This piece was published in the AfPak channel of the Foreign Policy
By Lael Mohib and Hamdullah Mohib
In a speech earlier this year to commemorate the reign of King Amanullah, Afghanistan's reformist king during the 1920's, Afghan President Hamid Karzai focused on the younger generation's contribution to the country's future: ‘'This is a steady wheel that is progressively moving toward more development, and it will not turn back," he said. "This is a young man's engine with a power that does not know cold or any other obstacles."
While the country's social development has seemed to move backwards since the 1920's, the Afghan youth of today make up the country's most encouraging hope for progression, though they do face obstacles. The formation of a variety of civil society organizations over the past 10 years, initiated and operated primarily by a younger generation of Afghans seemingly frustrated into motivation, has a central role to play in the course of the country's future.
This generation was born and has come of age during a time that forced many Afghan families to flee to neighboring or Western countries, where they took advantage of opportunities for education and intellectual development. Those who remained in Afghanistan saw enough to know they wanted a different future. According to Afghanistan's Central Statistics Organization, 76 percent of the population is under the age of 35 . Enrollment in higher education is at an all-time high - a 25 percent increase in university intake in 2012 compared to the previous year from 84,184 to 112,367. Though the quality of education is relatively low, the number of Afghans striving for an education attests to the country's desire to be educated.
Educated youths, mainly residing in urban areas, make up a cadre of young intellectuals and professionals that populate a large part of the public and private sector, from Afghan media, governmental bureaucracy, and diplomatic circles to, most importantly, civil society. They are in positions to have their voices heard in ways that influence their peers and set new standards of expectations from their leaders. This is bolstered by the scope and reach of social networking media as a tool for voicing opinion, which has forced even the Taliban to adopt tools such as Twitter in order to engage wider audiences. Another key characteristic of this generation is that they come from all different types of backgrounds-they are children of the diaspora, the mujahideen, and the communists, yet they share a common goal.
While the influence of this generation is invariably limited by the obstacles of the surroundings in which they operate, one area that has particularly flourished with the involvement of youth is civil society, a sector of Afghan society that is dominated by the ideals and optimism of the entrepreneurial and socially progressive mood of many young, educated Afghans. The 4,280 civil society and non-governmental organizations registered in Afghanistan take many shapes and forms--from social responsibility and charity groups addressing issues such as women's and children's rights, the rights of the disabled, civic engagement, education, and environmental campaigns, to professional groups that bring together entrepreneurs and practitioners in various sectors including health, telecommunications, and economic development.
Two such exemplary organizations are Young Women for Change (YWC), a social organization advocating women's rights, and the National ICT Alliance of Afghanistan (NICTAA), a consortium of information and communication technology (ICT) entities working to forward the industry in Afghanistan. Established in 2011, YWC, the group of young Afghan women, and even some men, raises awareness of women's rights. The group has been highly vocal and visible in advocating for change, most notably in the summer of 2011 when male and female YWC members staged a public march to protest sexual harassment of women in the streets. More recently, the group opened Afghanistan's first women-only internet café .
NICTAA, as a consortium of information and communication technology (ICT) professionals established in 2008, brings together ICT actors in the public and private sector and academia to work toward the advancement and development of this sector in Afghanistan, an area that brings significant investment in the country, an estimated 1.7 billion USD as of June 2012 .The organisation has represented Afghanistan's ICT sector at conferences worldwide , and is unique in that it works closely with the government to create opportunities in the sector in Afghanistan.
At a recent parliamentary inquiry in the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, responded to multiple questions about how progress on women and human rights would be ensured post-2014 by referencing the British government's new program for strengthening civil society organisations. His argument was that by strengthening Afghan civil society, such organisations could in turn hold their government to account, and challenge its response to women and human rights.
While civil society organizations (CSOs) do hold a critical mirror to reflect the country's key issues, both positive and negative, and provide platforms for the public to respond, engage, and challenge social, professional, or economic policies and issues, they do face serious obstacles, mainly due to the lack of an enabling environment. Due to poor security, most groups are based from urban centers, with operations and progress mainly confined to Afghanistan's cities and out of reach of the nearly 80% of Afghans residing in rural areas.
Moreover, of the thousands of CSOs registered with the government, it's unclear how many are inactive or were set up as a means for channelling funds. Civil society has not escaped the touch of corruption plaguing Afghanistan, either. The government has not shied away from taking action against organisations that have been vocal in challenging them, most recently the controversial dismissal of the head of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, allegedly over the pending publication of a report accusing high-ranking cabinet members of past human rights violations.
Despite these challenges, CSOs do present an opportunity to put forth and encourage change in Afghan society and policy . In a country where well-established, national political parties with clear strategic visions have not fully developed, the country risks floating from one power-holder to the next without the reform that often comes from healthy party rivalries and change of administrations.
The collective influences and achievements of civil society organisations at all levels of Afghan society need to be consolidated at a national level, especially in the face of uncertainty beyond 2014, as a way to fill that void. Uniting civil society organisations in a sort of national-level consortium would be a massive undertaking, not only due to the sheer number of groups, but also due to the range of differing topics and issues covered; however, a common overarching goal arguably underlies civil society groups in Afghanistan that only their united support could help advance: a peaceful and progressive future for the country geared toward economic, social, and educational advancement and stability.
Sunday, 2 September 2012
Saturday, 19 May 2012
There are non-Taliban poets in the 'Poetry of the ...
Hanan Habibzai: There are non-Taliban poets in the 'Poetry of the ...: By Hanan Habibzai It is truly a matter of controversy as it appears that non-Taliban Afghan poets are presented as Taliban. It is a mat...
Monday, 19 March 2012
An inclusive peace
This piece was published in the AfPak channel of the Foreign Policy
Afghan history shows that peace is only as wholesome as the interest of the peacemakers involved. In 1988, then-president Mohammad Najibullah tried to present the Geneva Accords -- which were supposed to bring peace after the Soviet war -- as a symbol of national unity, and his administration as a nationalist movement. Instead, the mujahideen were excluded from the peace process, and several government officials, including one of Najibullah's top generals, Abdul Rashid Dostum, were on the verge of switching allegiances. The president's efforts fell short because they were not inclusive, and because Najibullah underestimated the threat posed by elements within his own government. The Accords eventually dissolved into the blur of civil war.
These same mistakes were repeated by the mujahideen when they took power in 1992. Families around the country celebrated when Najibullah's regime fell in 1992, and Sibghatullah Mojaddedi was selected to be the first president of the Islamic State of Afghanistan. (My father went so far as to name his new-born grandson after the new president). It was deemed a mujahideen victory, and those associated with Najibullah's regime were at the very least excluded from the new government. Many were forced to flee for their lives.
Unfortunately, the newly achieved peace -- won by force and dealt exclusively amongst the mujahideen victors-- didn't last very long. A civil war soon broke out amongst the same mujahideen factions whose collective victory we had been celebrating.
The exclusiveness of both of these failed peace efforts presents lessons for the peace process today. While they are a central element, talks with the Afghan Taliban are only the tip of the iceberg in a comprehensive, meaningful peace for Afghanistan. There are other groups, equally as essential to a holistic Afghan peace, that must also be included. An Afghan-led approach to the peace process that pragmatically acknowledges the realities of the political scene in Afghanistan and engages all groups with equal scrutiny must be pursued with one common denominator shared by all: Afghanistan's national interest.
Over ten years of foreign intervention, war and power struggle, and with Karzai's final term coming to an end in 2014, each stakeholder in Afghan peace has their own political goals and interests that he believes are worth fighting for. The United States will want to leave with dignity, Karzai will seek to assert Afghan sovereignty and establish his legacy, the Taliban will want to capitalize politically on their gains on the battlefield, and opposition groups will grapple to retain their power as political space is made for the Quetta Shura. But ideologies and political interests aside, realities must be central to this process to avoid past mistakes that resulted in civil war.
For one, despite their controversial policies, the Afghan Taliban is a political group and military force to be reckoned with. Scores of foreign forces have failed to contend militarily with the Taliban to their desired extent for the past decade. In retrospect, the willingness (and now almost eagerness) shown by the U.S. and NATO to reach a political settlement with the Taliban takes us full circle to where we were over 10 years ago -- the U.S., with the assistance of Northern Alliance militias armed with U.S.-supplied weapons and cash, pushed the Taliban from power in Kabul. The Taliban were not reconciled at that crucial point, or allowed any political space, and their ability to revive themselves as a substantial military threat was underestimated.
Now, they have in a sense gained the upper hand in the battlefield, maintaining a stalemate with the Afghan National Army and foreign forces. With the establishment of a shadow government across much of Afghanistan, and plans to open a diplomatic office in Qatar, the reality now is that the Taliban are an Afghan political group. They are bringing that upper hand to the negotiation table. This could not be exhibited better than by their announcement Thursday to suspend the peace talks with the U.S., which shows their ability to take advantage of opportunities to assert their control of the situation.
Secondly, the Taliban are not the only group that needs to be reconciled. The peace process must bring in the Taliban on equal terms, while also leveraging the potentially violent reactions of groups who staunchly oppose any reconciliation with the Taliban. These opposition groups make up mainly ethnic minority groups headed by former Northern Alliance commanders whose militias fought against the Taliban and each other during the civil war. They were heavily supported financially and militarily by the United States in 2001 to oust the Taliban, and today, some fill ministerial and other government positions, arguably bestowed by Karzai as a means of subjugation. Others are regional strongmen with de facto rule in their respective areas.
These are some of the same figureheads who nurtured the civil war in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and achieving some level of power is still in each group's agenda. These groups comprise a viable threat as they are well-armed, financially sound, and many hold positions of power -- positions they will fight to retain as hostility rises at the talk of Taliban negotiations. The former head of the Afghan National Directorate of Security, Amrullah Saleh, now represents the recently formed United Front in its campaign against the Karzai government and Taliban reconciliation. He was recently quoted in an interview saying, "Fighting is not a very sophisticated path. It's easy. And (so is) recruiting people to fight in this country where unemployment is more than 50 percent. To believe that only one group can fight is naïveté."
