He who rules Kabul rules Afghanistan. Or so the old adage went. However, if there is one thing the last 12 years of the Afghan conflict has shown, it is that no king, or modern-day president, can take this for granted any more. Neither US efforts in Doha nor President Hamid Karzai’s desire to give the Taliban a place at the high table can fix this.
Yet, still guided by the old logic that only Pakhtoons can rule from Kabul, Taliban insurgents—also Pakhtoon—are sought to be brought into a power-sharing arrangement. Whether even that can bring stability to Afghanistan remains in doubt. The opposition parties are quite adamant that there should be no powersharing with the Taliban without their going through the electoral process.
Elections for the president’s post and provincial councils are due in April 2014, and those for Parliament, a year later. The Afghan opposition is pinning its hopes on free and fair elections to bring about fundamental changes in the country’s political system. However, there are apprehensions that in his bid to retain power in the hands of Pakhtoons, Karzai may either postpone the elections or fix them. He might even decide to settle for a loya jirga (assembly of elders) instead.
“People who do not want free and fair elections and try to prevent them will be judged harshly by history,” says Ahmad Zia Massoud, former Afghan vice-president and chairman of the Afghanistan National Front (ANF), an alliance of parties opposed to the Karzai regime. Brother of the legendary Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, an ethnic Tajik, Zia Massoud voices the fears of Afghan opposition leaders gathered in Munich to discuss the future of a deeply fractured polity. If the Bonn Process undertaken in the aftermath of 9/11 in 2001 led to the appointment of Karzai as president, the Munich Process organised by the opposition sought to challenge the very idea of privileging centralised governance through a ‘super-president’ in a conflict-ridden, multi-ethnic country.
The elections are also fated by the fact that they are slated for the same year that US/NATO troops are to disengage from the country. The Taliban naturally see an opportunity for themselves in the post-withdrawal scenario and do not want elections. The democratic opposition to Karzai, however, is very keen on the elections, even if imperfect.
“We welcome elections but are worried also,” says Faizullah Zaki, deputy leader of the Junbish-e-Milli (led by ethnic Uzbek warlord-turned-powerbroker General Abdul Rashid Dostum) and ANF spokesperson. “Security concerns may be cited to keep voters at bay and allow electoral fraud. There is no proper registration of voters. Against the six million voters in the country, 17 million voter ID cards have been issued. Despite these shortcomings, we want to make use of every democratic opportunity offered.”
There is no way to ascertain the precise number of voters, since the country has not had a proper census. Given the charges of ballot-stuffing in the past, the opposition’s apprehensions seem well-founded. Zaki claims the government is citing security concerns to avoid having international observers in the elections. “We are opposed to this attitude of the government,” he says. The ANF—essentially a coalition of parties representing minority Uzbeks, Tajiks and Hazaras—says it wants politics based on a clearly defined agenda, not personalities. “Politics based on a charismatic individual can become centralised and exclude our country’s diversity,” says Zaki, critiquing the present system.
Photograph by AFP, From Outlook 16 September 2013
As they hone their electoral agendas and look for a presidential candidate who evokes the ideal of decentralised power, the ANF parties are most worried about the decline of internal security in Afghanistan. Amrullah Saleh, former chief of the Afghanistan Directorate of Security and currently the head of the Green Party, does not mince words while blaming Pakistan for this situation. “Those killing our MPs, heads of communities and policemen find safe haven in Pakistan,” claims the former chief of Afghan intelligence. “We act against them, yet nothing changes. In 2010, in an anti-Taliban operation, some 3,000-4,000 Taliban were either killed or jailed. This made no difference to the security situation because those behind the Taliban are not those in front of the guns. The biggest proof we have of Pakistan’s role is that the Taliban who went to Doha to open an office flew from Pakistan and had Pakistani passports. Those who went for talks to Paris took the flight from Islamabad on Pakistani passports. Those who come to Kabul to negotiate also come from Lahore. Pakistan is the main adversary.” Yet, he argues, if there is to be a dialogue, it must be with Pakistan, not with its proxies.
Another Afghan scholar, Abdul Khaliq Lalzad, too agrees that the solution lies not in killing random Taliban, but in talking to Pakistan. “We should not, and cannot, go to war with Pakistan. Dialogue is the only option. The real solution lies in the decentralisation of political power and if the Taliban get elected in a particular region, they can come to power there,” says Lalzad.
Despite their differences of position, Afghan opposition leaders are united in arguing that Afghanistan will not become stable, secure and violence-free unless political power is decentralised. The spectre of fragmentation, as anywhere else, is what is used to stall decentralisation. They say the fear is baseless. “It is wrong to argue that if you have federalism, Afghanistan will break along ethnic lines. Despite 35 years of war, not once have the Uzbeks, Tajiks or Hazaras said they want to break away. Some in the majority community (read Pakhtoon) use this threat, which does not exist on the ground, to frighten people about a possible break-up,” argues Mohammed Nazif Shahrani, a professor of anthropology. He is not against a strong central government but thinks a regime based on an exclusivist tribal, ethno-nationalist ideology in multi-ethnic Afghanistan “is unlikely to produce genuine national solidarity and coherence”.
Zaki too thinks the Afghan crisis and the threat of collapse are causatively linked more to a centralised government, not to the demand for decentralisation. The latter, he argues, will take the government closer to the people, make it more accountable. For this, he says, the governors of the provinces and the districts would have to be elected and the status of provincial councils changed from being mere advisory bodies to those empowered to plan and execute provincial-level development projects, run education, ensure delivery of public services and even resolve local-level conflicts. Regarding the apprehension that decentralisation will encourage warlordism, Zaki turns the argument on its head saying it is not giving people the right to choose their own government and leaders which strengthens so-called warlords.
Tordiqol Maimanagi, an Afghan political analyst, points out that historically Afghanistan and Central Asia had decentralised governance. “It is centralisation of power which is new to the region. In the 1940s, people fought against the centralisation of power by the king. And now under democracy we have gone back to the same fight.” Shahrani forecasts a dismal future for Afghanistan without decentralisation. “If federalism is not given its due consideration,” he says, “the peoples of Afghanistan and the region will have to go through another purgatory of several decades.”
By Bharat Bhushan in Munich
Afghanistan excites the world's imagination, as Serbia did a few years ago, to an extent far beyond its relevance to a global economy. The brave Afghan people should be allowed to tend to their sheep and orchards.
It seems, who rules Kandahar, rules Afghanistan. Kabul was a city that was contested by many who wanted to be King, as is inferred. Their Kingship was seen by themselves to be illusory, and they were seen to be just a symbol of a unity of tribes, that were very independent. Those who became Kings, had nothing, and wanted to have everything, or came to have everything. The Kings of Afghanistan learned what people in a democracy haven't. People level aggression and allegations against the person, if he is at the very summit. No one wants this.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT