| dc.description.abstract | Power-sharing is increasingly favored as a peace agreement provision as means to end intrastate war. One form of power-sharing, dispersive power-sharing, emphasizes partitioning the policy making process and providing regional elites with security and autonomy is attractive for conflict of territorial nature, such as the case of Aceh, Indonesia. The 30-year conflict between Gerakan Aceh Merdeka (Free Aceh Movement/GAM) and the Government of Indonesia finally reached an end through the signing of the Helsinki Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 2005. The implementation of its two striking provisions –autonomy and establishment of local political parties have been applauded by many peace scholars and democracy scholars alike. Despite its arguable pacifying effect, the peace agreement is elitist in nature, and many scholars mainly put their focus on the former warring parties to come to its conclusion. The objective of this thesis has been to examine in what ways have dispersive power-sharing institutions influenced post-conflict political stability in post-conflict Aceh. I have addressed this question by examining the post-conflict dynamic processes that constituted the nexus of state-society where local government and citizens interacted, and how they relate to each of the four operational concepts of political stability employed in this thesis – authority, resilience, legitimacy, and replacement (the change in authority). In order to connect the empirical data with the research question, I have used an explanatory case study design, with semi-structured interview as the primary data collection method. The interviews were conducted during fieldwork in Aceh for six weeks, with 14 ordinary citizens and 9 experts. The analysis of the empirical data was guided by the theoretical framework linking de facto dispersive power-sharing practices to each operational concepts of political stability. The empirical findings suggested that regional autonomy and elite-oriented nature of the agreement increased authority of the former rebel elites, as they provided bigger opportunity for former rebel elites to preside the government. Nonetheless, it poses the risk of lacking legitimacy, signaled rigidity of the local government and disempower electoral participation in election. All of which potentially disrupted the political stability in Aceh fifteen years after the signing of the Helsinki MoU. | nob |