Currently, there is a debate going on in Afghanistan regarding the form of the political system in the country. There is a presidential form of government with most of the authorities lying with the president. The opposition party, Afghanistan National Front (ANF) and some of the national and international intellectuals who have interest in Afghan affairs say that the current presidential system does not have the capacity to deal with the basic Afghan issues; therefore, it must be changed to a parliamentary form.

In a recent meeting between US Congressional Delegation (CODEL) and ANF, it was jointly stressed that a parliamentary form of government would prove better for the future of Afghan political system. The joint statement that was released after the meeting said, "The ANF and CODEL stress that the uncontrollable wave of corruption, ill governance and the visible deadlock on the way to a stable and prosperous Afghanistan have deep roots in the current presidential system with strong centralized management.

Therefore it is recommended that a thorough and comprehensive intra-Afghan Dialogue should immediately be started with the help of international community to consider how to implement Parliamentary Form of Democracy with decentralization of executive power to the provinces with elected management." 

However, this suggestion was not welcomed warmly by the Afghan Presidential Office. Soon after the joint statement of ANF and CODEL the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that any proposal from outside parties about changes in the present form of government in Afghanistan is tantamount to interference in the country's internal affairs.

The Ministry's spokesperson said that the country's constitution gave the Afghans the right to criticize the government but foreigner had no right to propose changes to the system. The issue has now turned into a controversy.

The ANF leaders reacted by saying that the government is losing its self-confidence. Meanwhile, US Embassy in Afghanistan distanced itself from the meeting and mentioned that the views that are shared in the meeting do not depict US government's stance.

Whether the US delegation has the right to suggest change in the form of government in Afghanistan is a separate discussion, the important point is what form of government can serve Afghanistan in the best way.

It is not just the responsibility of the opposition to carry on such debates; rather, the government must also strive to promote them so as to find a better answer. The form of government, in my humble perception, with the capacity to fulfill the challenges within Afghan society and serve its people in the best possible manner must be adopted.

To decide which form of government best suits Afghanistan, it is necessary to have basic understanding of both the systems and the basic challenges within Afghan society.
The parliamentary form of government, also called as cabinet or responsible form of government, makes the parliament sovereign.

The leader of the party, which gets majority seats in legislature, is offered the portfolio of Prime Ministership. Since the Prime Minister and the whole cabinet are accountable to the legislature, it is called responsible form of government. In this system of government, head of the state has nominal ceremonial powers.

The real executive powers vest in the cabinet which is headed by the Prime Minister. The best examples of parliamentary system are the governments of Britain and India. It is mostly believed that in parliamentary system there is harmony and cooperation between legislature and executive because the prime minister and his ministers head the departments of administration and they are members of legislature as well.

In presidential form of government real executive power vests in an elected president whose tenure of office is fixed by the constitution and it is not at the sweet will of the legislature; the president in not only the head of the state but also the leader of the executive. He is not accountable to anyone.

The president and his ministers are not members of parliament; therefore, it is called irresponsible form of government as well. It is mostly believed that this form of government has durability. As the tenure of the office of the president is fixed, government can pursue its policy by taking no notice of the criticism of opposition and can launch long term plans.

The basic challenges for Afghanistan is to guarantee peace and security; especially after the withdrawal of international troops in 2014. A political agreement has to be reached with Taliban and the confidence of different ethnic groups has to be won regarding the structure of the political system as no ethnic group holds the decisive majority in the country. Moreover, different parts of the country mostly enjoy different traditional values and diversities and Afghanistan cannot, under any circumstances subdue them and must support to preserve them.

According to Thomas Barfield's book, Afghanistan: A Political and Cultural History the Afghan government has always claimed centralized powers, but has been most successful when it exercises those powers sparingly, or in cooperation with local elites like tribal elders and landowners.

Efforts to use centralized government to compel social change tended to provoke resistance, as it did under the reign of the modernizing king Amanullah Khan (1919-1929), who was overthrown by a coalition of rural tribes and conservative mullahs; the communizing efforts of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (1978-1989); and the Islamizing efforts to the Taliban (1994-2001), the two most recent of which sparked civil war.

Despite the potential lessons of that history, the ten-year reign of Hamid Karzai looks more like Amanullah in his efforts to centralize power and push social reform, than that of Zahir Shah (1933-73), who took a more relaxed approach to the provinces and whose rule was marked by relative stability.

Devolving power, for example by making governors elected and giving them the power of appointments in their province, giving provincial councils legislative power, and enabling provinces to levy their own taxes would bring the formal government into closer alignment with the informal practices that worked in the past.

Keeping in mind the characteristics of both the forms of government, Afghan society and the challenges it has been facing it would be better to have a parliamentary form of government with real devolution of power to the provinces. A rigid and authoritarian form of government can invite further disturbance within the Afghan political system and Afghan society.