These opposition movement leaders have made brazen moves in a bid to gain support in the build-up to talks with the Taliban. Most notably,in January, 2012, they met with four members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Germany in a meeting not condoned by the U.S. State Department, to discuss a controversial agenda that included discussion about how to decentralize power and consolidate the opposition's regional power, a move that would potentially divide the country into north and south. The meeting was condemned by the Afghan government as an unconstitutional move against Afghan national unity, and was an embarrassment for the United States.
Efforts should be made and sustained to reach out not just to the Taliban, but to all groups that have a stake in Afghanistan's political future, hostile or otherwise, on the same level. This includes non-Taliban insurgent groups such as the Haqqani Network and Hizbi-Islami Gulbuddin. An Afghan-led process is the best route to peace in Afghanistan. Though compromised in his ability to lead the peace process due to the U.S. negotiation efforts in Qatar and the denial of the Afghan government by the Taliban, Afghan President Hamid Karzai must strive to be diplomatic and inclusive in consistent efforts to initiate a sincere peace process. His sporadic attitude toward talking to the Taliban -- ranging from support to hesitation - is indicative of his attempts to control the peace process in order to reassert his legacy and sovereignty. Consistency in his efforts to unite all groups and foster an Afghan-led process should be his focus.
However, Karzai's ability to make headway is restricted -- first of all, the U.S. may trump his efforts; and secondly, the Taliban and other opposition groups may refuse his invitations to talk in order to make a political statement showing their rejection of the Afghan government. These factors make it difficult for the peace process to be effectively led by the Afghan government. Karzai should reach out to each group equally, initiating and maintaining unconditional dialogues. Peace is built on a foundation of trust.
In order to include all groups on an equal level and provide a platform for the voices of ordinary Afghan citizens-who are undoubtedly the biggest proponents of peace -- a traditional Loya Jirga could be organized and held by a neutral entity, or a coalition, at a neutral location. The agenda would be pre-set and focused around specific objectives geared toward peace. The organizers and location would need to be neutral to reduce the risk that it would be boycotted by the very groups it would seek to bring in. A national, sincere discussion through traditional Afghan dialogue that places all groups on a level playing field is the country's closest chance to achieve peace. This would be the beginning to a process cleansed of the divisive nature of political manoeuvrings.
If abused by opportunists with divisive political ambitions and interest, the fragile peace process in Afghanistan will result in nothing more than another hollow attempt that precedes yet another civil war - a fear that haunts Afghans. Realities must be accepted by all groups in order to make political space for one another, groups who would otherwise start fighting, or keep fighting, if they are denied. It would be an unfortunate repeat of history if the results of this peace deal do not bring celebrations to every Afghan household, regardless of their background.
These same mistakes were repeated by the mujahideen when they took power in 1992. Families around the country celebrated when Najibullah's regime fell in 1992, and Sibghatullah Mojaddedi was selected to be the first president of the Islamic State of Afghanistan. (My father went so far as to name his new-born grandson after the new president). It was deemed a mujahideen victory, and those associated with Najibullah's regime were at the very least excluded from the new government. Many were forced to flee for their lives.
Unfortunately, the newly achieved peace -- won by force and dealt exclusively amongst the mujahideen victors-- didn't last very long. A civil war soon broke out amongst the same mujahideen factions whose collective victory we had been celebrating.
The exclusiveness of both of these failed peace efforts presents lessons for the peace process today. While they are a central element, talks with the Afghan Taliban are only the tip of the iceberg in a comprehensive, meaningful peace for Afghanistan. There are other groups, equally as essential to a holistic Afghan peace, that must also be included. An Afghan-led approach to the peace process that pragmatically acknowledges the realities of the political scene in Afghanistan and engages all groups with equal scrutiny must be pursued with one common denominator shared by all: Afghanistan's national interest.
Over ten years of foreign intervention, war and power struggle, and with Karzai's final term coming to an end in 2014, each stakeholder in Afghan peace has their own political goals and interests that he believes are worth fighting for. The United States will want to leave with dignity, Karzai will seek to assert Afghan sovereignty and establish his legacy, the Taliban will want to capitalize politically on their gains on the battlefield, and opposition groups will grapple to retain their power as political space is made for the Quetta Shura. But ideologies and political interests aside, realities must be central to this process to avoid past mistakes that resulted in civil war.
For one, despite their controversial policies, the Afghan Taliban is a political group and military force to be reckoned with. Scores of foreign forces have failed to contend militarily with the Taliban to their desired extent for the past decade. In retrospect, the willingness (and now almost eagerness) shown by the U.S. and NATO to reach a political settlement with the Taliban takes us full circle to where we were over 10 years ago -- the U.S., with the assistance of Northern Alliance militias armed with U.S.-supplied weapons and cash, pushed the Taliban from power in Kabul. The Taliban were not reconciled at that crucial point, or allowed any political space, and their ability to revive themselves as a substantial military threat was underestimated.
Now, they have in a sense gained the upper hand in the battlefield, maintaining a stalemate with the Afghan National Army and foreign forces. With the establishment of a shadow government across much of Afghanistan, and plans to open a diplomatic office in Qatar, the reality now is that the Taliban are an Afghan political group. They are bringing that upper hand to the negotiation table. This could not be exhibited better than by their announcement Thursday to suspend the peace talks with the U.S., which shows their ability to take advantage of opportunities to assert their control of the situation.
Secondly, the Taliban are not the only group that needs to be reconciled. The peace process must bring in the Taliban on equal terms, while also leveraging the potentially violent reactions of groups who staunchly oppose any reconciliation with the Taliban. These opposition groups make up mainly ethnic minority groups headed by former Northern Alliance commanders whose militias fought against the Taliban and each other during the civil war. They were heavily supported financially and militarily by the United States in 2001 to oust the Taliban, and today, some fill ministerial and other government positions, arguably bestowed by Karzai as a means of subjugation. Others are regional strongmen with de facto rule in their respective areas.
These are some of the same figureheads who nurtured the civil war in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and achieving some level of power is still in each group's agenda. These groups comprise a viable threat as they are well-armed, financially sound, and many hold positions of power -- positions they will fight to retain as hostility rises at the talk of Taliban negotiations. The former head of the Afghan National Directorate of Security, Amrullah Saleh, now represents the recently formed United Front in its campaign against the Karzai government and Taliban reconciliation. He was recently quoted in an interview saying, "Fighting is not a very sophisticated path. It's easy. And (so is) recruiting people to fight in this country where unemployment is more than 50 percent. To believe that only one group can fight is naïveté."
These opposition movement leaders have made brazen moves in a bid to gain support in the build-up to talks with the Taliban. Most notably,in January, 2012, they met with four members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Germany in a meeting not condoned by the U.S. State Department, to discuss a controversial agenda that included discussion about how to decentralize power and consolidate the opposition's regional power, a move that would potentially divide the country into north and south. The meeting was condemned by the Afghan government as an unconstitutional move against Afghan national unity, and was an embarrassment for the United States.
Efforts should be made and sustained to reach out not just to the Taliban, but to all groups that have a stake in Afghanistan's political future, hostile or otherwise, on the same level. This includes non-Taliban insurgent groups such as the Haqqani Network and Hizbi-Islami Gulbuddin. An Afghan-led process is the best route to peace in Afghanistan. Though compromised in his ability to lead the peace process due to the U.S. negotiation efforts in Qatar and the denial of the Afghan government by the Taliban, Afghan President Hamid Karzai must strive to be diplomatic and inclusive in consistent efforts to initiate a sincere peace process. His sporadic attitude toward talking to the Taliban -- ranging from support to hesitation - is indicative of his attempts to control the peace process in order to reassert his legacy and sovereignty. Consistency in his efforts to unite all groups and foster an Afghan-led process should be his focus.
However, Karzai's ability to make headway is restricted -- first of all, the U.S. may trump his efforts; and secondly, the Taliban and other opposition groups may refuse his invitations to talk in order to make a political statement showing their rejection of the Afghan government. These factors make it difficult for the peace process to be effectively led by the Afghan government. Karzai should reach out to each group equally, initiating and maintaining unconditional dialogues. Peace is built on a foundation of trust.
In order to include all groups on an equal level and provide a platform for the voices of ordinary Afghan citizens-who are undoubtedly the biggest proponents of peace -- a traditional Loya Jirga could be organized and held by a neutral entity, or a coalition, at a neutral location. The agenda would be pre-set and focused around specific objectives geared toward peace. The organizers and location would need to be neutral to reduce the risk that it would be boycotted by the very groups it would seek to bring in. A national, sincere discussion through traditional Afghan dialogue that places all groups on a level playing field is the country's closest chance to achieve peace. This would be the beginning to a process cleansed of the divisive nature of political manoeuvrings.
If abused by opportunists with divisive political ambitions and interest, the fragile peace process in Afghanistan will result in nothing more than another hollow attempt that precedes yet another civil war - a fear that haunts Afghans. Realities must be accepted by all groups in order to make political space for one another, groups who would otherwise start fighting, or keep fighting, if they are denied. It would be an unfortunate repeat of history if the results of this peace deal do not bring celebrations to every Afghan household, regardless of their background.
Wednesday, 14 March 2012
The ‘Steve Jobs Approach’ to Afghan Peace
I had promised in my campaign speech for the presidency of the Brunel Afghan Society in 2006 that if elected, I would expand it beyond Brunel to make it a UK-wide association. But once I actually got elected, I realized I had no idea how to fulfil my promise and I was doubtful I had the time and skills to do so. What made it more of a challenge was that I got an internship that year in Swindon about 80 miles away from the university. It was challenging to keep a job, and recreate an organisation remotely. Despite my own fears and doubts, I ended up making the best of my situation and succeeded in creating what is now called the Afghan Student’s Association UK (ASAUK). In part due to a speech I heard.
