Over the past two decades of the Republic system, the topic of shifting the political system from centralized to decentralized has been a prevalent theme in political discussions. Non-Pashtun politicians have often advocated for a shift in the power distribution system from vertical to horizontal, while a majority of Pashtun politicians have emphasized the concentration of political power in the center. They have occasionally accused supporters of decentralized systems of separatism and neglect of national unity. Within this context, some politicians have been inconsistent in their positions, adapting based on personal circumstances and interests.
American forces and their domestic allies had consolidated all powers in the presidency and turned the president into an absolute authority under the constitution of the Republic system. Those aiming to limit the president’s powers had to navigate complex legal avenues and create conditions for constitutional amendments. The issue of political system change often became a focal point of debate and contention during elections, stirring excitement and emotions among both proponents and opponents. Until the fall of the Republic system, advocates for political system change never successfully achieved any of their goals and ideals.
Although President Ashraf Ghani was compelled to share executive authority with the “Executive Directorate,” in practice, he sought to retain all powers until the last moment. He went to such lengths as to practically dismiss ministers and his deputies, centralizing decision-making in the hands of three individuals: Ghani, Mohib, and Fazli.
Now, two and a half years after the fall of the Republic, some politicians have once again brought up the discussion of changing the political structure. Recently, the Federalists Assembly of Afghanistan has declared its existence and published a manifesto outlining its fundamental principles. Prominent figures in this assembly include individuals who held positions such as ministers, deputy presidents, parliamentarians, and members of the government’s negotiating team with the Taliban in Doha. According to the mentioned manifesto, the current dilemma in Afghanistan stems from the centralized political structure, and if this structure transitions to a federal one, many existing crises and problems can be resolved.
Sarwar Danesh, a member of this assembly and a former deputy president during the final years of the Republic system, has urged the Taliban to support the assembly’s demands and transform the current centralized structure into a federal one.
Many members of the Federalist Assembly were involved in the successes and failures of the Republic era, with one even serving as the deputy president. The fundamental question arises: if these individuals are serious about their proposed ideas and solutions, why did they not take any steps during the Republic era when they had ample opportunity? Instead, they openly opposed the decentralization of power. Sarwar Danesh, during his tenure as deputy, stated that federalism was not a solution and did not contribute to problem resolution. Despite Pedarām’s early support for federalism, he failed to organize or mobilize, even in collaboration with other political activists, to exert sufficient pressure on the ruling system for responsiveness. He couldn’t even secure a seat in the recent parliamentary elections from his hometown. All his activities were limited to media interviews, falling short of effective party and organizational work.
These individuals, who couldn’t achieve much during the Republic era when political activity was relatively free, now find themselves scattered across the world, each in a corner, having limited resources. How can they bring about change in their current situation? Ironically, the Federalist Assembly believes the best way to align their Federalist ideas is to ask the Taliban to choose a federal political structure. Taliban, in turn, may welcome their suggestions and incorporate them into their agenda. The bitterest political satire today is asking the Taliban to implement our proposals that we escaped with to a corner of the Western world. If the Taliban were to listen to these individuals, they might wonder why these ideas were not implemented during their time in power.
Even the simplest person understands that the political structure favored by the Taliban is highly centralized. In this structure, aside from Taliban members, others have no role, and even senior Taliban leaders, except for Mullah Hibatullah and his advisors, have no say in major decisions. Taliban has practically demonstrated their inclination towards establishing an Amir Abdur Rahman Khan-like order, both in this era and during their initial rule. The question must be asked in this way: How can someone advocate against the concentration of political power in Afghanistan but show compatibility and solidarity with the Taliban? One member of this assembly explicitly stated in an interview with Tolo TV towards the end of the Republic that the Taliban’s war against the Republic system is a just and legitimate war, and the Taliban is a liberating movement. When external observers witness such contradictions in the behavior of the assembly members, questions arise about their motivations.
It is commendable for a group of thoughtful individuals to come together and exchange ideas about the future of their country. Following the escape of Ashraf Ghani and the collapse of the previous regime, a general dispersal occurred, requiring people to mentally and emotionally readjust and reconstruct societies and organizations. It is expected that other associations and organizations will gradually reach out to their members and redefine their priorities and goals in the new circumstances. However, if these activities are confined to the online space and media interviews, little should be expected from them. Good intentions, without accompanying strength, remain mere intentions. Books are filled with beautiful words that never translate into action. Politics without a power connection resembles a tasteless joke. The mentioned political activists must figure out how to pursue their goals and ideals in the field of action, considering the harsh reality that the Taliban dominates Afghanistan, and they view reformist and critical statements with skepticism, enforcing a univocal and authoritarian rule in their realm.
One valuable task the Federalist Assembly must undertake is to create spaces where proponents and opponents of federalism in Afghanistan can voice their opinions and discuss the merits and drawbacks of the Federalist structure. Fantasizing and oversimplifying issues won’t lead to any meaningful results. The reality is that there are doubts and suspicions regarding the feasibility and practical benefits of implementing a federal system in Afghanistan. The most crucial question in this regard is whether, when Afghanistan is grappling with cultural backwardness, ignorance, economic poverty, and political underdevelopment, federalism, if implemented, will do anything other than fragment poverty and underdevelopment into smaller pieces. If we believe federalism can address ethnic dilemmas, we are mistaken. Due to the dispersion of various ethnicities throughout Afghanistan, there is a distinct possibility that federalism might provide grounds for increased discrimination in states, with the majority dominating the fate of minorities in each state. In countries where federalism has yielded positive results, in some others, it not only failed to alleviate problems but exacerbated them. In Pakistan, a federal system is in place, yet Pashtuns and Baloch people consistently complain about discrimination and bias from Punjabis, leading to armed and non-armed movements against what they perceive as Punjabi oppression. This demonstrates that federalism, on its own and without the necessary framework, cannot overcome challenges.
Following the announcement of the Federalist Assembly’s existence, discussions emerged in the online space, with both opponents and proponents of federalism expressing their opinions. Regrettably, supporters of online federalism attempted to silence their opponents with uproar and emotionalism. Federalists should understand that federalism is one proposal among others, devoid of sanctity and deserving of critique and reevaluation. Furthermore, due to its impracticality and lack of a practical solution in the current circumstances, it may seem peculiar and unconvincing to some. Therefore, it is better to respond to people’s questions calmly and not stage the scene as if it were a battle between right and wrong.
