War and peace, two enduring phenomena in human social life, have persisted throughout history. From primitive societies to modern states, the struggle between conflict and harmony has been a constant challenge. Societies have consistently sought ways to mitigate violence and war, recognizing their destructive consequences on collective well-being. Despite these efforts, effectively eliminating conflicts and reducing violence has proven to be a complex endeavor.
The transformation of conflicts into compromises and wars into peace has remained an elusive goal across time and geography. While 19th-century sociologists anticipated that industrial progress and increased trade could signal the end of wars and the advent of lasting peace, the 20th century experienced some of the most devastating conflicts, both regional and global. Unfortunately, even in the 21st century, the pursuit of global and regional harmony remains uncertain.
Numerous thinkers have endeavored to establish lasting peace and curb violence, yet their success has been limited. In the 18th century, Immanuel Kant, a renowned Prussian philosopher, presented the treatise “Perpetual Peace,” outlining principles for achieving enduring peace. This work gained significant attention and influenced subsequent generations. Similarly, in the 20th century, the aftermath of World War I prompted the establishment of the “League of Nations” to preserve peace. Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen-point statement, advocating against colonialism and advocating for the self-determination of oppressed nations, as well as the creation of the United Nations (UN), drew inspiration from Kant’s treatise.
The concept of sustainable peace, one that remains unbroken by violence and conflict, merits exploration. Kant, in his treatise, links peace with democracy, asserting that democracy can deter both internal and external conflicts within a nation. According to Kant, democratic governments, representing the will of the people, prioritize peace over power acquisition and war, as the people do not seek war but suffer its consequences.
Kant further posits that convergence and cooperation among nations foster cultural diversity and grant individuals the freedom to choose the “superior culture.” The union of nations curbs the belligerence of autocratic leaders. Numerous liberal and realist thinkers, inspired by Kant’s ideas, have reinforced the connection between democracy and peace. While realists emphasize the role of power balance in international relations, they acknowledge the correlation between the democratic system and peace in domestic contexts.
Kant’s prerequisites for achieving lasting peace encompass: firstly, a republican constitution that upholds citizens’ freedom, equality, and separation of powers; secondly, recognition of the legitimate rights of citizens and other republics, establishing a moral foundation for peaceful treaties under international law and the United Nations; and thirdly, the establishment of global laws that facilitate cross-border trade, offering material incentives for cooperation and preventing conflict.
Kant’s philosophy also envisions humanity’s progression through possibilities of regression, stagnation, or advancement. He aligns with the third option, asserting nature’s inclination towards the triumph of righteousness. He believes that what humans inadvertently fail to achieve will naturally unfold over time.
For over four decades, Afghanistan has been ensnared in warfare and violence, causing immense suffering due to insecurity, economic hardship, and social challenges. Widespread ignorance, hunger, and underdevelopment have hindered human aspirations. Despite the efforts of domestic and foreign thinkers, stable peace remains elusive, and the conflict persists, perpetuating ignorance, poverty, and deprivation.
This article strives to address the question of how to resolve the conflict and establish enduring peace in Afghanistan. It examines suitable models of government that align with Afghan culture and societal structure, while tracing the evolution of peace and war concepts through the lens of Kant’s theory. The article will assess various viewpoints in this arena and analyze the role of “political structure and government” in either prolonging or resolving the national conflict.
A) The Global Evolution of the Concept of Peace
Peace and war, much like other similar concepts, have undergone significant evolution in response to social and scientific developments across the world. It’s important to note that peace is not merely the absence of war. Presently, peace denotes a state characterized by solidarity, mutual respect, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Addressing political and economic issues is achieved through non-violent means. (Alikhani, Hamid, 1397: 1) Despite the initial impression that equates peace with disarmament and capturing the enemy’s strongholds, peace and security now entail an understanding between opposing parties regarding conflict resolution criteria and values. This understanding ensures the preservation of their just rights.
A peace established through the unilateral disarmament of one side and the military occupation of another side is likely to be a superficial or “pseudo” peace rather than a lasting one. According to Kant, many peace agreements merely entail a temporary suspension of hostilities, not a sustained peace. (Kant, previous: 42) The Portuguese philosopher Baruch Spinoza asserted that if peace equates to slavery, barbarism, and suppression, it brings misery to humanity. Spinoza contended that genuine peace, as a virtue reflecting human dignity, inherently coexists with justice and freedom. (Khalji, Mahdi, 1400: 3).