A friend who was my class mate, house mate and a colleague that year, with whom I discussed life philosophies over many nights of procrastination at university labs, introduced me to Steve Jobs’ commencement speech at Stanford University delivered in 2005. I never was a Mac person and still am not – the only Apple product I use now is my iPhone--so I did not know who Steve Jobs was at that time. Regardless, the speech had a profound effect on me and I keep going back to it to this day—I find it applies to lots of life situations. In his speech, Jobs’ primary point is that if you haven’t found what you are looking for in life, you must keep looking and never settle. He used his battle with cancer as one analogy to prove his point—he said he won his battle with cancer and was in remission.
The last few months of Afghan political turmoil had been drawing a shadow of doubt and fear in my mind. There is a running joke between some of my friends and I about how Afghans have survived three decades of war—we tend to blame our problems on the wars, and use it as an excuse to never take responsibility for and control of our own future. Though we laugh, we need to realize that the past cannot be undone, and there is no point dwelling on it or never making an effort to escape its grasp. The situation in Afghanistan is shadowy and the future is not looking very bright—there is a strong possibility of a civil war.
Several years after first hearing Jobs’ Stanford speech, I read his biography which revealed that during that speech, he actually still had cancer and was going through treatment for it. What struck me was that despite the cancer, he continued doing what he was passionate about and didn’t want sympathy for what nature had bestowed upon him. Jobs refused to settle for defeat to cancer. It made me revisit his theory and I felt shame for having initially accepted defeat by having doubt. Our human nature makes us blame our circumstances or situation for what in fact is our own self-doubt and fear; thus, we declare ourselves powerless to take control, and we settle for what we take for granted as our fate.
The possibility of civil war can only become certain if and when we, as Afghans, settle for it—when we succumb to the doubts, fear, and turmoil that would lead to civil war. There is still time to take responsibility and control, and not stand by powerlessly. We can still change the future. True, fighting is easy to do, but talking is easier, and that is the first step to peace. The past belongs to the generations before us but the future belongs to us and it is us who will be blamed or praised for how we shape that future. We can learn from the experiences of the previous generation but not without putting it under a moral microscope, to make sure we don’t repeat the mistakes they committed, and to improve on what they did right. The answers are not easy to find—we must create them. So let’s keep looking and not settle.
A friend who was my class mate, house mate and a colleague that year, with whom I discussed life philosophies over many nights of procrastination at university labs, introduced me to Steve Jobs’ commencement speech at Stanford University delivered in 2005. I never was a Mac person and still am not – the only Apple product I use now is my iPhone--so I did not know who Steve Jobs was at that time. Regardless, the speech had a profound effect on me and I keep going back to it to this day—I find it applies to lots of life situations. In his speech, Jobs’ primary point is that if you haven’t found what you are looking for in life, you must keep looking and never settle. He used his battle with cancer as one analogy to prove his point—he said he won his battle with cancer and was in remission.
The last few months of Afghan political turmoil had been drawing a shadow of doubt and fear in my mind. There is a running joke between some of my friends and I about how Afghans have survived three decades of war—we tend to blame our problems on the wars, and use it as an excuse to never take responsibility for and control of our own future. Though we laugh, we need to realize that the past cannot be undone, and there is no point dwelling on it or never making an effort to escape its grasp. The situation in Afghanistan is shadowy and the future is not looking very bright—there is a strong possibility of a civil war.
Several years after first hearing Jobs’ Stanford speech, I read his biography which revealed that during that speech, he actually still had cancer and was going through treatment for it. What struck me was that despite the cancer, he continued doing what he was passionate about and didn’t want sympathy for what nature had bestowed upon him. Jobs refused to settle for defeat to cancer. It made me revisit his theory and I felt shame for having initially accepted defeat by having doubt. Our human nature makes us blame our circumstances or situation for what in fact is our own self-doubt and fear; thus, we declare ourselves powerless to take control, and we settle for what we take for granted as our fate.
The possibility of civil war can only become certain if and when we, as Afghans, settle for it—when we succumb to the doubts, fear, and turmoil that would lead to civil war. There is still time to take responsibility and control, and not stand by powerlessly. We can still change the future. True, fighting is easy to do, but talking is easier, and that is the first step to peace. The past belongs to the generations before us but the future belongs to us and it is us who will be blamed or praised for how we shape that future. We can learn from the experiences of the previous generation but not without putting it under a moral microscope, to make sure we don’t repeat the mistakes they committed, and to improve on what they did right. The answers are not easy to find—we must create them. So let’s keep looking and not settle.
Friday, 13 January 2012
Afghan solutions for Afghan women
This article first appeared on the AfPak channel of Foreign Policy
How to Really Help Afghanistan's Women
Audiences around the world were horrified to see the image of Bibi Aisha, a young Afghan girl whose nose had been cut off by her husband and his family, on the cover of an August 2010 issue of TIME Magazine. Western media outlets largely attributed Aisha's case to the Taliban, and portrayed it as a warning of what is to come for Afghan women once the international community withdraws from Afghanistan. The unfortunate reality is, though, that there are many other cases like hers happening today in Afghanistan, despite the presence and efforts of foreign troops and the international community over the last decade. The most recent case to make headlines was that of 15-year-old Sahar Gul, who had been locked in a basement and tortured for five months by her in-laws, allegedly because she refused efforts to force her into prostitution. These crimes were not perpetrated by the Taliban, but instead some of the most extreme manifestations of domestic violence in Afghanistan.
As former Taliban Minister of Foreign Affairs Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil said to me in an interview a year ago when I asked what he thought about the case of Bibi Aisha: "Even when the West are in Afghanistan, these things are still happening. It seems to me to be a family matter, what happened to this woman."In Afghanistan, everything is a family matter, and familial ties will continue to govern Afghan society long after international troops have left the scene. While attention is focused in Kabul on signing documents ensuring women's political participation and securing women's rights, there is very little trickle down from such progress to the majority of Afghan women living in rural areas. Instead of working from the top down, sustainable progress that can take root in conservative Afghan households can only be made by accepting the realities of rural Afghan society and working within existing cultural boundaries.
Taking a step back from the ‘quick impact' approach of mainstream international aid,one must consider the social realities of Afghanistan to define and support sustainable progress on women's socio economic and human rights. In reality, foreign and domestic governments, their policies and their troop presences, do not ultimately determine the opportunities available to most women -- the men in their families do. Progress and change must be acceptable to men as well as accessible to women.
In addition to the difficulty of encouraging men to see women's participation in society differently, some Afghan women themselves may struggle to redefine their roles. Donor organizations may not take into account the extent to which traditional, conservative gender roles are just as stubbornly ingrained in many Afghan women's minds as they are in many Afghan men's minds -- the notion that men provide, and that women are provided for.
While there are exceptions, in general rural Afghan women have been reared to see their domain as the home, and their job to raise children and serve their husbands. Thus, many may feel that any ambitions outside of the home are unnecessary, or that they aren't capable of achieving them. Furthermore, the prospect of taking on some traditionally male-dominated responsibilities, or even having a stronger presence outside of the home -- such as working or seeking higher education -- simply may not be desirable or even considered within the realm of possibility to some women.
A rural/urban dichotomy pervades Afghan history, which has shown that signs of ‘modernization' in Kabul do not necessarily signify fundamental changes in the rest of the country. What looks like great progress in women's equality in Kabul to the Western eye is often just a veneer, not the true picture. The visibility of women in Kabul in the workplace and in schools and universities, often without a burqa, gives the impression of notable change, but Kabul holds only a very small representation of Afghan women. While about 1.5 million women reside in Kabul, 13.5 million women live in rural areas and are not affected by the more lenient cosmopolitan environment in the capital.
Moreover,one must consider that if a woman wears a burqa, it may not be that she is forced to but, rather, that she chooses to. Personal choice is still important, even if one's society may limit one's choices. And while it is absolutely vital that female representatives have a voice in the peace and reconciliation process, as well as seats in parliament and other highly-visible opportunities, the significance of these and similar advancements is currently limited to symbolic importance.
Assuming that such social realities will persist far past 2014 into the next several decades, the key is to change attitudes gradually, working within current cultural boundaries. Before concentrating emphasis on women working outside of the home, the main focus now should be on expanding women's roles and voices inside the home. The majority of Afghan men I have spoken to about this do not oppose the idea of their wife, sister, or daughter working outside the home or pursuing further education; rather, their opposition to it in practice comes from a fear of how others in their community or extended family may judge them. Breaking a cultural taboo sparks a plague of gossip that has the potential to destroy a family's reputation, particularly when it concerns the integrity of women, who represent a family's honor.
Women throughout the country can and do capitalize on their abilities in socially and culturally acceptable ways already. There are many examples of women who have started small, home-based enterprises, fulfilling a community or market need through activities such as in-home embroidery or carpet-weaving, keeping poultry to sell eggs, or tending bees to sell the honey and wax, which can all be supported with micro-finance grants.
Investment must also be made in vocational training for rural women. In this regard, the people who can best fulfill the needs of Afghan women are other Afghan women. Trained midwives in Afghanistan could be encouraged to teach others the skills of midwifery, while women who are literate could be supported to organize and teach literacy or Quran study classes in their homes.
Such home-grown efforts should be supported through locally-tailored, Afghan-led programs that provide micro-finance assistance and vocational trainings. Programs should appeal to and involve men, as well, helping them see the positive aspects of enabling women. For example, I once met an older woman from Bamyan who had learned how to install solar panels and had then enlisted the help of her brothers to start a solar panel installation and repair company servicing her community.
If a woman can contribute to her family or community in culturally acceptable ways, men may start to recognize women not just as a housekeeper and caretaker, but also as an individual who can generate some income for the household or make needed contributions to the community, placing women on a more level playing field with men. Furthermore, such activities give women a sense of achievement and boost self-esteem, attitudes that are invariably passed down to future generations.
Aside from contributions inside the home, women and girls should also be shown and told of their gender's potential and rights outside of the home. Generating public dialogue and story telling of exemplary women in the community, religion, or country through radio programs that seed messages of women's empowerment in communities far outside of Kabul is one way to accomplish this.
