Afghanistan has adopted a progressive new constitution that defines pluralistic presidential democracy with upper and lower house of parliament as Afghanistan’s preferred system for governance.  However, despite more than a decade experiment of the system here, it seems it is facing difficulties in both uniting Afghans and fostering good governance here.

An inside analysis reveals that it’s the non-existence of ideology driven national political parties that creates challenges to governance, not democracy.

An Overview of Political Systems in Afghanistan:

Monarchy:

Modern Afghanistan came into existence in the 18th century when Ahmad Shah Durrani was chosen as King of Khorassan, the region’s name at the time, in a traditional Loya Jirga (grand council).  Loya Jirga is a gathering of traditional and defacto leaders in Afghan society that make decisions on consensus.  These were formed to choose kings; or to provide guidance on important national issues such as waging wars.  In the modern Afghan constitution, only a Loya Jirga can amend the constitution or declare emergency in the country.  Thus, a Loya Jirga functions similar to a modern parliament.   

Ahmad Shah Durrani ruling from Kandahar in the 18th century, went on to establish an empire encompassing modern Afghanistan, Pakistan, eastern Iran and western India.  Later on, his sons and grandsons named it Afghanistan.  Due to internal rivalries and its geopolitical location of being in between the growing Soviet Union in the North and British India, during the Great Game, Afghanistan evolved to today’s landlocked country at the heart of Asia. 

The last King of Afghanistan was Zahir Shah who ruled from 1933 to 1973.  It was one of Afghanistan’s most peaceful and stable years.  During this era, Afghanistan stayed impartial of the World Wards, and underwent slow but steady developments towards becoming a modern nation-state.  Democratic reforms were introduced turning the country to a constitutional monarchy where government affairs were run by a prime minister and an elected senate.  The system worked.

The Republic of Afghanistan:

As the Prime Minister Daud Khan’s cousin King Zahir Shah abolished the monarchy in 1973.  He announced Afghanistan to be a Republic and himself as the President.  During this time, Afghans’ hopes for an even better and more developed Afghanistan were high.  However, this wasn’t an easy task.  The President soon learned that remaining independent of the USSR was difficult if not impossible.  His attempt to do so angered Moscow and emboldened the People Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), the communist party in Afghanistan.  They took over power in Kabul in a bloody coup that resulted in the murder of President Daud and his family. 

Decades of conflict followed between the communist regime in Kabul and insurgent groups in the region resulting the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, civil strife in the 1990s, and the eventual rise of the Taliban regime to power in Kabul in the late 1990s. 

Modern Political Setup:

Hurrying to re-establish a more democratic political setup in Afghanistan, the international community facilitated the organization of a 6-month interim government led by President Karzai from Bonn.  A traditional emergency Loya Jirga in Kabul chose President Karzai to be a transitional president for another two years in 2002.  Thereafter, President Karzai was voted in as President of Afghanistan for two consecutive terms in subsequent elections.

Afghans also voted twice for members of the upper and lower house of parliament during the past decade.

Challenges of the New Political Setup:

Political theories underpin that a society needs ideology driven, national parties for democracy to function well.  It is a lot easier for people to vote if a presidential candidate or parliament represents a political ideology.  In addition, parliaments function well when majority of its members thinks the same, wants the same, and asks for the same from the executive.  Also a differentiable opposition either in minority or outside the parliament forces members of parliaments and the government to be fair in playing the game. 

The modern democratic setup in Afghanistan misses this important pre-requisite.    

There are many political parties here; however, none enjoys a national outreach or attraction.  Almost all of them are in the government and almost all are outside the government as opposition.  None has a clear majority and none is a distinctive opposition.  Only Afghans living here understand how chaotic it gets when laws are debated in the parliament, or MPs agree or disagree with the executive.

Observing those debates at the Afghan parliaments and understanding the need to make things happen, one could easily see the need for the majority of the MPs to be able to think the same, and ask for the same from the executive. 

Conclusion:

Unlike popular miss-perception, practicing democracy is not an alien practice to Afghans.  Even in the traditional Loya Jirgas of Afghan elders and leaders, decisions were made by consensus – usually a clear majority.  Islam also encourages establishing Shuras (councils) to make things work. 

After a decade of practicing the new political setup here, it is time for Afghans to reorganize themselves into democratic, nationally respected, inclusive new political parties that have a clear ideology, such as conservative vs. liberal.  When one ideology is in power either at the parliament and or President’s office, the other can be a check on them.  However, it must be made sure that the competition for power is through the ballot box and not guns. Otherwise, bad history will repeat itself.