This essay wants to answer how to understand the practice or procedures of Acehnese democracy in the present era? Which is a direction for understanding Acehnese traditions inside a concept of democracy.
It should be recognized that traditional democracy is substantive as developed countries practice. Therefore, the local public system must understand the tradition of democracy in Aceh. Besides that, traditional democracy must also involve understanding the construction structure of the social Acehnese people.
In other words, it is necessary questionable whether Aceh was given room to practice substantive democracy _ or whether Aceh was only given a ration to produce face democracy that is tentative and has a temporary impact?
The question above is essential for answering, considering that Aceh does not find the concept of democracy. In other words, the democracy that has been run can remain on the temporary plains and not own more impact suitable for the Acehnese themselves.
As a result, the problem of democracy, political ritual, and fulfillment of rights of entire people _ with symbols create the condition of Aceh as a test field _ various efforts on name democratization. The study of democracy, of course, has already bloomed by scholars.
Even there is the notion that democracy is a precondition establishment of the concept of the nation-state. Samuel P. Huntington mentions:
“Modern democracy is not simply democracy of the village, the tribe, or the city-state; it is democracy of the nation-state and its emergence is associated with the development of the nation-state .” 
Huntington’s view is at least will negate that study of democracy in Aceh if genuinely want to see a substantive democratization process because Aceh’s design is not a country that adheres to a system nation-state, will but once Becomes a sovereign nation, before values democracy practiced in the West in the nation – state context. 
Robert Hefner mentions two trends that coincide at the turn of the millennium: First, “… the diffusion of democratic ideas to disparate people and cultures worldwide.” Second, “… the forceful reappearance of ethnic and religious issues in public affairs .” 
Hefner’s view is very relevant to Aceh’s situation, mainly when they studied how democracy spread to Aceh, which has root culture and religion that are not identical to what is happening in the West. Appearance issues religious to realm public does not want by bearers democracy. Religious and ethnic issues should be separated from room public. Because inside draft that, separation religious and public issues is one _ instrument leaning politics _ secular.
Until this moment, the term ‘secular’ has become a scary specter _ for part Muslims, except in Aceh. On the other hand, for part of Western society, carrying religion or system belief in politics is also seen as something very _ worrying. For them, the terms’ fundamentalism’ and ‘radicalism’ are terms that are not could be accepted. Tend considered a barrier to universalism values political from the West. 
Despite the absence of religion inside _ politics, no so could say that system politics in Western countries is purely secular. However, it turns out, as shown by the experience of the United States, permanent religion plays a significant role in _ _ chess politics . .
In fact, the values of religiosity have already been resurrected back in the secular era.  When seeing system democracy in the United States, Alexia De Tocqueville writes :
In America, religion does not play a direct role in government, but one cannot deny that religion is an institution of essential politics. Even though there is no embedded taste of freedom, religion at least accommodates the use of institutions free. That is how it is America’s own see religion. I do not know if they obey what Americans do to their religion. After all, who can _ dive into a liver human? However, I am sure they do not think religion can be separated from maintaining public institutions. Opinion this is not only adopted by society or party specific but embraced by all nation layer society.
In the United States, if a politician attacks a sect, there is no obstructing adherents sect that supports it. However, if he attacked all sects, everyone will _ left him, and he would be isolated . 
Therefore, the discourse of democracy in a democratic country also, in essence, involves religion inside _ the system of state institutions. In the Islamic context, Francis Fukuyama mentions that “… the demand for sharia should be seen not a simply as reactionary turning back of the clock to medieval Islam, but rather as a desire for a more balanced regime in which political power would be willing to live within predictable rules .”  So, discuss democracy on the plains substantive, not rule out values a religion adhered to by society. Here _ location problem how to enable religion inside _ life democracy, especially if linked with system nation -state.
The issue of democracy in Aceh is not as complex imagine experiencing democracy in North America or Europe. However, Aceh’s real problem is not as complex experience countries in the Middle East as experienced in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Tunisia. In Aceh, there is a president, king, and prime minister. Besides _ that, in Aceh, it is no conflict open with abroad. However, Aceh has opposed invaders, Dutch, Japanese, and communists.
