What is the current situation in Afghanistan?

The country is nominally led by President Hamid Karzai, but the resurgent Taliban controls
important areas. Karzai, who was seeking his second presidential term, was opposed in the
recent election by Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister. The key issues included
what will be the country's relationship to the United States and NATO, which have more than
100,000 troops in the country working with local forces to fight the growing violence.
Complicating the situation is the high level of corruption fueled by cash from the illicit opium
trade.

Jump To:

Home Site Map Search Contact us

Overview Of Current Political Situation In Afghanistan

After pushing the date back twice, Afghanistan's presidential elections were finally held on October 9, 2004. Over
8 million Afghans voted in the elections. The Joint Electoral Management Body of Afghanistan certified the
elections on November 3rd, and declared Hamid Karzai, the interim President, the winner with 55.4% of the
votes. Karzai's strongest challenger, Yunis Qanooni, came in second with 16.3% of the votes. The elections were
not without controversy; allegations of fraud and ballot stuffing were brought up by many of the presidential
candidates including Yunis Qanooni. Many felt that Hamid Karzai had an unfair advantage over the other
candidates as he had access to financial and logistical resources that many of the other candidates did not have. A
panel of international experts was setup to investigate the matter. The panel did find evidence of voting
irregularities, however, they said that it was not enough to affect the outcome of the elections.

With help from the United States and the United Nations, Afghanistan adopted its new constitution, establishing
the country as an Islamic Republic, in early January 2004. According to the constitution, the Afghan government
consists of a powerful and popularly elected President, two Vice Presidents, and a National Assembly consisting
of two Houses: the House of People (Wolesi Jirga), and the House of Elders (Meshrano Jirga). There is also an
independent Judiciary branch consisting of the Supreme Court (Stera Mahkama), High Courts and Appeal Courts.
The President appoints the members of the Supreme Court with the approval of the Wolesi Jirga. Assembly
elections are planned for late 2005.

The Taliban (1) led by Mullah Mohammad Omar and the Al Qaeda Network, headed by Osama bin Laden, have
been removed from power. These groups formerly controlled most of Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda
were defeated by the forces of UNIFSA (2), backed by United States’ air bombing campaigns. The US got
directly involved in Afghanistan to seek revenge for the death of thousands of Americans killed when a few
airplanes were hijacked, two of them were flown into the World Trade Center in New York, and the other plane
crashed in an open field in Pennsylvania after the flight members tried to subdue the hijackers.

The US holds Osama bin Laden directly responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center, and the Taliban
were targeted for protecting him. Even though they have been removed from power, they are still present in small
pockets, particularly in the eastern and southern regions of Afghanistan. News reports are claiming that these
scattered Taliban have now supposedly teamed up with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, head of Hezbi Islami. It is not
certain to what degree these groups are cooperating with one another, however, all three clearly want the United
States, and International Peacekeepers to leave Afghanistan. The Taliban-Al Qaeda-Hekmatyar alliance has
resorted to suicide bombings, and deadly attacks on innocent aid workers to get their message across.

Pakistan, who supported the Taliban regime militarily and financially, made a drastic policy change and
cooperated with the United States in going after Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Despite this, Pakistan, led by
General Musharaf, still tried to influence the future stability of the Afghan government by attempting to secretly
sabotage the talks in Bonn by flaring up ethnic issues. Many observers and analysts believe that the Pakistani
government wanted to use the Taliban to restore the so-called "sanctity of the Durand Line", which separates
Afghanistan and Pakistan (3). Pakistan's objective was to rule Afghanistan by proxy, hence giving them a
strategic depth against their South Asian rival India.

(1) The word Taliban is the Persianized plural of the Arabic word, Talib, meaning student. Mullah Omar heads the movement.

(2) United National and Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (UNIFSA). The movement was composed of various political
parties brought together in their common struggle against Taliban rule in Afghanistan. It primarily consisted of Jamiat-e Islami, Hezbe-e
Wahdat, Harakat-i-Islami, Haji Qadeer's eastern Shura, and Ittihad-i-Islami Barai Azadi Afghanistan. In the western media, it is
incorrectly referred to as the Northern Alliance.

