaders’ agency for peacebuilding in Islamic schools in post-conflict Aceh. Journal of Peace Education, 19(2), 158—181. DOI: 10.1080/17400201.2022.2052826
9. de Archellie, R., Holil, M., & Waworuntu, A. (2020). Indonesian local politics and the marriage of elite interests: Case study of elite democracy in Gorontalo. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 7(1), 1838090. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2020.1838090
10. Fasya, T. K., Sibarani, R., Agustono, B., Amin, M. & Yunanda, R. (2023). Political trauma of Uleebalang descendants over past conflict in the city of Lhokseumawe, Aceh. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 10(1), 2264011, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2264011
11. Feener, R. M. (2020). Engineering transformations in the ‘religion-development nexus’: Islamic law, reform, and reconstruction in Aceh. Religion, 51(1), 40–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2020.1792051
12. Fuad, Z., Darma, S., & Muhibbuthabry, M. (2022). Wither Qanun Jinayat? The legal and social developments of Islamic criminal law in Indonesia. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2053269
13. Gampong Government. Qanun Provinsi Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Nomor 5 Tahun 2003 tentang Pemerintahan Gampong dalam Provinsi Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam. Retrieved from: https://www.acehtenggarakab.go.id/media/2021.04/Qanun%20Aceh%20No%205%20Tahun%202003%20Tentang%20Pemerintahan%20Gampong.pdf
14. Gani, F., de Archellie, R., Waworuntu, A. L. G., Alkatiri, Z. & Holil, M. (2024). Neo-institutionalism perspective on local governance in Lombok: reinstitutionalisation of Tuan Guru in the Indonesian decentralization era. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy, and Development, 8(10), 8873. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v8i10.8373
15. Gayatri, I. H. (2008). Runtuhnya Gampong di Aceh. Pustaka Pelajar.
16. Gayatri. I. H. (2010). Dynamic of village institution: the Gampong under Aceh’s special autonomy. Journal of Indonesian Social Sciences and Humanities, 2: 203—212. http://www.kitlv-journals.nl/index.php/jissh/index
17. Guy, P. B. (1999). Institutional theory in political science. The ‘new institutionalism’. Pinter.
18. Hall, P. A., Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalism. Political Studies. 44(5), 936—957. 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x
19. Hasjmy, A. (1983). Kebudayaan Aceh dalam sejarah. Penerbit Beuna.
20. He, B., & Reid, A. (2004). Special issue Editors’ introduction: four approaches to the Aceh question. Asian Ethnicity, 5(3), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463136042000259752
21. Hillman, B. (2012). Power-sharing and political party engineering in conflict-prone societies: the Indonesian experiment in Aceh. Conflict, Security & Development, 12(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2012.688291
22. Hillman, B. (2013), Public Administration Reform In Post-Conflict Societies: Lessons From Aceh, Indonesia. Public Admin. Dev., 33: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1643
23. Hurgronje, C. S. (1906). The Achehnese. Brill.
24. Indonesia, Central Government. Undang-undang (UU) Nomor 11 Tahun 2006 tentang Pemerintahan Aceh. Retrieved from: https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/40174/uu-no-11-tahun-2006
25. Indonesia, Central Government. Undang-undang (UU) Nomor 18 Tahun 2001 tentang Otonomi Khusus Bagi Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Aceh Sebagai Provinsi Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam. Retrieved from: https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/44898/uu-no-18-tahun-2001
26. Jemadu, A. (2004). Democratisation and the dilemma of nation‐building in post‐Suharto Indonesia: the case of Aceh. Asian Ethnicity, 5(3), 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463136042000259770
27. Kingsbury, D. (2007). The Free Aceh Movement: Islam and democratisation. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 37(2), 166–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472330701253759
28. Lee, T. (2020). Political orders and peace-building: ending the Aceh conflict. Conflict, Security & Development, 20(1), 115–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2019.1705071
29. Lele, G. (2021). Asymmetric decentralization, accommodation and separatist conflict: lessons from Aceh and Papua, Indonesia. Territory, Politics, Governance, 11(5), 972–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2021.1875036
30. Lele, G. (2023). Asymmetric decentralization, accommodation and separatist conflict: lessons from Aceh and Papua, Indonesia. Territory, Politics, Governance, 11(5), 972—990. DOI: 10.1080/21622671.2021.1875036
31. Loga, P., Cardow, A. and Asquith, A. (2022). Path-dependency theory in a post-conflict state: the case of Fiji, Journal of Management History, 28(3), 363—387. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-06-2021-0037
32. Lowndes, V., & Roberts, M. (2013). Why institutions matter: the new institutionalism in political science. Palgrave MacMillan
33. Mahoney, J. (2001). Path-dependent explanations of regime change: Central America in comparative perspective, Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(1), 111—141. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02687587
34. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. The American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–789. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961840
35. Miller, M. A. (2004). The Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam law: a serious response to Acehnese separatism? Asian Ethnicity, 5(3), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463136042000259789
36. Missbach, A. (2011). The Acehnese diaspora after the Helsinki Memorandum of Understanding: return challenges and diasporic post-conflict transformations. Asian Ethnicity, 12(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631369.2011.571836
37. Nugroho, A., Takahashi, M., & Masaya, I. (2021). Village fund asymmetric information in disaster management: evidence from village level in Banda Aceh. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 630 012011. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/630/1/012011
38. Permana, Y. S. (2021). Subnational sectarianisation: clientelism, religious authority, and intra-religious rivalry in Aceh. Religion, State & Society, 49(2), 142—156. DOI: 10.1080/09637494.2021.1881392
39. Peters, B. G. (1999). Institutional theory in political science. The ‘new institutionalism’. Pinter
40. Peters, B. G. (2019). Institutional theory in political science. The new institutionalism. Edward Elgar.
41. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. The American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251—267. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586011
42. Reid, A. (2004). War, peace and the burden of history in Aceh. Asian Ethnicity, 5(3), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463136042000259761
43. Ridwansyah, M. & Orsantinutsakul, A. (2022). The strengthening of guardian institutions in Nanggore Aceh during the autonomy era. Journal of Human Rights, Culture, and Legal System, 2(1), 55—65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v2i1.27
44. Safarudin, Subhilhar, Humaizi, Kusmanto, H., Achmad, N., & Ridho, H. (2024). Budget Politics of Aceh Province’s Special Autonomy Fund for Poverty Alleviation. International Journal of Applied Sciences and Development, 3, 218—230. DOI: 10.37394/232029.2024.3.22
45. Schaefer, R. T. (2017). Sociology: a brief introduction. London: MacGraw Hill.
46. Schulze, K. E. (2003). The Struggle for an Independent Aceh: The Ideology, Capacity, and Strategy of GAM. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 26(4), 241–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10576100390209304
47. Schulze, K. E. (2004). The Free Aceh Movement (GAM): Anatomy of a separatist organization. Policy Studies 2. East-West Center, Washington. https://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/free-aceh-movement-gam-anatomy-separatist-organization
48. Shadiqin, S. I. & Srimulyani, E. (2021). The contested authorities: institution and agency in the enforcement of Sharia law in Aceh, Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Islam and Muslim Societies, 5(2), 198—223. DOI: 10.30821/jcims.v5i2.10601
49. Tambunan, E. M. B. (2023). Should Conflict Research End after Peace Achieved? The Case of Aceh. Peace Review, 35(3), 484–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2023.2203086
50. Tischer, H. L. (2010). Introduction to Sociology (10th Edition). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
51. World Bank. (2008). Aceh Conflict Monitoring Update, 1st January—29th February 2008. Retrieved from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/491391468268823780/Aceh-conflict-monitoring-update-January-February-2008
52. Yahya, R. M., Hanafiah, K. M., Sumedi, S., Usman, M., & Ibrahim, Z. (2018). Uni Eropa dalam Ekonomi Politik Regional Indonesia: Ekonomi, Pemberantasan Korupsi, Restorasi Perdamaian, dan Pembangunan Aceh. Yogyakarta: Amara Books.