Anatomising the recent history of Afghanistan is not an uphill task. In a crudely Hobbesian sense, it has been nasty and brutish but not solitary and short. The country has remained an untameable Leviathan. It needs a break from its wretched past. Coming on the heels of the much-trumpeted US-Taliban agreement signed in February, an Afghan grand assembly of elders has approved the release of 400 Taliban prisoners, thereby paving the way for all Afghan factions to jointly devise a mechanism that could help them overpower the juggernaut of violence that has disfigured Afghanistan. This would be done through an intra-Afghan dialogue involving the Afghan government, the Taliban and various regional factions.
That this dialogue will be long, tedious and complicated cannot be overemphasised. In fact, the perceived legitimacy of the process is as important as the actual discussions it will spawn. The sponsors of the deliberative process would basically have to: 1) persuade all stakeholders that it is an authentic political platform where they can engage with each other and discuss the multifarious issues plaguing their country; 2) assure all participants that they will be treated on a par with other stakeholders and their genuine grievances will be addressed with utmost sincerity; and, 3) convince all groups that the decisions arrived at during the talks shall be implemented faithfully and the country will not be allowed to again slip into the all too familiar blood-soaked anarchy. Given the legendary capriciousness of the Afghan political intelligentsia and the diametrically opposed viewpoints of different stakeholders, this appears to be a tall order.
Be that as it may, the parleys would primarily focus on four key issues. One, what kind of system of governance should be put in place in Afghanistan? Should it be a highly centralised government like the one President Ghani heads right now or should a well-woven mosaic of decentralisation of power be crafted? What should be the quantum of autonomy granted to the subunits? Should it be a unitary system of government where political power is centralised or a federal system, whereby power is divided between the centre and different governmental subunits in accordance with a constitutional scheme?
In Afghanistan’s context this is a delicate issue. Whilst smaller ethnic groups like the Tajiks and Uzbeks will push for more regional autonomy, larger ethnic groups may resist that. In a country where ethno-cultural, socio-economic and urban-rural segregation is worse than the bad old American South, the preservation of national unity without stripping the different subunits of their right to self-govern would be nearly impossible. This would not only require formal constitutional tools that could guarantee a fair system of power sharing but also the invention of potent institutional apparatuses that could tackle political crises that might occur from time to time.
Two, the role of ideology within the political dispensation will be of immense importance. The Taliban are still adamant that Afghanistan should be a theocratic Emirate governed by the Sharia law. The matter is exceedingly sensitive because it pertains to religious beliefs and sacred conventions. It defines politics in ideological terms and describes ideology via political idioms.
Three, the protection of the rights of marginalised sections of society like women, children and minorities may also take centre stage. Enforceable constitutional and legal instruments should be available in this regard. Mainstreaming gender equality in a highly gender-sensitive society would be akin to resorting to dangerous social engineering.
Four, the dialogue may also focus on the elimination of non-state actors like ISIS fighters who can derail the process of Afghanistan’s reconstruction. ISIS thugs would never allow the rise of a united and prosperous Afghanistan as this would deprive them of their most precious sanctuary. Their ability to sabotage the peace process should not be underestimated.
The intra-Afghan dialogue must succeed. If it fails, poverty, violence, social upheaval and political instability will quickly turn the country into a living hell.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 22nd, 2020.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