(3) The Durand line is an unofficial porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 1893, the British and the Afghan Amir (Abdur
Rahman Khan) agreed to set up the Durand line (named after the foreign Secretary of the Indian government, Sir Mortimer Durand) to
divide Afghanistan and what was then British India. Many experts believe that the Afghan Amir regarded the Durand Line as only a
separation of areas of political responsibility, not permanent international borders. The agreement was only for 100 years and it expired
in 1993. Moreover as early as 1949, Afghanistan's Loya Jirga declared the Durand Line invalid.
by Abdullah Qazi (last updated
Social Problems

Civil war has brought a variety of social ills in Afghanistan,

such as poverty, interethnic strife, inequality of women,
and widespread thievery, kidnapping, and banditry. Blood
feuds handed down through generations are legendary,
and revenge is regarded as a necessary redress of
wrongs. The civil war has strengthened these tendencies.
The ongoing civil war had continued to kill, wound, and
displace hundreds of thousands of civilians. Kabul has
been largely without electricity since 1994. Water,
phones, and sewage systems have been destroyed.
Years of war have separated and impoverished extended
families that traditionally cared for widows and fatherless
children. Now many are left to fend for themselves. Some
provinces began experiencing famine in the 1990s and
diseases of malnutrition are being reported for the first
time in decades.

April 1, 2010, 5:08 am

Peace and Development in Afghanistan: A Move
Towards Democracy or a Return to Tribal
Structures?

Interviewer: Jamaluddin Ansari Temori

An interview with Malek Sitez, Programme

Manager of the Civil Society and Human
Rights Network and Senior Programme
Advisor for Danish Institute for Human
Rights

Q: Western countries, particularly the

United States, attacked Afghanistan
in 2001 with the aim of fighting terror
and establishing democracy in the
country. But over the past year there have been moves towards reconciliation with
those who were previously called terrorists. As a human rights and civil society
activist, how do you assess this issue?

A: In my opinion, as you mentioned, the international community and the West aimed to
establish democracy in Afghanistan, but from the beginning they made two big mistakes:

1. The social situation was ready for democracy after the collapse of the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan, but the international community faced a big problem in choosing its partner in
Afghanistan. The community concentrated on cooperating with violators of democracy instead
of preparing the public to accept democracy. The international community selected figures
who had no commitment to democratic values and no respect for human rights. This was a
very sinister beginning. Warlords, and those who violated human rights and democratic values
became the partners of the West for strengthening democracy in Afghanistan. This issue raised
questions about the legitimacy of democracy in the country.

2. The second mistake was that the West developed a strategy for establishing democracy
and popularizing a culture of human rights with the support of figures who trivialized the issue
of democracy and human rights. In my opinion, the non-existence of a good partner for
popularizing democracy and the lack of a developed strategy for establishing a culture of
human rights were the two big mistakes that the international community made in
Afghanistan.

Q: Could you specify whom you mean by those partners? You mean those who came
with slogans of democracy from the West and played a key role in the government
during past eight years?

A: No, I mean that the West helped strengthen the institution of warlordism in Afghanistan. In
my opinion, this institution includes warlords themselves, as well as technocrats with neckties,
those who returned from the West, and apparently open-minded people. The institution is
supported by warlords; therefore, warlordism was indirectly supported by the West. The
warlords got extensive political and economical support; they extended and enhanced their
presence inside different sectors of the government (executive, legislative and judiciary), and
their base had been strengthened. No one can deny this fact now.

Q: You mentioned that Afghanistan was socially ready for democracy after the fall
of the Taliban but the West made a mistake in choosing its partner; but, some
analysts disagree and claim that Afghan society is not mature enough to accept the
principles of democracy. And now the international community is moving towards
traditional solutions like the Peace Jirga instead of using principles of democracy.
What is your view in this regard?

