Local politics likely behind violence in Aceh

The series of fatal shooting incidents in Aceh cannot be taken lightly. The violence is systematic, coordinated, dangerous and is undermining democracy and humanity in the province.

The state has to respond quickly and strategically to stop the brutality and restore justice.

As of last weekend, five people were killed and many others were injured. Gunoko, a construction worker, was the latest fatality after more than 21 hours of intensive care at a local hospital. All the victims are migrants who left their homes and people they love just to earn money to support their families.

Regretfully, the police have prematurely stated that the violence represents an ordinary crime and has nothing to do with the gubernatorial election scheduled for Feb. 16. But the systematic killings and the escalation of violence that occurred lately reveal that the brutality is related to something bigger.

So far there have been three assumptions regarding the roots of the violence in Aceh.

First, the violence is connected with local politics, particularly the regional election or pilkada. The killings occurred in line with the intensity of conflicts in relation to local politics.

The brutality seems to take root from a conflict between factions in the former separatist group’s (GAM) forces. There are at least three factions: the Swedish faction that organizes itself in the ruling Aceh Party, the domestic faction led by incumbent governor Irwandi Yusuf and deputy governor Muhammad Nasar, and the third faction that is marginalized and has no access to local politics.

Not all factions, including the Aceh Party, are accommodated in the local elections. Rivalry between Nasar and Irwandi in the upcoming election has added to the complexity of local politics.

As the violence escalated ahead of the election, it can be argued that the two issues are connected. The violence has political motives. Imparsial, a human rights group, has observed that violence always intensifies in Aceh prior to a local election. The election of local leaders in 2006, 2009 and 2012 witnessed the rise of violence.

For 2011 and 2012, there were 17 acts of violence recorded, claiming 15 lives and wounding 17 other people. During the round of regional elections last year, it was reported that eight activists of the Aceh Party were killed, but the police could not discover the perpetrators of the murders.

The second hypothesis suggests that the violence is related to political and economic issues, such as the struggle over access to and control of economic resources in Aceh between factions within the former GAM forces. Local media say the conflict pits those who won tenders for development projects and those who lost or have become marginalized. That is why the targets of the killings were workers.

The third thesis is the development of an ethnic ideology following decentralization that has resulted in a gap between migrants and indigenous Aceh people. Coordinating Political, Legal and Security Affairs Minister Djoko Suyanto confirmed this. He said on Jan. 6 that the shooting incidents were not related to the regional election, but citing the police report, were connected to social envy in the community.

Socioeconomic disparity is a simplification of what has happened in Aceh. It is only a camouflage to cover something more complex and this explanation does not help efforts to find a solution.

Many have challenged this hypothesis because the gap does not actually exist. Moreover, the victims were migrants who were also part of the poorer section of society.

An argument that relates the violence to local political configurations is more sensible. Apart from underlining which hypothesis is correct, there are four important points I now want to highlight.

First, the use of violence as political expression is dangerous, inhuman and uncivilized. It cannot be justified or supported from either a legal or religious point of view, as an act of violence that sacrificed breadwinners. They were killed because certain people or groups wanted to deliver a message to national government or local government leaders in Aceh.

Second, the violence has tarnished the image of Aceh as a province where sharia law has come into effect. The killers are more dangerous than the punks recently detained and rounded up by the Aceh police. Therefore, the police should make more effort to uncover the actors behind the killings, rather than adopting a tough approach to the punks.

Third, the killings reveal that there are still many illegal firearms circulating in Aceh, despite the peace agreement signed in 2005. The fact that many guns are in illegitimate hands endangers peace in the province. Therefore, the police should conduct operations to confiscate guns from civilians.

As the violence is related to the local election, the solution should include accommodation for competing factions. The political process should give the same opportunity to every group in the province. As political scientist Fachry Ali has suggested, it is necessary for the government to postpone the election so as to accommodate all parties.

The delay will provide the poll commission with the opportunity to print new ballots, arrange new electoral campaigns and so on. The most important aim of the postponement is to uncover the actors behind the brutality and punish them.

This step will send a strong message that Indonesia upholds the rule of law and respects human life.

The writer is a researcher at the Center of Cultural Pluralism, Democracy and Character Building, Semarang State University.