Skip to main content
follow up on previous publication
Summary:some crucial follow-up points on the impedements to transition to democracy in Afghanistan
- While public discourse
is largely focused on Iraq, public’s perception of Afghanistan is
constantly impacted by the negative news coming out of Iraq, thus
contributing to the prevalent cynicism with regards to developments
in the country. It is difficult to convince the public of positive
developments, if the country in question shares a news bulletin
with constant violence in Iraq.
-
One of the fundamental principles in Transition to Democracy is
that it can only be properly done in a secure environment. In this
respect continues instability in Afghanistan points to the failure
of the process of transition to a stable democracy.
-
We can always ask questions regarding the US planning for the
post-invasion period, and more importantly we must ask questions
regarding the failure of the US and NATO troops in combating and
eliminating the insurgency. This raises further questions regarding
US commitment to defend the current administration in Kabul, and
even as far as the possibility of US-Taliban dialogue to the effect
of working out a power sharing mechanism.
-
Experts have cautioned that nation-building may be retarded by
overly zealous external administrators who insist upon establishing
the rule of law before domestic actors are permitted to play out
their political differences. This is particularly true in the
immediate post-Taliban period in Afghanistan. Several commanders
with massive public support in their particular areas were forced
out of power by the coalition forces in favour of an under strength
police force. A case in point is Mulla-Sher Muhammad in Helmand and
Mulla Jan Muhammad in Uruzgan. More importantly however, the
coalition failed to take the advice of the Government of
Afghanistan on this exact point.
- It is imperative that
the coalition stop treating Afghanistan as a ‘blanket policy’
situation, where they attempt to start institution building all
over again, without paying a attention to the historical and social
legacies of the country. This is due to the fact that for state
formation to occur, outside actors and administrators must have a
nuanced appreciation for the history and contemporary political
aspirations of a country’s various factions.
1 Comment
Salam Nahzat
You've made a good point about the importance of understanding the Afghan history.
Many have rushed to Afghanistan with their 'all in-one democracy package' believing that it must be the ultimate cure. While this is a long discussion, it can be breifly stated that Afghanistan was indeed founded in 1747 by Ahamd Shah Durrani who was elected by the Loya Jirga.
But the present form of democracy in a conservative country like Afghanistan is seen as the secularization of the society and state. In other words, the resistance is not to universal democracy per say, but to 'western decmoracy' which tries to seprate state from religion.
That's why it's important to understand history.