A: We should first define democracy ourselves in Afghanistan. Is it a mechanism or a value? If

we present it as a mechanism, then its pillars should be strengthened. But democracy was
imposed as a useless mechanism in Afghanistan prior to strengthening its pillars. We imposed
Western-style democracy on Afghan society; still, democracy is not defined, introduced and
popularized for the people.

In fact, democracy never goes ahead without transparency and accountability. How could we
implement democracy in a society where there is no transparency of systems and where the
government is not accountable? In my opinion, democracy without transparency and
accountability is something vague and useless. Democratic mechanisms cannot be stabilized
without transparency and accountability; and a government cannot be democratic without
transparency and accountability. Such a government will be ineffective and anarchic as we
witness now in Afghanistan.

So, in my opinion, if the West really wants to establish democracy in Afghanistan, it should
simultaneously put pressure on mechanisms for transparency and accountability. But,
unfortunately, no actions have been taken in this regard. Warlordism has caused us to waste
this opportunity; the warlords use international aid for their own benefit, putting assistance
funds in their own pockets. Public opinion in the West is turning against assistance in
Afghanistan, because of the lack of transparency and accountability within the Afghan
government. The West will soon tire of such a process.

Q: The West seems intent on justifying its previous mistakes rather than repairing
them. Over the past year, and particularly in recent months, there have been talks
about negotiations with those who are famous for violating democracy and human
rights. What do you think?

A: I think such efforts towards reconciliation stem from those errors. Westerners want to blind
their people’s eyes, saying reconciliation is the only way to remedy the current situation in
Afghanistan. They believe that Afghan society is traditional, where democracy cannot be
established and cannot be useful. And Afghanistan should again return to traditional and tribal
regimes. But I disagree with such thoughts.

I think the opportunity is there for the development of democracy in Afghanistan. Afghanistan
was the place where democracy was presented to the world. The West had not yet thought of
democracy when Korosh presented his human rights charter 2500 years ago in Afghanistan. If
we review the different periods of Afghanistan’s history, we could easily demonstrate that it
has shown its readiness to accept democratic changes. Democracy has been transformed into
a political issue in Afghanistan; however, it is not a political issue, it is a question of values.

Afghan society will be ready to accept democracy if it understands its values. But now we have
other countries trying to impose their own style of democracy on our country.

Q: Afghanistan has experienced different systems for last hundred years: the
modernist state of Amanullah Khan, the monarchy of Nader Khan, the relatively
democratic state of Zahir Shah, the republic of Dawood Khan, the Communist
regime, the Islamic State of Mojahidin and the Taliban religious state. All of these
systems have emphasized and exploited traditional and tribal Jirgas through its own
style but such Jirgas have never been proved positive. So, why is the Afghan
government using such traditional Jirgas?

A: Several principles are always being ignored with respect to reconciliation.

1. Legitimacy: Is the reconciliation process we are talking about legitimate or not? I think it is
not legitimate. We can have legitimacy only when there is national consensus on mechanisms
for establishing peace. Our president goes to Saudi Arabia and asks the monarch to mediate in
the peace process. In my opinion, the president’s action has no national legitimacy.
Reconciliation needs national legitimacy, which can be obtained only through national dialogue
in which all social and political entities take part; it is not within the president’s sole
competency. Such dialogues should establish a mechanism for reconciliation and the Afghan
government can act only as implementer of such a mechanism.

2. Another important point is that no accurate research has been conducted on conflict in
Afghanistan to see why Afghanistan has become a center of national and international conflict.
Who plays the key role in these conflicts? Is Afghanistan really a land of violence? If yes, what
are the reasons for creating negative, tribal, regional and international conflicts here?
Assessments and policies in connection with reconciliation lack legitimacy and accurate
research. This is another important point. Hence, any assessment and/or policy - without
legitimacy and accurate research - is a mistake. In the present world, without conducting
precise research on challenges and solutions, any steps will be a mistake.