Education is another invaluable form of empowerment, and the progress made in women's education, even in rural areas, is commendable. Education can breed a hunger for knowledge, one that Afghan girls (and boys) are experiencing now as schools proliferate across the country. Their mothers, as well, may curiously observe their children studying in the evenings and be inspired to seek out education. While girls' enrollment in primary school was up to 2.4 million in 2010 from 5,000 during the Taliban regime, according the Afghan Ministry of Education, Afghan girls today rarely progress to secondary and high school, yet there is still promise of a generational process of change. If a mother never attended school, but she fights for her daughter's right to do so, one can hope that the granddaughter would eventually be in a position to attend high school or even university.
Women also need to see that they have some place in the public sphere. Culturally acceptable places for women to gather publicly such as women-only parks, prayer areas, and public gathering spaces, need to be created so that women can feel comfortable and have a sense of belonging in some place outside the home. It is rare to find a place delegated for women to pray in a mosque in Afghanistan, which is a shame for a country that places Islam at center of its society. Finding a restaurant in Jalalabad that accommodates women, even accompanied by close male relatives, is a challenge. Just one park in Kabul is dedicated to women.
While the impending withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan in 2014 has dredged up the topic of the fate of Afghan women, mainstream aid efforts to help Afghan women have been generally off-target, in a society and culture that the international community can sometimes be quick to judge, but resistant to comprehend. The ‘Afghan women' topic has become a talking point for politicians, a popular focus area for donors, and a dramatic headline for media, all demanding too much, too fast from a mainly rural society bound tightly to its conservative culture.
NATO should not be cast in the role of savior -- the idea that NATO should be responsible for safeguarding Afghan women's rights is to make the patronizing assumption that foreign money, applied with foreign standards, in the midst of a foreign-led war, is the key to launching a culture and society into a more Western-style one. The aim should be to encourage and support Afghan women, and men, to make changes in their own lives, on their own terms, and at their own pace.
How to Really Help Afghanistan's Women
Audiences around the world were horrified to see the image of Bibi Aisha, a young Afghan girl whose nose had been cut off by her husband and his family, on the cover of an August 2010 issue of TIME Magazine. Western media outlets largely attributed Aisha's case to the Taliban, and portrayed it as a warning of what is to come for Afghan women once the international community withdraws from Afghanistan. The unfortunate reality is, though, that there are many other cases like hers happening today in Afghanistan, despite the presence and efforts of foreign troops and the international community over the last decade. The most recent case to make headlines was that of 15-year-old Sahar Gul, who had been locked in a basement and tortured for five months by her in-laws, allegedly because she refused efforts to force her into prostitution. These crimes were not perpetrated by the Taliban, but instead some of the most extreme manifestations of domestic violence in Afghanistan.
As former Taliban Minister of Foreign Affairs Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil said to me in an interview a year ago when I asked what he thought about the case of Bibi Aisha: "Even when the West are in Afghanistan, these things are still happening. It seems to me to be a family matter, what happened to this woman."In Afghanistan, everything is a family matter, and familial ties will continue to govern Afghan society long after international troops have left the scene. While attention is focused in Kabul on signing documents ensuring women's political participation and securing women's rights, there is very little trickle down from such progress to the majority of Afghan women living in rural areas. Instead of working from the top down, sustainable progress that can take root in conservative Afghan households can only be made by accepting the realities of rural Afghan society and working within existing cultural boundaries.
Taking a step back from the ‘quick impact' approach of mainstream international aid,one must consider the social realities of Afghanistan to define and support sustainable progress on women's socio economic and human rights. In reality, foreign and domestic governments, their policies and their troop presences, do not ultimately determine the opportunities available to most women -- the men in their families do. Progress and change must be acceptable to men as well as accessible to women.
In addition to the difficulty of encouraging men to see women's participation in society differently, some Afghan women themselves may struggle to redefine their roles. Donor organizations may not take into account the extent to which traditional, conservative gender roles are just as stubbornly ingrained in many Afghan women's minds as they are in many Afghan men's minds -- the notion that men provide, and that women are provided for.
While there are exceptions, in general rural Afghan women have been reared to see their domain as the home, and their job to raise children and serve their husbands. Thus, many may feel that any ambitions outside of the home are unnecessary, or that they aren't capable of achieving them. Furthermore, the prospect of taking on some traditionally male-dominated responsibilities, or even having a stronger presence outside of the home -- such as working or seeking higher education -- simply may not be desirable or even considered within the realm of possibility to some women.
A rural/urban dichotomy pervades Afghan history, which has shown that signs of ‘modernization' in Kabul do not necessarily signify fundamental changes in the rest of the country. What looks like great progress in women's equality in Kabul to the Western eye is often just a veneer, not the true picture. The visibility of women in Kabul in the workplace and in schools and universities, often without a burqa, gives the impression of notable change, but Kabul holds only a very small representation of Afghan women. While about 1.5 million women reside in Kabul, 13.5 million women live in rural areas and are not affected by the more lenient cosmopolitan environment in the capital.
Moreover,one must consider that if a woman wears a burqa, it may not be that she is forced to but, rather, that she chooses to. Personal choice is still important, even if one's society may limit one's choices. And while it is absolutely vital that female representatives have a voice in the peace and reconciliation process, as well as seats in parliament and other highly-visible opportunities, the significance of these and similar advancements is currently limited to symbolic importance.
Assuming that such social realities will persist far past 2014 into the next several decades, the key is to change attitudes gradually, working within current cultural boundaries. Before concentrating emphasis on women working outside of the home, the main focus now should be on expanding women's roles and voices inside the home. The majority of Afghan men I have spoken to about this do not oppose the idea of their wife, sister, or daughter working outside the home or pursuing further education; rather, their opposition to it in practice comes from a fear of how others in their community or extended family may judge them. Breaking a cultural taboo sparks a plague of gossip that has the potential to destroy a family's reputation, particularly when it concerns the integrity of women, who represent a family's honor.
Women throughout the country can and do capitalize on their abilities in socially and culturally acceptable ways already. There are many examples of women who have started small, home-based enterprises, fulfilling a community or market need through activities such as in-home embroidery or carpet-weaving, keeping poultry to sell eggs, or tending bees to sell the honey and wax, which can all be supported with micro-finance grants.
Investment must also be made in vocational training for rural women. In this regard, the people who can best fulfill the needs of Afghan women are other Afghan women. Trained midwives in Afghanistan could be encouraged to teach others the skills of midwifery, while women who are literate could be supported to organize and teach literacy or Quran study classes in their homes.
Such home-grown efforts should be supported through locally-tailored, Afghan-led programs that provide micro-finance assistance and vocational trainings. Programs should appeal to and involve men, as well, helping them see the positive aspects of enabling women. For example, I once met an older woman from Bamyan who had learned how to install solar panels and had then enlisted the help of her brothers to start a solar panel installation and repair company servicing her community.
If a woman can contribute to her family or community in culturally acceptable ways, men may start to recognize women not just as a housekeeper and caretaker, but also as an individual who can generate some income for the household or make needed contributions to the community, placing women on a more level playing field with men. Furthermore, such activities give women a sense of achievement and boost self-esteem, attitudes that are invariably passed down to future generations.
Aside from contributions inside the home, women and girls should also be shown and told of their gender's potential and rights outside of the home. Generating public dialogue and story telling of exemplary women in the community, religion, or country through radio programs that seed messages of women's empowerment in communities far outside of Kabul is one way to accomplish this.
Education is another invaluable form of empowerment, and the progress made in women's education, even in rural areas, is commendable. Education can breed a hunger for knowledge, one that Afghan girls (and boys) are experiencing now as schools proliferate across the country. Their mothers, as well, may curiously observe their children studying in the evenings and be inspired to seek out education. While girls' enrollment in primary school was up to 2.4 million in 2010 from 5,000 during the Taliban regime, according the Afghan Ministry of Education, Afghan girls today rarely progress to secondary and high school, yet there is still promise of a generational process of change. If a mother never attended school, but she fights for her daughter's right to do so, one can hope that the granddaughter would eventually be in a position to attend high school or even university.
Women also need to see that they have some place in the public sphere. Culturally acceptable places for women to gather publicly such as women-only parks, prayer areas, and public gathering spaces, need to be created so that women can feel comfortable and have a sense of belonging in some place outside the home. It is rare to find a place delegated for women to pray in a mosque in Afghanistan, which is a shame for a country that places Islam at center of its society. Finding a restaurant in Jalalabad that accommodates women, even accompanied by close male relatives, is a challenge. Just one park in Kabul is dedicated to women.
While the impending withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan in 2014 has dredged up the topic of the fate of Afghan women, mainstream aid efforts to help Afghan women have been generally off-target, in a society and culture that the international community can sometimes be quick to judge, but resistant to comprehend. The ‘Afghan women' topic has become a talking point for politicians, a popular focus area for donors, and a dramatic headline for media, all demanding too much, too fast from a mainly rural society bound tightly to its conservative culture.
NATO should not be cast in the role of savior -- the idea that NATO should be responsible for safeguarding Afghan women's rights is to make the patronizing assumption that foreign money, applied with foreign standards, in the midst of a foreign-led war, is the key to launching a culture and society into a more Western-style one. The aim should be to encourage and support Afghan women, and men, to make changes in their own lives, on their own terms, and at their own pace.
Thursday, 28 July 2011
A grassroots democracy for Afghanistan
This article first appeared on the AfPak channel of foreignpolicy.com on June 27, 2011
The Malik-ul-Malik System and a Representative Afghan Government
During the 2009 presidential elections, when I was serving as a senior aide to candidate Dr. Ashraf Ghani, I used to share a taxi with other travellers going from Kabul to my home town of Jalalabad every weekend. Thousands take that road each day, many either going to or returning from Pakistan - mainly for healthcare or trade. With so many Afghans taking this road, it was an opportunity to gauge public opinion on the elections. I would introduce myself as a university student to get uncensored thoughts from fellow passengers about the topic. I didn't always have to bring it up--as soon as the journey commenced, an analysis of the presidential elections would inevitably begin.
Their opinions would almost always be that the so-called democracy in Afghanistan is a Western-imported and -imposed form of government. The international community footed the bill for the 2009 presidential elections, worth hundreds of millions of dollars; however, according to the Afghanistan Independent Election Commission (IEC), only about one-third of registered voters visited the polls, approximately 5 million of the roughly 15 million Afghans who registered. Common knowledge is that wide-spread vote rigging, ballot box stuffing, and various frauds and corruption discounted the legitimacy of elections, as the counting dragged on for months in uncertainty.
After the disaster of the elections-and the candidate I supported having lost- I began reflecting on the electoral system as it exists in the country today. The general public, especially those in the rural and insecure areas, has been alienated by the central government through this counter productive system. The 2010 parliamentary elections exposed more flaws in the current system, when 2,577 candidates vied for 249 seats. News reports and independent studies documenting the elections evoked the same nightmares of fraud, corruption, low turnout, and illegitimacy from the 2009 presidential elections. Too many of those who made it to the parliament are not truly representative of their constituencies, but instead are often warlords and regional strongmen whose power has been bolstered through their strong political ties and bribery.
For the past 10 years, Afghanistan has been pushed to emulate a Western model without room for its democracy to sprout from Afghan customs and cultures. It's not democracy itself that dismays in this country; rather, it is the way it has been installed and implemented that many find so frustrating. States such as Turkey and Indonesia show that Islamic nations can construct their own forms of democracies, but it must be custom-tailored to make sure democracy can function in each local context.
As reflected in the voices of those I shared taxis with, and others with whom I spoke, Afghans have become cynical about their government. Today, many take for granted the corruption and inevitable failure of elections to secure a representative central government.
Despite this, Afghans pride themselves on their history of a kind of democracy--decisions on both local and national levels have been made by consultative councils of tribal elders (shuras or jirgas) and grand councils (loya jirga), respectively, throughout Afghanistan's history. An alternative, sustainable, and effective approach to the current failed system must stem from traditional Afghan democracy, such as the malik system.
Afghan societies function internally. Local governance is no exception to this societal structure, with communities traditionally turning to local non-government entities, such as shuras, composed of village leaders (maliks), and religious leaders (mullahs), for legal matters, conflict resolution, and issues concerning social and economic needs. This is the basic Afghan localized system of governance--a tribal or village elder, or malik, is elected or, rather, selected, through consultation and mutual agreement in a community jirga or shura. The malik then represents the village's needs and interests to external parties and deals with any internal matters. Very rarely do Afghan citizens living outside of urban centers feel inclined to contact local government officials or their respective members of parliament for issues or regarding services that should theoretically be provisioned by the central government under the current system.
A 2010 national survey conducted by the Asia Foundation shows that when faced with social or economic problems, or in need of dispute resolution or services, the vast majority of respondents approach a non-government entity, either the village shura or jirga, or the malik or mullah. The number one reason given by respondents for seeking out local governance entities was simply their faith that local shuras would be honest and fair. In fact, the majority of respondents said they did not believe that the parliament was working in the interest of ordinary Afghan civilians, but rather, in individual political interests.
This continued reliance on informal justice systems, mixed with knowledge of the history of Afghan governance, suggests that rural-dwelling Afghans (about 75 % of the population) don't benefit or find much use for parliament, or its electoral processes, as it exists in Afghanistan today.
This customary system of local governance is how Afghans have governed themselves for centuries, even after formal centralization in the 1880's when Amir Abdur Rahman unified the state, albeit by force, and after 1964, when King Zahir Shah established a parliament, albeit one with restricted power. The founder of modern Afghanistan, Ahmad Shah Abdali, was elected to be king by a loya jirga of tribal elders. While such arrangements have been sustained at the local level, there has been a consistent failure to duplicate such effectiveness, efficiency and trust in popular representation at the central level, particularly in today's Afghan parliament.
An alternative approach would be to extend the traditional malik system to the central level. It would establish linkages from the grassroots to the central government, and be sustainable and affordable. Under an indigenous Afghan system of democracy, the idea would be to limit the current election system to the cities and instead adapt the malik system into a formalized process of democratic governance that would reach its way to the central level, resulting in actual popular representation.
In this system, each village would elect or select their malik after convening a jirga, as is traditionally done. The elected village maliks would collectively form a district council. Eligibility requirements could be put in place to ensure that those elected to the village and district shuras are full-time residents of their constituencies, in order to edge out warlords and commanders who are often granted parliament or ministerial positions through political or financial coercion. The district council would then convene to elect one district representative--a malik-ul-maluk (chief of the chieftains) from amongst themselves to represent the district as a whole at the central level within the parliament. Provincial jirgas could be established and convened regularly, along with a term set to allow for routine turnover. In this way, members of parliament would be directly connected to the localities they represent, serving as a direct line for voicing the needs and interests of their constituencies. To avoid a swollen bureaucracy, some districts could be coupled together based on their demographics to meet the target of 249 seats, or elected maliks could also be placed in the Provincial Councils.
Afghanistan is not ready for a centralized Western-style democracy, perhaps because it's just not suited for the system created after the fall of the Taliban. Few Afghans have confidence in their elected representatives, and even fewer have any use for them; thus, Afghans take little to no interest in voting, particularly with the levels of corruption that strips elected officials of their true representative function. However, a certain style of democracy is woven into the fabric of Afghan society, both through religion and culture-it must be allowed to crawl first before it can be fast-tracked. Building on the existing democratic structures in the country, such as the malik-ul-maluk system, from the local to the national level, could produce the best form of representative parliament, one that comes from amongst the people, is affordable and sustainable for the country, and one that would ensure effective, grass-roots outreach for the government.
The Malik-ul-Malik System and a Representative Afghan Government
During the 2009 presidential elections, when I was serving as a senior aide to candidate Dr. Ashraf Ghani, I used to share a taxi with other travellers going from Kabul to my home town of Jalalabad every weekend. Thousands take that road each day, many either going to or returning from Pakistan - mainly for healthcare or trade. With so many Afghans taking this road, it was an opportunity to gauge public opinion on the elections. I would introduce myself as a university student to get uncensored thoughts from fellow passengers about the topic. I didn't always have to bring it up--as soon as the journey commenced, an analysis of the presidential elections would inevitably begin.
Their opinions would almost always be that the so-called democracy in Afghanistan is a Western-imported and -imposed form of government. The international community footed the bill for the 2009 presidential elections, worth hundreds of millions of dollars; however, according to the Afghanistan Independent Election Commission (IEC), only about one-third of registered voters visited the polls, approximately 5 million of the roughly 15 million Afghans who registered. Common knowledge is that wide-spread vote rigging, ballot box stuffing, and various frauds and corruption discounted the legitimacy of elections, as the counting dragged on for months in uncertainty.
After the disaster of the elections-and the candidate I supported having lost- I began reflecting on the electoral system as it exists in the country today. The general public, especially those in the rural and insecure areas, has been alienated by the central government through this counter productive system. The 2010 parliamentary elections exposed more flaws in the current system, when 2,577 candidates vied for 249 seats. News reports and independent studies documenting the elections evoked the same nightmares of fraud, corruption, low turnout, and illegitimacy from the 2009 presidential elections. Too many of those who made it to the parliament are not truly representative of their constituencies, but instead are often warlords and regional strongmen whose power has been bolstered through their strong political ties and bribery.
For the past 10 years, Afghanistan has been pushed to emulate a Western model without room for its democracy to sprout from Afghan customs and cultures. It's not democracy itself that dismays in this country; rather, it is the way it has been installed and implemented that many find so frustrating. States such as Turkey and Indonesia show that Islamic nations can construct their own forms of democracies, but it must be custom-tailored to make sure democracy can function in each local context.
As reflected in the voices of those I shared taxis with, and others with whom I spoke, Afghans have become cynical about their government. Today, many take for granted the corruption and inevitable failure of elections to secure a representative central government.
Despite this, Afghans pride themselves on their history of a kind of democracy--decisions on both local and national levels have been made by consultative councils of tribal elders (shuras or jirgas) and grand councils (loya jirga), respectively, throughout Afghanistan's history. An alternative, sustainable, and effective approach to the current failed system must stem from traditional Afghan democracy, such as the malik system.
Afghan societies function internally. Local governance is no exception to this societal structure, with communities traditionally turning to local non-government entities, such as shuras, composed of village leaders (maliks), and religious leaders (mullahs), for legal matters, conflict resolution, and issues concerning social and economic needs. This is the basic Afghan localized system of governance--a tribal or village elder, or malik, is elected or, rather, selected, through consultation and mutual agreement in a community jirga or shura. The malik then represents the village's needs and interests to external parties and deals with any internal matters. Very rarely do Afghan citizens living outside of urban centers feel inclined to contact local government officials or their respective members of parliament for issues or regarding services that should theoretically be provisioned by the central government under the current system.
A 2010 national survey conducted by the Asia Foundation shows that when faced with social or economic problems, or in need of dispute resolution or services, the vast majority of respondents approach a non-government entity, either the village shura or jirga, or the malik or mullah. The number one reason given by respondents for seeking out local governance entities was simply their faith that local shuras would be honest and fair. In fact, the majority of respondents said they did not believe that the parliament was working in the interest of ordinary Afghan civilians, but rather, in individual political interests.
This continued reliance on informal justice systems, mixed with knowledge of the history of Afghan governance, suggests that rural-dwelling Afghans (about 75 % of the population) don't benefit or find much use for parliament, or its electoral processes, as it exists in Afghanistan today.
This customary system of local governance is how Afghans have governed themselves for centuries, even after formal centralization in the 1880's when Amir Abdur Rahman unified the state, albeit by force, and after 1964, when King Zahir Shah established a parliament, albeit one with restricted power. The founder of modern Afghanistan, Ahmad Shah Abdali, was elected to be king by a loya jirga of tribal elders. While such arrangements have been sustained at the local level, there has been a consistent failure to duplicate such effectiveness, efficiency and trust in popular representation at the central level, particularly in today's Afghan parliament.
An alternative approach would be to extend the traditional malik system to the central level. It would establish linkages from the grassroots to the central government, and be sustainable and affordable. Under an indigenous Afghan system of democracy, the idea would be to limit the current election system to the cities and instead adapt the malik system into a formalized process of democratic governance that would reach its way to the central level, resulting in actual popular representation.
In this system, each village would elect or select their malik after convening a jirga, as is traditionally done. The elected village maliks would collectively form a district council. Eligibility requirements could be put in place to ensure that those elected to the village and district shuras are full-time residents of their constituencies, in order to edge out warlords and commanders who are often granted parliament or ministerial positions through political or financial coercion. The district council would then convene to elect one district representative--a malik-ul-maluk (chief of the chieftains) from amongst themselves to represent the district as a whole at the central level within the parliament. Provincial jirgas could be established and convened regularly, along with a term set to allow for routine turnover. In this way, members of parliament would be directly connected to the localities they represent, serving as a direct line for voicing the needs and interests of their constituencies. To avoid a swollen bureaucracy, some districts could be coupled together based on their demographics to meet the target of 249 seats, or elected maliks could also be placed in the Provincial Councils.
Afghanistan is not ready for a centralized Western-style democracy, perhaps because it's just not suited for the system created after the fall of the Taliban. Few Afghans have confidence in their elected representatives, and even fewer have any use for them; thus, Afghans take little to no interest in voting, particularly with the levels of corruption that strips elected officials of their true representative function. However, a certain style of democracy is woven into the fabric of Afghan society, both through religion and culture-it must be allowed to crawl first before it can be fast-tracked. Building on the existing democratic structures in the country, such as the malik-ul-maluk system, from the local to the national level, could produce the best form of representative parliament, one that comes from amongst the people, is affordable and sustainable for the country, and one that would ensure effective, grass-roots outreach for the government.
Sunday, 23 January 2011
This generation must stop paying the price for the damages of the past!
Which generation?
We may refer to them as the ‘young generation’, young not only because of their age but also because of their immature thinking and struggling. Let me try to define this generation:
Any Afghan who currently struggles and thinks about saving Afghanistan and the prosperity and harmony of Afghans, or at least has such hopes for them. Any Afghan (old or young), who has not killed a fellow Afghan, has not been involved in looting and predatory actions in this country. Any Afghan who has not fallen deep into the extreme left or right to the extent that he or she considers that killing innocent Afghans is justifiable or any Afghan who has not had any part in stealing the assets of the government of Afghanistan. Any Afghan who has not undermined the morals and values of this country in order to serve others’ ideologies or any Afghan who has not committed atrocities and caused the destructions of Afghanistan just so to make his/her foreign backers happy. Any Afghan who does not sacrifice the interests of Afghanistan for his/her own personal or sectarian’s interests.
This Afghan human being is included in ‘this generation’ which fortunately makes the majority in Afghanistan. My words refer to this ideal generation. I call it the ‘young generation’ and I repeat once again that by ‘young’, I do not mean young in age but innocent individuals with clean conscience.
This generation must not pay the price for the past mistakes which were the result of political games. Nowadays, if a young man/woman is killed, deprived of humane living conditions, without access to school, college or fair work conditions, withheld from leading a healthy business, kept back from a place to live and suffering from psychological disorders, these are all due to the consequences of the past and present unhealthy politics. Has this generation ever asked itself; “Why are the culprits of current atrocities still holding power and ruling over the ‘young generation’? Why are they still abusing this generation and stripping it its assets? One of the reasons is that we are unnecessarily lost in our past and we tend to forget about today and the future.
The Problem
We are still fighting over history; we are still wasting our valuable time defending or condemning those faces that are part of history and so unable to do anything useful for our present and future.
At gatherings, political discussions, press conferences, on Afghan websites and during meetings, I witness that instead of discussing our destiny and thinking the way forward, the ‘young generation’ engages in supporting or decrying those figures that cannot make a positive contribution for this generation. One considers a politician clean and respectable while others see him as a warlord, a criminal and a traitor. Similarly, some stand up in support of one side while others denounce them. This is how this generation wastes its energy and valuable time to the extent that quit often their arguments lead to hostilities. Some try hard to find evidence for their claims and force others to accept their counterarguments whereas they never question the benefits and advantages of problematic discussions which sometimes even turn violent. Will such unhealthy rivalry lead to a constructive change in their lives? One of the negative consequences of Afghanistan’s wars and crisis is that our ‘young generation’ has been coerced into getting involved in discussions of history. I do not encourage the ‘young generation’ to take revenge for the past generation but I just ask them to forget about the past. I do not deny the fact that we should learn from the past and historical experiences but I do not want anyone to lose himself or herself, getting lost and vanishing in history. The ‘young generation’ should study history in as far as it helps them learn from the wrongdoings of the past in order to prevent similar mistakes from occurring again and renew and develop the positive experiences of history.
When I mention history, I don not imply a history that is centuries old. Yesterday is a part of history, the last thirty years are also part of a history that apart from some exceptions does not have any significant value. One of the exceptions is that lessons from our near past should be taught to widen our understanding and experiences beyond this part of history which had made us neither independent nor rich. Millions of us were killed yet we are still poor and hungry, still under others’ influence, deprived and helpless.
If two young Afghans smash each other’s head in support or opposition to this or that Khan, Ustad, leader, commander or any other disputed figure while these powerful figures are not even aware of the “sacrifices” made by their “supporters”, how will this contribute to the betterment of the ‘young generation’?
The ‘young generation’ (the innocent generation) pays for the mistakes and the crimes of the past by taking part in problematic arguments. Unfortunately, paying this price is extremely expensive and has almost caused a vicious cycle. On the one hand, the loss has deprived this generation from everything and has resulted in their being abandoned in a dry desert with nothing in hand. On the other hand, this loss has caused the generation to become involved in a psychological war, a war from which this generation has not been able to rescue itself. This loss has not only stolen everything from this generation but has made this generation get lost in search for clearing or accusing controversial figures while losing its ability to work for a brighter future. This is indeed the biggest loss. Guilty politicians have turned the young generation into their defenders, clearing the politicians’ reputation. On the one hand, these politicians abuse the innocence of the ‘young generation’ to hide their crimes. On the other hand, they try to deter progress of the ‘young generation’ because if the ‘young generation’ tries to progress, the guilty politicians can no longer show their true faces to people. They want the people to thank them for being worse than worst.
Solution
Everything has ended!
We need a new beginning!
The incidences and events of the past are just lessons for us. We need to renew and develop the best lessons and bury the worst ones in the graveyard of history. Beyond this, we should separate our relationship with our near past. A new Afghanistan cannot be built by the elements that have already been tested. The Afghanistan of today and tomorrow will be built only by this young thinking, young acting and innocent generation. This generation should devote time to building this country.
The solution is that the ‘young generation’ must no longer pay the price of the crimes, mistakes, wars and betrayals of the past. The politics of the past were imposed on us so that some figures could come to power, becoming fat and rich. We no longer want to burn in the fires created by the perpetrators of old politics. We should no longer make ourselves tired and exhausted in praising or condemning them. This generation can only afford to spend its time, stamina and knowledge to build its today and future and forget its bitter past.
Today, if we are hungry, ignored, isolated, deprived, have nothing, far away from education and development, unfortunate, taken hostage, and have no leaders - doesn’t this mean that we have nothing from our near past to be proud of?
Shouldn’t we feel ashamed of our past, at least the nearer past? Aren’t the players of the past guilty of the current atrocities and problems? Therefore, if we do not forget the past and do not move forward and do not roll up our sleeves to get out of these crises, wont the generations of tomorrow blame us the same way we blame the previous generations? And god forbid, wont they consider us accountable for all deprivations caused?
A major part of national awareness is to turn the attention of the ‘young generation’ to the future. Do not look back, look forward for the present and the future or else our heads will eventually hit the stone.
The guilty political players of the past cannot help you. They just want to use you to present them as clean and innocent and that is it. They want to hide themselves behind your innocence and carry their stolen assets on your shoulders. Throw them away, wake up and brighten your fellow citizens up and search new ways for a prosperous Afghanistan.
Pay attention
Some names may appear big and important, but you are more powerful than them. You have a cleaner conscience than them and you are more trustworthy in society than them. You can do it. You can find solutions for the crisis of trust and believe that they have caused.
These words are not mere slogans. They are a call for awakening and for creating awareness of national movement. Start everything from the beginning and do not pay the price for the mistakes of the past any longer! It is not worth wasting our time in justifying or condemning crimes, sins and so-called prides of the past. Do not cause pain and agony to each other for the sake of the past because you are innocent. Do not get involved in sectarian differences; these cannot offer anything to you but will take everything away from you. Do not follow “colours”; make a white and clean future. This is the way for awakening and brightness.
English translation: Fazel Fazly
We may refer to them as the ‘young generation’, young not only because of their age but also because of their immature thinking and struggling. Let me try to define this generation:
Any Afghan who currently struggles and thinks about saving Afghanistan and the prosperity and harmony of Afghans, or at least has such hopes for them. Any Afghan (old or young), who has not killed a fellow Afghan, has not been involved in looting and predatory actions in this country. Any Afghan who has not fallen deep into the extreme left or right to the extent that he or she considers that killing innocent Afghans is justifiable or any Afghan who has not had any part in stealing the assets of the government of Afghanistan. Any Afghan who has not undermined the morals and values of this country in order to serve others’ ideologies or any Afghan who has not committed atrocities and caused the destructions of Afghanistan just so to make his/her foreign backers happy. Any Afghan who does not sacrifice the interests of Afghanistan for his/her own personal or sectarian’s interests.
This Afghan human being is included in ‘this generation’ which fortunately makes the majority in Afghanistan. My words refer to this ideal generation. I call it the ‘young generation’ and I repeat once again that by ‘young’, I do not mean young in age but innocent individuals with clean conscience.
