A three-day meeting of some political figures and representatives of parties and groups in Vienna, held last week, was accompanied by various comments and stances; however, overall, it seemed very different from the third Doha meeting, which was met with relatively widespread concern and condemnation from political and civil activists. The Vienna meeting had its supporters and detractors, with the Taliban being its most significant opponents, who fear any movement against them, whether political, military, or even simple civil protests, and try to discredit it by attributing it to foreign influences.
Some analysts criticized the Doha meeting for the questionable credibility of some leaders and political figures, the lack of coherence among the participants’ views, and the absence of a program and consensus. Additionally, some social media users criticized political figures’ statements on the meeting’s sidelines. On the other hand, a significant number of observers of Afghanistan’s situation deemed such a meeting necessary and commendable at a time when the world turned its back on Afghanistan and left it in the hands of an extremist group. They saw it as a beacon of hope for raising the voice of a non-Taliban Afghanistan in this widespread silence.
Criticism of political figures and their activities, especially those with well-known track records, is part of Afghanistan’s current needs, as public activity will only improve with constructive criticism and will be freed from the harms that have afflicted it. Constructive criticism, however, does not mean denying and discrediting activities; instead, it emphasizes the essence of the activity while showing the shortcomings to address them. Deeming movements against the Taliban as futile promoting disbelief in political work, and spreading more defeatism and nihilism that has become like a disease among some Afghan analysts, who are led to criticize any action against the Taliban and see no positive or hopeful aspect in any activity, does not count as constructive criticism.
The Taliban’s opposition to the Vienna meeting and any other activity against them is entirely understandable. The Taliban’s wish is for all voices to be silenced, and just as they have stifled voices inside Afghanistan, they aim for no dissenting voices to remain outside the country. The group’s policy is to tell the world that no force in Afghanistan, except the Taliban, has any weight or can influence the country’s situation. Therefore, any action for Afghanistan must go through interaction with the Taliban, sidelining all other groups. This group, inherently totalitarian, does not believe in or tolerate the existence of any other force. They also seek to intimidate activists outside the country, forcing them to appease the Taliban by discrediting and undermining anti-Taliban activities.
From a sociological perspective, Afghanistan has suffered various damages in its half-century crisis, one of which is the overshadowing of national and collective interests by individual interests. In this chaotic situation, some measure the value of any action solely by what personal benefit it brings them. If they are not invited to a program, they deem it fundamentally worthless and even harmful. It should also be noted that one of the side effects of social media is speaking irresponsibly and not considering the consequences, which has become a widespread habit, even among elites. Speaking responsibly in the public sphere and weighing all aspects is a virtue that is fading. Some do not realize that in this dark situation, lighting even the smallest candle benefits the country, and attempting to extinguish it is a service to the Taliban.
The criticisms directed at the Vienna meeting were partly true but not entirely. It is correct that some leaders and political figures, especially during the twenty years of the Republic era, do not have a brilliant track record, but the track records of politicians worldwide are subject to criticism, except in very exceptional cases, from the most dictatorial regimes to the most democratic ones. Essentially, in the public arena, especially in politics, it is rare to find a figure who can satisfy all parties. In a country like Afghanistan, where the intertwining of internal and external factors has led to an unprecedented chaotic situation, the scope for criticizing politicians’ records is doubled. If the flawed political records of some politicians were to lead to boycotting or deeming any activity worthless, then the file of political activities should be closed, and any political action deemed illegitimate.
Contrary to the detractors, the diversity of the groups participating in the Vienna meeting was its strength, not its weakness; because unifying the country in terms of political tendencies is a Taliban approach, like any dictatorial regime that seeks to eliminate diversity and plurality. The real Afghanistan is diverse and colorful, not only linguistically, ethnically, religiously, and culturally but also politically. Criticizing the diversity of voices in international meetings promotes Taliban discourse and serves it. Democracy and pluralism are interdependent, and it is impossible to achieve democracy by eliminating plurality.
Lack of planning can be a criticism of political movements, just as having incomplete plans can expose them to criticism, and emphasizing this point is important in its place. However, expecting all participants of a meeting to have political, economic, social, and cultural programs is unrealistic. Meetings are for dialogue and addressing major issues to analyze current conditions and determine a way to overcome them. Sometimes, dialogue itself is a program and is important; because it is a practice of democracy and shows the political maturity of a society where its forces can express their views without resorting to violence. The dialogue itself is an anti-Taliban action, and institutionalizing it weakens the totalitarian discourse of this group.
Saving the country from the Taliban and Taliban discourse requires more vigilance, greater commitment, and multiple sincerity. Without this, inaction will replace action, nagging will replace activity, and nihilism will replace purposeful work. Afghanistan’s problem is not with those who take action against the Taliban but with two other forces: one, the Taliban, whose strategic weapon is repression, and the other, those who, with unjustified criticism, undermine the motivation of anti-Taliban forces and thereby strengthen the Taliban’s foundations. The Vienna meeting was held with great effort and should be appreciated.
You can read the Persian version of this editorial note here: