T

en years ago on Aug. 14 the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) signed the historic memorandum of understanding in Helsinki, Finland. The agreement ended decades of armed conflict and today'€™s anniversary marks the start of another period of peace in Aceh.

Surely a decade qualifies as a success? Not necessarily. Some analysts would categorize the current situation in Aceh as a '€œnegative peace'€, with merely the absence of violence, and even so it barely qualifies given that sporadic violence still occurs because of various reasons.

There have been various petty, yet armed, crimes that mar peace in Aceh, but also in the country. In 2010 a terrorist camp was uncovered in Jantho outside the capital. In Aceh'€™s election periods a number of people have been killed, others have been kidnapped and earlier this year two soldiers were killed. These security problems are indicators that social conflict in Aceh is yet to be managed properly as in other provinces. It takes time.

Social and economic conditions in the province are still less than conducive to peace. Much-needed investors are still reluctant to come to Aceh and for more reasons than just security. Aceh'€™s economic growth is the lowest in Sumatra, its exports are declining, over half of the cooperatives in the province are non-functional, the environment is severely threatened and drug-related crimes are on the rise. Let'€™s not even discuss the human rights violations perpetrated under the regular misuse and abuse of sharia.

The Aceh government is still under-performing. Its oil-and-gas income has ended, its new revenue-sharing deal with the state oil firm Pertamina is still unrealized, it still has no blueprint on how to use the special autonomy fund and its bureaucracy is at a standstill because of over-reshuffling (five times already since 2012). Worse, division among leaders is increasing not only within the executive branch, but also between the executive and legislative branches.

So what is left to celebrate in this 10th year of peace? There is plenty to be grateful for, in fact.

Foremost is that the general population can no longer be easily shaken or provoked by any armed violence. The above breaches of security were met by very brief public anxiety, followed by calm and collected response, rather than emotional and retaliatory reactions. There is no longer any charismatic leader to rally enough people in Aceh to bear arms and fight. Most people have moved on and are now looking forward rather than backward. It explains why small armed groups like that of Din Minimi'€™s failed to gather enough momentum to become a major threat. It also partly explains why the local parties in the 2014 elections performed poorly compared to in 2009.

Aceh has the most success in the political arena. Not only has the separatist movement become integrated with the national political system, it has wholeheartedly embraced it. Local and national parties have formed coalitions in the 2014 elections, something that is expected to continue in the future. Better yet, several people who have announced their candidacy for the 2017 gubernatorial election are former separatist leaders.

These are positive developments because they are now invested in the formal political process and are less likely to return to operating outside and against it. The public has also grown bold in their criticism of government performance, something unthinkable 10 years ago.

Development and advancement in other sectors will inevitably follow the political sector'€™s lead, albeit at a slower pace. Important change in Aceh has always been inter-generational. For example, Acehnese were ready for the independence movement of 1945 because they already had at least 35 years of peace following the Aceh-Dutch colonial war (1873-1904). Similarly, it will take several more years for the scars of the recent armed conflict to heal.

Ten years may not be enough to heal old wounds, but it already allows for peaceful regeneration. Aceh'€™s older generations '€” those with scars from armed conflicts '€” must first be allowed to phase out and make way for the more progressive younger generations. Already, ex-GAM combatants are already 10 years too old '€” and too invested in normal life '€” to return to armed conflict. Similarly, proponents of sharia are gradually outnumbered by those who want progress through a less conservative path. The older bureaucrats that grew unproductive under the armed conflict are beginning to retire.

Change is not all about the losing the old, but also about improving the new. The latest indicator of such progress is the recent acknowledgment of the Syiah Kuala University with an A-grade accreditation, the third university outside of Java to have received such an honor. It indicates the younger generation'€™s thirst for knowledge, the first step towards achieving prosperity.

It is important that the central government maintains and improves this momentum. However, they need to understand that the above progress does not mean that Aceh will become a completely peaceful province, or that the economy will become industrialized, or that sharia will be replaced.

It does mean that the shape and nature of Acehnese society and its problems will change and therefore must be responded to properly and accordingly, instead of reacting with the usual heavy-handed responses that have proven repeatedly to worsen rather than improve matters.

For too long the province was stagnant because of unchecked and widespread armed conflict. We are all grateful that Aceh is now moving and striving for a true and positive peace, whether its leaders are ready or not.
_____________________________

The writer is a researcher on Aceh residing in Jakarta.