In certain segments of less developed societies, including Afghanistan, the concept of peace still revolves around the absence of armed conflict. In the previous year, following the establishment of military rule over Panjshir, a Taliban official declared an end to the war in Afghanistan and the establishment of peace. However, a glaring disparity exists between the public perception and the nuanced developments of these concepts. In the context of sustainable peace, no faction should have apprehensions regarding violations of justice, human rights, or civil liberties by others. A peace founded on principles of freedom and justice holds the potential to pave the way for conflict resolution. In a positive sense, sustainable peace denotes a situation wherein social justice and individual freedoms are secured, offering all parties a sense of security and a collective guarantee for coexistence. Moreover, a state of peace implies a period during which individuals or groups lack the motivation to transgress societal norms and agreements, and wherein legal and moral assurances sustain the adherence to shared values throughout societal life.
Despite enduring decades of conflict and violence, the people of Afghanistan have persistently pursued lasting peace. In the final years of the 20th century, at the culmination of the country’s military occupation, optimism arose for the establishment of peace through the efforts of UN special envoys such as Benin Sivan, Mahmoud Mistry, and Akhdar Ebrahimi. Regrettably, these endeavors proved futile due to the suffering of the populace, the political elites’ opportunistic maneuvers, and the destabilizing interventions of malevolent foreign powers both within the region and globally. Armed confrontations endured until the September 11, 2001 incident, plunging the citizens into a state of utter anarchy.
Following the events of September 11 and spanning the initial two decades of the 21st century, Afghanistan witnessed significant international involvement through the presence of the international community and the UN. These efforts, encompassing extensive financial and political assistance, aimed to alleviate the burdens of conflict and displacement and kindle hopes for a peaceful existence. Sadly, these aspirations were short-lived, as violence and warfare continued to plague the nation. This predicament underscored the urgency of finding a lasting resolution to the conflict and establishing enduring peace. During the closing years of the republican government, comprehensive initiatives were undertaken to foster nationwide peace. Cautious optimism emerged regarding peace and a potential shift in the Taliban’s political perspective.
Negotiations in Doha, interactions between representatives of the republic government and civil institutions with the Taliban delegation, and an enhanced understanding of the totalitarian mindset within the Taliban dissipated such optimism. The emerging generation and numerous intellectuals in the country became disillusioned with the prospect of achieving lasting peace under an Emirate-style political system. With the resurgence of this faction, Afghanistan once again devolved into a breeding ground for violence and conflict. In this relatively brief period of just over two years, the overall living conditions of the populace and the concurrent political and security crises have deteriorated to such an extent that the prospect of achieving the ideal of enduring peace appears bleak. Presently, prevailing circumstances within the country, as well as on the regional and global stages, do not align to facilitate the attainment of lasting peace. Instead, the nation seems to be on a trajectory towards heightened conflict and prolonged violence.
B) The Monopoly of Power and the Prolonged Conflict in Afghanistan
It is evident that the crisis and ongoing conflict can be traced back to the absence of an inclusive national government and a political structure founded on the collective will of the people. Democracy, a relatively successful governance model worldwide, holds the potential to remedy this situation. A democratic government maintains neutrality towards religious matters, distinguishing between the public and private spheres of life. Unfortunately, the culture of power monopoly and totalitarianism has taken root in this region, exacerbating the existing challenges. This monopoly of power has engendered national mistrust and deterred both regional and international allies of Afghanistan from providing the necessary support and assistance.
Democracy, when tailored to the societal structure, can offer a viable solution. This implies that a political framework emerging from the core of a democratic system can ensure enduring peace. Therefore, despite the skepticism stemming from the Taliban’s conservative ideology, democracy can serve as the appropriate path towards achieving lasting peace within the nation. Traditional means of seizing power and monopolizing political authority will never adequately address the national crisis in a principled and sustainable manner. If such a formula held the key, the country would not have experienced prolonged violence and persistent political and social crises.
Democratic governments exhibit distinct structures that adapt to cultural contexts. Identifying which existing democratic or political model suits Afghanistan’s social and cultural landscape can guide us towards achieving the desired outcome of “associative democracy.” This model is hailed as one of the most successful historical experiences in maintaining stability and cementing peace. It represents the optimal approach to managing diverse and heterogeneous societies. (Saifzadah Hossain, 189: 1373) Conversely, majority-based democracies tend to generate continuous instability within ethnically, religiously, and culturally diverse societies. This majority democracy model, which we have witnessed and experienced in our nation over the last two decades, has exacerbated crises within our multi-layered society. While majority democracy might be suitable for politically homogenous societies, it triggers instability, crises, and violence within multi-faceted societies. In Afghanistan, characterized by its diverse society encompassing varied ethnicities and cultures, the political structure must be carefully devised to accommodate the needs of all groups. This vision can be realized through the establishment of a “federal” democracy or an “associative democracy” model, rather than the majority democracy model.
