In the course of Afghan history of modern politics, personal tactical and ephemeral gains have almost always overwhelmed nation-wide, long term accomplishments. Since the very first days following establishment of the first ever territorial state in Afghanistan, an absolute majority of the ruling elites have owned the power. Their policies and practices have always demonstrated that they have preserved the right for themselves to exercise power in any possible way to ensure further centralization of authorities.

The ebb and flow of political developments in Afghanistan has in any case concluded a more authoritative power for the government and has violated the citizen's right to sufficiently realize political participation. With certain ineffective changes, the politics have finally maintained the tribal, patrimonial, ethnic and egocentric essence. Raising citizenry civil rights served non-pluralist and self-centered purposes of the ruling groups – ruling families – for the short-lived periods in 20th century.

Political sociologists ascertain that modernization, political development and pluralism have been a longtime, hard journey to go. Scrutinizing the modern concepts of democratization, they believe it is not a linear process and needs exceptional feasibility studies, varying from one nation to another.

While studying the failed experiments of modernization and democratization processes in certain countries, the idea of accidental development may seem true. Amongst them, Afghanistan seems to be experiencing a failed development process that has come across severe challenges in the course of last one century.

The very preliminary measures to introduce modernism and development were kicked off by the young, reformist King, Amanullah Khan, at the early decades in twentieth century. Since then, the process has seen great vicissitudes.

Apart from the short period of constitutionalism and the so called democracy decade in our country, the nation has been more familiar with despotism, irregular, self-centered approaches by Afghan rulers and totalitarianism rather than free, democrat and egalitarian systems.

Following a long chaotic juncture, the failed process was resumed here under huge pressures and strong supports by international community. A ray of hope was opened for the war-wrecked nation to enjoy a peaceful, law-oriented and development-pioneered epoch.

However, type of barriers against political development, pluralism and an open society remains much the same. With the relatively good opportunities to imbed a pluralist and all-inclusive system for the past one decade, political mechanisms and institutions have failed to get closer to a politically developed, pluralist, open society. Our rulers are still frankly demonstrating enmity and issue threats to those who challenge their unrestrained power. Antagonism, anger and animosity to decentralization plan are simple indications to that.