With the start of presidential election countdown and acceleration of foreign military withdrawal, the political environment has gotten degrees warmer accordingly. Secret meetings, discussions and toiling bargains have somehow filled the daily schedule of our politicians. They are struggling to remain or become part of the next government. But due to lack of democratic culture, the struggle sometimes violates the constitution and democratic norms which should otherwise be considered as the very principle of any political campaign.
Anyhow, nowadays what appears as spearhead of ongoing political struggle and as cosmetic of coming presidential election campaign is the catchy phrase of “National Consensus” or Ejma-e-Milli (EJM). Many consider it as panacea for lasting pain and sufferings of Afghan people as well as a catapult to shoot them directly on presidential seat. That is why nowadays it has changed into one of oft-repeated topic in media. So, first of all, let’s see what its supporters actually mean by Ejma-e-Milli (EJM)?
As far as I can remember it was first put ahead by Mr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai in 2009 but soon, after the completion of presidential election and victory of president Karzai, faded. With the commencement of informal campaign for 2014 presidential election, the phrase once again has become the jabber of many politicians. Everybody talks that it can be a solution to ongoing political crisis but none really has provided a clear-cut definition of it. Thus, it still has remained as vague concept for majority of the people and its supporters also have their own not much similar interpretation.
Meanwhile, the supporters of the notion can broadly be divided in two different categories. The first category consists of Jihadi leaders and influential individuals generally with religious background. For them the word “consensus” holds special status due to its religious root. The word consensus (Ejma) has deep root in Islamic Shariah practices. Verbally it means a broad agreement and particularly it refers to consensus of Shariah-experts on issues that there is no implicit or explicit reason on whether they are pro or against Islamic teachings. Such a consensus of religious scholars, beside verses of holy Quran and Hadith, can be a reason to determine the do and don’ts for a Muslim.
Therefore, during history, when Ulema or religious scholars encountered to a deadlock, they came together to discuss and then issue their final decision which later on were used as reason to judge whether a particular action is against Shariah law or not. From this perspective, the consensus has a deep and strong historical status. It is somehow interlinked with Jurisprudence. Whenever, it is mooted many think that the teller means similar Consensus. (However, it is also used out of religious context; for instance, on how to bring people together from different background and work for socio-economic stability.)
But no doubt, from this prospective, it as a means to cope with political crisis can be a new political invention in Afghanistan. The problem is this that supporters of National Consensus from this front are critically limping behind on how to draw a clear-cut picture of the notion. The only thing they have done yet is asserting the word “National” to Ejma and stuffed it into abdomen of politics. However, some like Balkh Province Governor, Mr. Atta Mohammad Noor, naively put the issue as bringing together the elites and representative of different communities, including civil society, MPs, provincial councils, political oppositions, militants, Jihadi leaders, government representatives and popular women. They have to work on various plans such as peace process, transparency of coming presidential election, management of situation after 2014.
From this prospective, it looks that this gentleman and other like-minded figures want to consider National Consensus as an alternative to the current political establishment. Definitely, nobody doubts about the importance of the mentioned issues but these are already in the top of government agendas. So, what is the need to develop a parallel structure? If the government failed to deal with the above issues properly, there is no reason to show that such failures are structural. It can be claimed with certainty that developing a parallel structure only further complicates the situation and increases troublesome bureaucracy. Therefore, it looks far better to support and strengthen the existing structure and institutions instead of wasting time and resources on developing alternatives while having no guarantee for their successes too.
The second category supports Ejma-e-Milli from a complete different prospective. This group consists of liberal and modern politicians. They consider it equal to “Consociationalism or Consociational Democracy”. This idea was put forward by Arend Lijphart and his followers. It is a form of government that involves guaranteed group of representation, and suggested for managing conflict in deeply divided societies on the ethnic, language and religious lines. It has several principles such as Grand Coalition, proportionate representation and relative autonomy for different communities.
The characteristic of this form of the government can be panacea for long lasting pain of Afghan society. The good thing is this that we have successful story of it. Countries like Dutch and Switzerland can be very clear model for the country that could have managed their political crisis through practicing Consensual Democracy. Meanwhile it should be considered that the most important is this that whether these principles are put in practice properly or not because we already have an informal structure for proportionate communal representation but has not been very successful due to several reasons.
Therefore, working on Ejma-e-Milli from this prospective can be affective in healing the historical wounds of Afghan society. And those who are trying to develop it should also notice that it is a form of democracy in which consideration of democratic values and norms are must. It will not be effective and functional if its practitioners do not have commitment to law and democratic values. On the basis of such a calculation, certainly those who use the government tribune and warn other that arms are still widespread across the country and he will go back to the mountain like first Vice President, Mr. Marshal Fahim, are not actually in pursuit of developing a Consociational Democracy rather trying to build a Consociational Authoritarianism. His statements show that some of our respected leaders still strongly believe that spearheads of their weapons are still a solution to Afghans’ problems and democracy is acceptable only till it serves and justifies their power. Otherwise such anti-constitution and anti-democratic norms statements were not made for an electoral campaign.