This generation must not pay the price for the past mistakes which were the result of political games. Nowadays, if a young man/woman is killed, deprived of humane living conditions, without access to school, college or fair work conditions, withheld from leading a healthy business, kept back from a place to live and suffering from psychological disorders, these are all due to the consequences of the past and present unhealthy politics. Has this generation ever asked itself; “Why are the culprits of current atrocities still holding power and ruling over the ‘young generation’? Why are they still abusing this generation and stripping it its assets? One of the reasons is that we are unnecessarily lost in our past and we tend to forget about today and the future.
The Problem
We are still fighting over history; we are still wasting our valuable time defending or condemning those faces that are part of history and so unable to do anything useful for our present and future.
At gatherings, political discussions, press conferences, on Afghan websites and during meetings, I witness that instead of discussing our destiny and thinking the way forward, the ‘young generation’ engages in supporting or decrying those figures that cannot make a positive contribution for this generation. One considers a politician clean and respectable while others see him as a warlord, a criminal and a traitor. Similarly, some stand up in support of one side while others denounce them. This is how this generation wastes its energy and valuable time to the extent that quit often their arguments lead to hostilities. Some try hard to find evidence for their claims and force others to accept their counterarguments whereas they never question the benefits and advantages of problematic discussions which sometimes even turn violent. Will such unhealthy rivalry lead to a constructive change in their lives? One of the negative consequences of Afghanistan’s wars and crisis is that our ‘young generation’ has been coerced into getting involved in discussions of history. I do not encourage the ‘young generation’ to take revenge for the past generation but I just ask them to forget about the past. I do not deny the fact that we should learn from the past and historical experiences but I do not want anyone to lose himself or herself, getting lost and vanishing in history. The ‘young generation’ should study history in as far as it helps them learn from the wrongdoings of the past in order to prevent similar mistakes from occurring again and renew and develop the positive experiences of history.
When I mention history, I don not imply a history that is centuries old. Yesterday is a part of history, the last thirty years are also part of a history that apart from some exceptions does not have any significant value. One of the exceptions is that lessons from our near past should be taught to widen our understanding and experiences beyond this part of history which had made us neither independent nor rich. Millions of us were killed yet we are still poor and hungry, still under others’ influence, deprived and helpless.
If two young Afghans smash each other’s head in support or opposition to this or that Khan, Ustad, leader, commander or any other disputed figure while these powerful figures are not even aware of the “sacrifices” made by their “supporters”, how will this contribute to the betterment of the ‘young generation’?
The ‘young generation’ (the innocent generation) pays for the mistakes and the crimes of the past by taking part in problematic arguments. Unfortunately, paying this price is extremely expensive and has almost caused a vicious cycle. On the one hand, the loss has deprived this generation from everything and has resulted in their being abandoned in a dry desert with nothing in hand. On the other hand, this loss has caused the generation to become involved in a psychological war, a war from which this generation has not been able to rescue itself. This loss has not only stolen everything from this generation but has made this generation get lost in search for clearing or accusing controversial figures while losing its ability to work for a brighter future. This is indeed the biggest loss. Guilty politicians have turned the young generation into their defenders, clearing the politicians’ reputation. On the one hand, these politicians abuse the innocence of the ‘young generation’ to hide their crimes. On the other hand, they try to deter progress of the ‘young generation’ because if the ‘young generation’ tries to progress, the guilty politicians can no longer show their true faces to people. They want the people to thank them for being worse than worst.
Solution
Everything has ended!
We need a new beginning!
The incidences and events of the past are just lessons for us. We need to renew and develop the best lessons and bury the worst ones in the graveyard of history. Beyond this, we should separate our relationship with our near past. A new Afghanistan cannot be built by the elements that have already been tested. The Afghanistan of today and tomorrow will be built only by this young thinking, young acting and innocent generation. This generation should devote time to building this country.
The solution is that the ‘young generation’ must no longer pay the price of the crimes, mistakes, wars and betrayals of the past. The politics of the past were imposed on us so that some figures could come to power, becoming fat and rich. We no longer want to burn in the fires created by the perpetrators of old politics. We should no longer make ourselves tired and exhausted in praising or condemning them. This generation can only afford to spend its time, stamina and knowledge to build its today and future and forget its bitter past.
Today, if we are hungry, ignored, isolated, deprived, have nothing, far away from education and development, unfortunate, taken hostage, and have no leaders - doesn’t this mean that we have nothing from our near past to be proud of?
Shouldn’t we feel ashamed of our past, at least the nearer past? Aren’t the players of the past guilty of the current atrocities and problems? Therefore, if we do not forget the past and do not move forward and do not roll up our sleeves to get out of these crises, wont the generations of tomorrow blame us the same way we blame the previous generations? And god forbid, wont they consider us accountable for all deprivations caused?
A major part of national awareness is to turn the attention of the ‘young generation’ to the future. Do not look back, look forward for the present and the future or else our heads will eventually hit the stone.
The guilty political players of the past cannot help you. They just want to use you to present them as clean and innocent and that is it. They want to hide themselves behind your innocence and carry their stolen assets on your shoulders. Throw them away, wake up and brighten your fellow citizens up and search new ways for a prosperous Afghanistan.
Pay attention
Some names may appear big and important, but you are more powerful than them. You have a cleaner conscience than them and you are more trustworthy in society than them. You can do it. You can find solutions for the crisis of trust and believe that they have caused.
These words are not mere slogans. They are a call for awakening and for creating awareness of national movement. Start everything from the beginning and do not pay the price for the mistakes of the past any longer! It is not worth wasting our time in justifying or condemning crimes, sins and so-called prides of the past. Do not cause pain and agony to each other for the sake of the past because you are innocent. Do not get involved in sectarian differences; these cannot offer anything to you but will take everything away from you. Do not follow “colours”; make a white and clean future. This is the way for awakening and brightness.
English translation: Fazel Fazly
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Malak-ul-Maluk, an alternative for the current MPs?
If cardboard and paper were edible, the poor of Kabul city could live on the posters and billboards of the parliamentary candidates of 2010 for almost a month. Most of those who voted would agree with me that it wasn’t the posters that influenced their decision to vote. Then why such a huge waste of money? And the cluttering of our own cities? I would argue the fault lies in the system itself.
Democratic institutions have to happen naturally and evolve organically for them to be effective and representative, which is not the case with the Afghan parliamentary system. It has been forced from the beginning, and after a 9 year trial period, clearly isn’t working. In the last parliament, only a handful of the MP’s ever visited their constituencies. For the majority it wasn’t possible as they feared for their lives. This lead to the alienation of the public, especially those in the rural areas, because their voices could not be reached.
The recent parliamentary elections of 2010 were a prime example of the collective failures of the past 9 years of the experiment in Western-style democracy that this country has become. There were 17.5 million eligible voters though only 4 million showed up to vote, most of them the urban population in cities. That is only 23% percent of the eligible voters leaving 77% behind– meaning further alienating them from the current Afghan government. It clearly isn’t working as it is supposed to. It is too forced and doesn’t connect well with the fibres of rural Afghan society.
The alienation of rural Afghans could have been stopped the first time if the parliament was actually a representation of the people. Voting should lead to representation of the people, not just be undertaken as part of the democratic machine. If one part of the machine doesn’t work -- in this case, the voting process and fair representation of the people, then the entire machine is broken!
The 2010 elections saw a huge number of candidates – 2,500 for 249 seats. The extravagant amount of money spent on the campaigns by corrupt candidates made the honest ones disappear as if they never existed. In addition to the money spent by the candidates, it cost the government 150 million USD which the international community paid for. What did we get by the end of it? We got a non-representative parliament full of warlords and the facilitators of corruption. The country is not able to sustain this type of false representation, and for what? It doesn’t even work!
Perhaps a better alternative would be to limit the current elections system to the cities and instead adapt the local system of malaks (informally elected village chieftains) in the rural areas into a formalized process that would result in more actual popular representations. Here’s how it would work: Each village would elect their malak, and the village malaks would collectively form a district body. The malaks of the district would then elect a malak-ul-maluk (chief of the chieftains) from amongst themselves to represent the district as a whole in the parliament. This way the MPs would really be from amongst the people, and would be connected to their constituencies; thus, serving as a direct link back to their constituencies throughout the provinces. Some districts can be coupled together based on their population and geographic size to meet the target of 249 seats in the parliament. The mix of the two systems could produce the best form of representative parliament, one that is from amongst the people, affordable and sustainable for the country, and one that would ensure effective outreach for the government. A real, representative democratic machine, home-grown in Afghanistan.
Democratic institutions have to happen naturally and evolve organically for them to be effective and representative, which is not the case with the Afghan parliamentary system. It has been forced from the beginning, and after a 9 year trial period, clearly isn’t working. In the last parliament, only a handful of the MP’s ever visited their constituencies. For the majority it wasn’t possible as they feared for their lives. This lead to the alienation of the public, especially those in the rural areas, because their voices could not be reached.
The recent parliamentary elections of 2010 were a prime example of the collective failures of the past 9 years of the experiment in Western-style democracy that this country has become. There were 17.5 million eligible voters though only 4 million showed up to vote, most of them the urban population in cities. That is only 23% percent of the eligible voters leaving 77% behind– meaning further alienating them from the current Afghan government. It clearly isn’t working as it is supposed to. It is too forced and doesn’t connect well with the fibres of rural Afghan society.
The alienation of rural Afghans could have been stopped the first time if the parliament was actually a representation of the people. Voting should lead to representation of the people, not just be undertaken as part of the democratic machine. If one part of the machine doesn’t work -- in this case, the voting process and fair representation of the people, then the entire machine is broken!
The 2010 elections saw a huge number of candidates – 2,500 for 249 seats. The extravagant amount of money spent on the campaigns by corrupt candidates made the honest ones disappear as if they never existed. In addition to the money spent by the candidates, it cost the government 150 million USD which the international community paid for. What did we get by the end of it? We got a non-representative parliament full of warlords and the facilitators of corruption. The country is not able to sustain this type of false representation, and for what? It doesn’t even work!