C) The Historical Context of the Proposal
The concept of associational democracy remains relatively unfamiliar within Afghanistan’s political and cultural landscape. Notably, in 2013, influential figure Ahmed Wali Masoud in Kabul introduced the notion of associational democracy as a beneficial framework for the nation’s stability and the establishment of social justice during a media interview. Following that, to the best of my knowledge, instances where this model of democracy was discussed have been scarce and sporadic within social media, academic circles, and media platforms. (Shahidi, Sayed Arash, 2018: 1)
Hence, the strategy I believe is imperative for attaining sustainable peace involves the establishment of a democratic model that mirrors a decentralized structure, granting the autonomy for self-governance and self-authority. This model should also acknowledge a fixed share of power for each ethnic group based on their actual presence and representation. This closely aligns with the concept of “Associational Democracy” in the realm of political science.
D) Understanding Associational Democracy
The associational democracy model possesses principles and attributes that distinguish it from other democratic models, demonstrating efficacy primarily in heterogeneous societies like Afghanistan under specific conditions. (Fasihi, Abolfazl, 2012: 4)
The principles of associational democracy encompass: 1) A coalition of prominent elites. 2) Inclusion of representatives from all ethnicities and cultures in vital political and national decision-making processes. 3) Autonomy of groups in their localized administration. 4) A power structure and electoral system that embraces proportionality for the entire nation. 5) Granting ethnic groups mutual veto rights.
The right to veto empowers minority groups to reject decisions that jeopardize their interests. The “proportional structure” entails designating a specific position and fixed power percentage for each group, mitigating concerns of exclusion from the political structure. This model has been successful in countries across Europe, Asia, and the Middle East characterized by cultural diversity and multiple ethnicities. For instance, Lebanon, having adopted such a democratic model since 1975, has maintained internal peace without factional conflict. In Iraq, following the demise of the Baʿth Party’s dictatorial regime and its inherent threat due to ethnic and cultural diversity, a democratic approach akin to “associational democracy” has been implemented. (Ezghandi, Alireza, 1386: 14) In diverse populations, this model has demonstrated greater efficacy compared to alternative democratic frameworks.
Conclusion
Peace extends beyond the mere absence of armed conflict. Even in the absence of war, if it leads to subjugation, discrimination, and the infringement of fundamental rights, it might spark new conflicts with intricate and unpredictable consequences. The ongoing crisis in Afghanistan necessitates the establishment of a just peace. This concept of equitable peace, akin to Kant’s enduring proposition, can be realized through the path of democracy.
In my view, until a favorable environment materializes based on the Bonn Agreement, the creation of a decentralized structure can be pursued. Such a structure can aid in forming a democracy that harmonizes with Afghanistan’s ethnically diverse composition, liberating its people from subjugation and regression. Continuing with the current policy of exclusion and limitation is untenable in the long term.
Throughout the initial decade of the republic, the inadequacies of the majority democracy model and the overly centralized media structure gradually captured the attention of the elite. However, discussions surrounding the proportional and alternative democracy model failed to emerge as a “national discourse.” Presently, a substantial number of political elites from various ethnic backgrounds concur that, as Kant suggested, three potential alternatives exist to save the country: regressing into a medieval quagmire, stagnation and isolation, or evolving in a more constructive manner.
Leading up to the republic’s fall, emphasis was placed on the third possibility. The adaptation of the presidency’s centralized structure to the parliament’s decentralized form represented one avenue, while another option entailed a republic with three deputies. Unfortunately, the less explored third possibility was a decentralized or federal structure. With the republic’s fall, we have essentially reverted to Kant’s initial option, plunging into an unyielding historical autocracy reminiscent of medieval systems. The current situation is insufferable and exceedingly grim.
Challenges lie ahead, with the Taliban Emirate actively steering the nation towards a medieval setting characterized by cultural obscurity and tribal primitiveness. The Taliban have systematically negated political participation rights for all ethnic groups and obstructed women’s access to education and employment. Monopolization of power prevails. The country stands at a crossroads: regress as the Taliban Emirate desires, or at the very least, stagnate, isolating itself from the modern world, forfeiting any potential for evolutionary change or societal progress. A third alternative entails forming a broad-based, elected government through collective decisions made by elites, political factions, and the populace. The initial two options are neither constructive nor feasible in the current context. The sole viable and pragmatic choice is the third alternative.
Multiple rationales support this assertion, and a few can be highlighted here. Firstly, our national and generational capabilities remain substantial, fostering hope for a brighter future surpassing the era of the republic. According to Plato’s enduring wisdom, the originator of political philosophy in human history, “Where there are rulers devoid of reason, beggars and famished individuals resorting to unethical ways, a just government cannot flourish. This is due to the internal strife and power struggles that eventually lead to the collapse of both leadership and the society.” (Tabatabaei, Sayed Jawad, 2008: 64) The solution for achieving the sustainable peace Kant envisioned through a democratic framework can usher in social justice and freedom, ultimately fostering lasting peace. In my perspective, this solution, in its essence, lies within the “Associational Democracy” model, capable of guaranteeing equality, human rights, and citizens’ dignity, effectively reflecting the multicultural essence of our political system.