3. The other point is the establishment of mechanisms. Jirgas may play a part in such
mechanisms but it is not the only solution for bringing peace. Such mechanisms should be
established based on the spirit of the times. The 21tst century requires that nations should act
differently. Issues of national and international partnership are now under consideration in
Afghanistan. We see now that the West wants to repeat the Balkan experience in Afghanistan.
They imposed peace in the Balkans by NATO fighter jets, but now the Balkans are poised on
the brink of violence.

Therefore, the reconciliation process will not reach an ideal result until the Afghan government
creates the capacity of establishing peace and peace mechanisms, and the capacity of
presenting peace strategies.

Q: It is a fact that the majority of the principles you mentioned are being ignored
during the reconciliation process. How do you see the future of reconciliation in
Afghanistan?

A: We have two types of peace, according to international laws and relations, and legal
mechanisms of governance: cold peace, which means a ceasefire. In this type of peace, the
only focus is to stop the fighting. Another type is called warm peace, in which a base for
socio/cultural and politico/economical development is created. While we are talking about
security we do not mean only military security; we consider social, culture and economical
security too. If peace creates such security, we will go towards a sustainable and stable peace
in our country.

Unfortunately, our present movement towards reconciliation is a movement towards cold

peace, which may create a temporary ceasefire but will never have stability and sustainability.

Q: Will not the integration of elements like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who openly
confirmed his relation with Al-Qaida, weaken the process of democracy instead of
bringing temporary peace? What will happen with the future of democracy in
Afghanistan?

A: I do not want to comment in this regard. Any citizen of Afghanistan can anticipate the
consequences of such an issue. We have experienced such reconciliations for almost thirty
years and have seen the results. If such reconciliation takes place once again with whom you
mentioned and these elements join with pre-existed warlords, it will have a very terrible
consequence for peace, governance and democracy in Afghanistan.

Q: Are we really heading towards democracy? If yes, what are the main challenges
to democracy in Afghanistan?

A: We are in a transitional phase of democracy and we should rely on a series of international

structures because democracy is very fragile in this phase. Simultaneously, we are struggling
with the war against terrorism.

Off course, there are some entities that are trying to democratize the system in Afghanistan.
For instance, our conversation on democracy itself is an effort towards democracy. Freedom of
speech, media and civil associations show that we are going ahead towards democracy. Steps
towards establishing mechanisms such as parliament and elections are also good signs.

The main challenge for democracy is the lack of access to information, because information
paves the way for sound choices. Access to information should become a central issue; the
Afghan government as well as the international community should consider the fact that
access to information can make democracy indigenous and Afghan. The government must be
obligated to present information to the public regarding its state budget, polices and practical
programs as well activities conducted by international community. Access to information
provides space to choose correctly. Democracy will face a big challenge unless the
government provides the public with the required information.
Civil society has become merely a symbol and this is another challenge for democracy. Civil
Society should be accepted as a fact in the society. The president of Afghanistan has 45
advisors in different fields but there is no advisor to work as a liaison between the government
and civil society. On the one hand the Afghan government claims that it is establishing
democracy but on the other hand it does not recognize civil society.

Another challenge is media outlets whose mission is contrary to civil society. Media outlets
should be changed to responsive media. We have a number of media outlets working for
democracy but most of the media belong to warlords who broadcast their own ideologies.

In order to overcome these challenges, the international community, in particular, international

entities working to establish democracy should consider the above-mentioned challenges to
enhance democracy in Afghanistan.

Q: What we have so far talked about are opinions and suggestions; how much are
you optimistic to the current democracy process?

A: I am optimistic about the current democratic process but with much anxiety and fear. I am
optimistic because we have the international community with us and this is good news for
anyone who works for democracy and human rights.

Having a big supporter and a legal democratic framework for democracy which is the
constitution are the main factors making me happy about the process.

Q: You are anxious because of the points that you mentioned before?

A: Yes, that is absolutely correct.