Aceh, too, once opposed the government Republic of Indonesia. Experience of the conflict in Aceh caused this province like a ” social laboratory ” for anyone who wants to look for the theories inside compiled framework think for social manipulation . 
Social Manipulation in Aceh began from history-long glory, then entered the abyss of downfall. After that rise to separate oneself from Indonesia, it was finally tied to one promise of loyalty to Indonesia. This course process has shown there is influence values culture from pervasive outside _ in life Acehnese people. At least, if sorted, Arabic, Indian, Persian, and Turkish influences from the Middle East, impact Dutch from Europe, during impact Java from Indonesia. Blending process cultures from various places have created something multicultural and multi-ethnic society in Aceh.
Middle Eastern influence manifested in Islamic culture . _ Influence Europe devoured in shape internalization of Christian religious values. Meanwhile, Indonesian influence is shown in Hindu and Buddhist influences. Middle Eastern influence generated of the process of Islamization, influence Europe caused from the colonialization process, while influence Java through existing unification _ in form Indonesian bureaucracy.
The process of Islamization produces the Islamic kingdom. The arrival of Christians from Europe destroyed the sultanate system and law in Aceh. The influence of the Hindu-Buddhist Indonesian state has removed the Acehnese people’s system and structure. The three issues in Aceh are not suitable for discussing the direction of democratization.
If Aceh still stands up a kingdom, as day this in some developed countries, of course, the Acehnese have headed up _ for show how to practice a democracy that has elements monarchy, as shown by some leaning kingdom _ Christian.
Likewise, if Aceh has the whole territory, as conquered by the experience of Sultan Iskandar Muda, perhaps a discussion about democracy will be similar to United States’ experience. Likewise, if Aceh is sovereign, just influencing the journey history of democracy in Indonesia is not will impact serious to the people of Aceh.
The first problem is related to system action. However, after the Helsinki MoU on 15 August 2005, Acehnese want implement Islamic Sharia, to have system power traditional-symbolic in institutions of Wali Nanggroe and a province with the Special Autonomy. The second problem is related to problem authority and symbols of Acehnese culture. The third problem is negotiation power with the central government in Jakarta. The fourth problem is the implementation of triad politics.
The most recent trial is appearance parties political recycled local _ repeat from deflection struggle from Forest to parliament. Efforts, of course, want to reinforce the status and identity of Aceh in the context of the nation-state era. In other words, Aceh is back to the past to emphasize identity now and in the future come.
However, Aceh’s control remains under the central government. Control from central government remains with Western countries under Indonesia to not change paradigm life nation or ideology that can protect against party international .  System control government the West is still based on the power of the great religion in this world Christianity and Judaism. In context, Aceh rises to realize identity in the middle struggle of the relationship between religion and the state in the era of globalization and civilization planetary. I could imagine, too, discussing the direction and purpose of life democracy in Aceh during monitoring and monitoring state power and strength ally international. So big and strong power crush faced by Aceh when wanted back to history.
Besides that, problem the relationship between Islam and democracy in Indonesia is not problem compatible between Islam and democracy but :
Today’s problem faced by democracy in Indonesia is not primarily related to Islam. Instead, it is necessary to look at the fragmented nature of political parties and the weakness of national leadership. The parties have not paid sufficient attention to developing their cadre and grassroots organizations. Party platforms are underdeveloped. Money is increasingly essential in influencing internal party activities, and corruption remains a severe issue at the local and national levels. 
 (Huntington 1991, 12)
Baca misalnya pengalaman kenegaraan yang dipraktikkan oleh Aceh dalam (Hadi 2004)
 (Hefner 2000, 3)
 (Huntington 1997)
 (Leeg and Kellstedt 2006)
 (C. Taylor, A Secular Age 2007) (Bellah 2011)
 (Stone and Mennell 2005, 98)
 (Fukuyama 2012, 286)
Read, for example (O. N. Abdullah 2011) (Bustamam-Ahmad 2014) (Bustamam-Ahmad 2012)
Read for example (Habib 1997) (Moertopo 1974) (Yayasan Proklamasi 1985)
 (Mehden 2008, 25-26)