An overview of Afghanistan’s situation demonstrates that the country has always been faced with a vicious cycle of power changing hands. An individual or group seizes power and forms a government, and then another emerges, challenging the government and attempting to overthrow it. It doesn’t take long for the system to collapse. The recurrence of this pattern is an endless tragedy casting a shadow over the people of this land. Something is amiss.
Perhaps for this reason, everyone today believes that if a solution is not found, this futile cycle will continue. The words of Mr. Biden, the President of the United States, who referred to Afghanistan as a “God-forsaken country,” reflect the unified view of global powers that the solution to Afghanistan goes beyond supporting or not supporting the Kabul government and involves bringing about change in various groups.
With the Taliban’s resurgence in Afghanistan and global pessimism about the country’s future, one of the political assemblies has recently proposed federalism as a solution for Afghanistan’s future. Although this solution has been raised decades ago, it is the first time that political groups are widely supporting it. This assembly has stated its intention to establish a system that empowers social groups in regions and localities. In doing so, not only would justice, democracy, and political stability be better ensured, but Afghanistan would also be freed from the possibility of disintegration.
While democracies are vulnerable to coercion and violence, systems that empower localities often benefit from better development, security, and efficiency. Academic centers have also concluded that when people have a greater role in decision-making at the local level and can choose their institutions, the governing system gains more legitimacy.
Statistically, nearly half of the world’s population lives in federal territories. The most developed countries in the world also have this type of system. France, one of the few developed countries without a federal system, concluded two decades ago that to continue development on par with European and American counterparts, it must decentralize and delegate more powers and competencies to localities. As a result, after two decades of decentralization, two-thirds of the competencies are now in the hands of local institutions, with only one-third being enforced from Paris. However, challenges persist, especially when compared to Germany and England, two neighboring countries.
Historically, federalism has been a key factor in the unity and continuity of the United States of America and has been a major factor in strengthening democracy in the country. Bruce Fein, a professor of constitutional law at Northern Ohio University, believes that if the United States did not have federalism and a two-party system, the centralized presidential system would have the potential to become one of the most dictatorial leaders in the world.
From a practical standpoint, federalism seems to provide local institutions with the opportunity for initiative, decision-making, and governance exercises, enabling local units to have capabilities, capacities, and operational speeds equivalent to those of the central government. In the case of Afghanistan, if local institutions had the necessary capabilities and competencies during the twenty-year republic, the country’s collapse, which started from the districts, would not have easily led to the fall of Kabul and could have been contained at the local level. In contrast, the Taliban, by establishing local administrations and giving operational initiative to their local commanders, posed a serious challenge to the centralized government system. As acknowledged by Shah Mahmood Miakhel, the acting Minister of Defense during the republic period in a radio interview, one of the reasons for the Taliban’s victory over the government was their utilization of locality and decentralization in warfare.
In constitutional law and governance, it is emphasized that when selecting a political structure, the historical background of the country must be taken into account, and the new system must be built upon a suitable historical, cultural, and economic foundation. In other words, in a society with a history of tribalism and the experience of governing diverse ethnic groups, a centralized system is never sustainable. Afghanistan itself stands as a clear example of the instability of a centralized system, being the most diverse country in terms of race, culture, geography, and even climate.
Mr. Thomas Barfield, author of the book “Afghanistan: A Political and Cultural History,” emphasizes that local economies in Afghanistan have been functioning in several major economic sectors for hundreds of years. Kabul-centric rulers destroyed this local economic order and left only a Kabul-centric economic system as the sole economic center, essentially “putting all eggs in one basket.” Perhaps for this reason, with the collapse of the economy in Kabul, the economic system across the country disintegrates, and the shadow of poverty remains relentless over the people of this enduring land.
While technically federalism presents a suitable structure for Afghanistan, it alone is not a panacea due to the serious unresolved challenges facing the country. The proposal of federalism by politicians reflects their optimism about Afghanistan’s future, which is positive, but their deep plunge into technical governance discussions has caused them to completely forget other historical and social phenomena that have a profound impact on the fate of the people of this land. However, it is said that historians and literary figures can envision and depict distant futures for nations.
One of these visionary scholars, Yuval Noah Harari, a renowned historian of the 21st century, emphasizes that the ideals and narratives of a land’s people are important factors that either bring people of a land closer or further apart and even make enemies of each other. Harari warns that conflicting narratives in a society can lead to a terrifying future. Many wars that have inflicted great human costs on humanity throughout history have been due to conflicting narratives and especially territorial disputes. Therefore, it must be noted that while proposing federalism, other visible and hidden problems of the country should be seriously addressed.
Now, with a look at the country’s history and its surroundings, we find that the differences in ideals and narratives are deeply profound. One of these differences is territorial disputes that have victimized our region. “To the Atak is Ours” is one of the highly conflicting narratives that many people are willing to sacrifice for today. The legitimacy and correctness of this narrative are separate debates, but even the Taliban, as an Islamist group for whom the issue of borders should not have been important, emphasized this narrative in their first night’s program. However, conversely, opponents of this narrative believe that addressing it leads to very undesirable consequences. This is a problem that cannot be solved solely by proposing federalism.
The failure to address past events, especially human rights violations, not only impedes the formation of a nation-state but also exacerbates the factors contributing to victimization and further suffering of the people. Republic governments could have historically facilitated reconciliation among the people of this land with the help of human rights-supporting countries and, like South Africa, offered formal apologies and reconciliation to victims, thus alleviating the burden of past injustices. However, they either did not want or could not do so. Hence, the suffering of the people of this land remains unresolved. Therefore, any institution or group proposing a plan for the future of this country should address these issues and provide a clear stance and specific solutions.
In conclusion, federalism may provide opportunities for various social groups to utilize and promote their language, culture, and symbols, but it does not solve underlying social problems, as mentioned in its examples, and does not answer the question of who is a compatriot and where the country’s borders lie. In a country where ethnic cleansing has been ongoing for years and where a significant portion of the population and a large portion of its arable land have been lost, the discussion should go far beyond how power is distributed. Addressing the comprehensive and sustainable resolution of Afghanistan’s issues is akin to founding the country anew, with all past and present social issues being comprehensively and universally discussed and agreed upon.