Interpreting Political Trust after the Aceh Conflict

Abstract

This article examines the limits of obedience to the ulil amri as a basis for the ethical evaluation of the transformation of authority in the Aceh peace. The problem lies in the tendency to equate the duty of obedience with the impunity of the ruler or, conversely, to treat injustice as an automatic justification for armed resistance. Through qualitative document analysis and integrative synthesis, the study reads QS al-Nisāʾ [4]:58–59 across five Sunni exegeses and then brings these readings into dialogue with the Helsinki MoU, the Law on the Governing of Aceh, peace research, and documentation of victims' rights. Bangsamoro and Northern Ireland serve as limited comparators regarding the relationship between political accommodation and accountability. The findings show that refusal to obey a sinful command, moral assessment of governance, and the act of replacing those in power are matters that must be distinguished. The exegetical tradition examined upholds the obligations of trust (amanah) and justice while remaining cautious about contests over power. In the case of Aceh, the widening of political participation and the monitoring of security altered the way the conflict was managed, but did not automatically resolve tensions over authority, inequalities in citizens' access, and victims' claims. The article offers a framework of post-accommodation accountability that distinguishes norms, institutional design, and implementation, and that locates the accountability of power in both the state and local elites. Its contribution is a reconstruction of contemporary political ethics grounded in exegetical reading, without claiming that any particular interpretation gave rise to the Helsinki peace.