This book presents the first comprehensive analysis of Indonesia’s special autonomy policies in Papua and Aceh through a necropolitical lens, explaining why formally similar institutional arrangements produce different effects. Drawing on Mbembe’s theory of necropolitics, the book demonstrates how sovereign power operates in tandem with democratic institutions, revealing why formal autonomy frameworks have been ineffective when underlying power relations remain unchanged. Key topics include the theoretical evolution from Foucault’s biopolitics and Agamben’s to Mbembe’s necropolitics; historical trajectories; manifestations of necropolitics; and critical factors explaining autonomy negotiations. These topics are significant because they challenge conventional wisdom in the conflict-resolution literature and illuminate the ongoing human rights crisis in Indonesia’s periphery, which has received little scholarly attention. Despite its elitist and imperfect tendencies, the special autonomy policy has been a crucial instrument for preventing disintegration during the transition from the New Order to the Reformation. Necropolitical analysis helps understand how external and internal factors shaped the political landscape in Papua and Aceh. The concept of necropolitics in this book departs from the dilemmas faced by victims in both regions, precisely at the time of the formulation and implementation of asymmetric decentralisation. Necropolitics demonstrates how tension zones lead to the deprivation of human rights for victims who remain in their homes or flee to escape conflict. By relying on extensively reviewed study texts and public documents, this book is expected to enrich policy analysis approaches, particularly by advancing understanding of the arena of issue management, which then enters the agenda-setting in policy formulation. In other words, necropolitics provides analytical tools for understanding how policy spaces are designed and dissected. The analysis demon
This book presents the first comprehensive analysis of Indonesia’s special autonomy policies in Papua and Aceh through a necropolitical lens, explaining why formally similar institutional arrangements produce different effects.