Perhaps a better alternative would be to limit the current elections system to the cities and instead adapt the local system of malaks (informally elected village chieftains) in the rural areas into a formalized process that would result in more actual popular representations. Here’s how it would work: Each village would elect their malak, and the village malaks would collectively form a district body. The malaks of the district would then elect a malak-ul-maluk (chief of the chieftains) from amongst themselves to represent the district as a whole in the parliament. This way the MPs would really be from amongst the people, and would be connected to their constituencies; thus, serving as a direct link back to their constituencies throughout the provinces. Some districts can be coupled together based on their population and geographic size to meet the target of 249 seats in the parliament. The mix of the two systems could produce the best form of representative parliament, one that is from amongst the people, affordable and sustainable for the country, and one that would ensure effective outreach for the government. A real, representative democratic machine, home-grown in Afghanistan.
Saturday, 5 June 2010
The grave yard of empires...
The last time I wrote something for this blog was November 2008 – almost two years ago. That was just a few months after I moved to Afghanistan. I always thought I had a writer’s block but a recent chat with a couple of my friends in Kabul made me realize it wasn’t.
Most of the people that write about Afghanistan are either not Afghans or those who live abroad. Even the professionals that do see what it is like here are only here for a few days or weeks at a time which is not enough to realize the truth before they can write about it. Their perception is what they import with them and then their experiences later exported back in the form of articles. Almost never do their opinions jotted down are separate from their imported thoughts.
Afghanistan – the empires’ graveyard – is a complex state or what today is called a country under that name. The multi-cultural state is not only diverse in terms of languages, religions and social dynamics but also varies in opinions and perceptions from one village to the other in each one of the ~398 districts of the country. Understanding them all and trying to do the right thing has always been a challenge for the Afghan puppet government no matter whose puppet it was or is.
Every puppet prime minister/president imports their own ideologies from their master state; thinking it is the best for the country. This is of course without conducting an intensive research or even a mere opinion research to understand what the locals want. It is always assumed that what the leaders or the master state thinks is right must be the right approach. Of course, they are the ones pouring money so it should be, shouldn’t it?
Afghanistan is not like anywhere else in the world. Understanding its differences may take decades if not centuries but are the key to peace and stability here. Money cannot buy anything other than the time of temporary pimps of the land. When the money is over those pimps will be the first to turn against their masters.
Anyway, I don’t want to talk about the government or policies of the invading nations. It is a series of topics for the future. All I wanted to point out was that the longer you spend in Afghanistan the more imprisoned you feel; and that feeling make you wonder about the future. However, that feeling is not enough to stop you from writing about the country but it is rather the challenge of trying to stay positive.
Negativity seems to be the trend here amongst the writers without a real analysis, which is just too easy to write about since the majority of the readers want that. However, there is much more to this country – things that are real. It doesn’t matter whether it is sad news or joyful, it needs to be reported as it is! That is all I am asking for – reporting without any biases. Understand the country and its culture first before you write or make comparisons. What may look like backward to you may be a step forward to many ordinary Afghans.
As I mentioned before most of the people writing about Afghanistan have never lived here for long enough (more than a few weeks/months). They write based on their short term livening experience, their comparison with their childhood experiences if they were born here, their ideology and/or their wishes and that can never be real.
As for the Afghan bloggers; most of the active ones either live abroad where they feel safe and it is most easy to write based on their comfort or are paid to do so by their foreign masters. They are far away from the reality and the sentiment on the ground. Bring them out in to the reality and I promise they will lose their minds (if they have one to start with of course) because all of a sudden they will not be living in the dreamy bubble they built for themselves. A majority of them (the Afghan writers/bloggers) are fascists and for some reason, perhaps for their ignorance, they are proud of that.
It is time we change that! And the way forward would be to write about the realities on the ground without any fear. If we lose our lives doing that then consider it our sacrifice in the effort to rebuild our nation. I am not a proud Afghan but rather ashamed of it! To me it is not important what we were a long time ago but what we are today. Pride will take us nowhere but shame will make us build our country so that one day our children can be proud of it.
Shame on those who destroyed our country! Shame on those who still are! And shame on the greedy pimps that are selling Afghanistan out for their own financial/personal gains!
Let’s build a future we, our children or grandchildren, can all be proud of for real one day!
Long live Afghanistan!
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Stop the bombs and talk to the Taliban
Stop the bombs and talk to the Taliban
On October 7 2009 it will have been eight years since the U.S led invasion of Afghanistan.
despite the presence of international security assistance force and international community the violence and instability has been increased.Why?
Keeping tabs on the events of the war in Afghanistan is not difficult. Press coverage includes daily reports of soldiers dying and killing, elections counts and recounts and even stories from the far flung tribal areas.But there is little about what the ordinary Afghan thinks.
What is his story? How does the war affect him? Does he want President Karzai to stay in power? Does he want more troops, be they from the US or France? Do they make him feel safe? When answered these questions weave the missing thread through the real story of the war. These answers tell a frustrating tale.Look back to May, for example, when US air strikes killed more than 100 civilians.This is when the Afghan people first began to lose faith in President Barack Obama.As protocol required Obama and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton expressed their deep sympathy with the victims, and said sorry for the civilian deaths.But a change occurred. Right at that moment that the ordinary people of Afghanistan lost faith in Obama’s commitments for peace and stability. After the death of yet more non-militants, they began to suspect that Obama could not keep his early promises to protect civilian live in Afghanistan.Karzai, meanwhile, in the US at the time, and travelled back to the devastated area. He sanctioned the award of 100,000 Afghanis (US$2,000) to each of the victim's families.This is the price of an Afghan life.Along with the government 'gift', families were forced to sign a document to say they were happy with the settlement. Happy that the $2,000 should clean up the human mess that bombs leave behind. For those families with little money, their options were limited.In the west, some countries have a law to protect animals. If anyone dares to harm an animal, he or she will face justice. In my country a human life can be taken very easily because there is little justice.Since the war began, mass killing has become part and parcel of everyday life. If any dare to challenge this notion or to call for justice, perhaps, they accused of being insurgents. This is the story of the ordinary Afghan.The ordinary Afghan, who testimonies I have spent years collecting, does not understand why the international forces have not found Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar. He does not understand his fellow countrymen and women are paying the price.Three decades of war takes its toll.Some of those ordinary Afghans killed in the bombs on two fuel tankers earlier last month, had survived Russian invasion. They would not be surprised by theirs deaths because of what they had seen once before.When a small group of Taliban hijacked two tankers which carried fuel for NATO forces in northern Kundoz, local people saw it as a chance to get free fuel for their lamps.They remembered a time back in 1980s, when Mujahideen gave out captured equipment seized from the Russian invaders. These included fuel, food, cloths and car spare parts.On pondering further on the Russian invasion, the ordinary Afghan remembers that, despite war, the USSR considered attacks on locals’ haphazard and foolhardy way to conduct their military campaign. Such attacks would only bring retaliation and in turn cause a long drawn out battle.The Russians strategy was to give to the Afghan government at the time. They didn't keep private jails and they tolerated petty looting.But the Americans and Germans decided to frightened local people when the Taliban stole their tanks, heavily bombing them. After World War II it was the first mass killing committed by German troops in the history.Isn't it strange, Afghans are saying to themselves, that while we did not expect peace from the Russian army because, well they were invaders and committed to no international treaty.Yet these Americans and Germans invaded Afghanistan under the cloak of an international treaty committed to peace. But so far, it poses a continuous threat to normal life.Lives in countless Afghan villages have been threatened since 2003, for the lives of perhaps one or two Taliban militants were hidden there. Sometimes they are killed in these deadly air strikes, other times they escape. But what is consistent is that hundreds of ordinary villagers have been killed by wild card strikes.Women rights, democracy, human rights and political stability are the constant battle cry of the invaders. But ordinary Afghans appreciation of such gifts is tampered by heavy bombs, which are damaging all hopes of democracy and justice.Meanwhile, the criminals and sadly comical farce of Karzai's government remains. After allegedly winning the elections last month, and a recount still not complete, hopes of competency governance is vanishing fast.It seems unlikely that my country will be free of its current government, full of drug lords and war criminals, who care little for social justice and democracy and more about lining their already bulging pockets.This is just a snapshot of what my fellow Afghan witnesses day by day. He also sees a resurgent Taliban, offering an alternative.And it is because of this that NATO must talk to the Taliban. There is no option but to negotiate. The Taliban alternative, while distasteful to some, is more palatable than the trekking across Europe sleep on the streets of Calais or to stay at home and hope the bombs do not fall.
On October 7 2009 it will have been eight years since the U.S led invasion of Afghanistan.
despite the presence of international security assistance force and international community the violence and instability has been increased.Why?
Keeping tabs on the events of the war in Afghanistan is not difficult. Press coverage includes daily reports of soldiers dying and killing, elections counts and recounts and even stories from the far flung tribal areas.But there is little about what the ordinary Afghan thinks.
What is his story? How does the war affect him? Does he want President Karzai to stay in power? Does he want more troops, be they from the US or France? Do they make him feel safe? When answered these questions weave the missing thread through the real story of the war. These answers tell a frustrating tale.Look back to May, for example, when US air strikes killed more than 100 civilians.This is when the Afghan people first began to lose faith in President Barack Obama.As protocol required Obama and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton expressed their deep sympathy with the victims, and said sorry for the civilian deaths.But a change occurred. Right at that moment that the ordinary people of Afghanistan lost faith in Obama’s commitments for peace and stability. After the death of yet more non-militants, they began to suspect that Obama could not keep his early promises to protect civilian live in Afghanistan.Karzai, meanwhile, in the US at the time, and travelled back to the devastated area. He sanctioned the award of 100,000 Afghanis (US$2,000) to each of the victim's families.This is the price of an Afghan life.Along with the government 'gift', families were forced to sign a document to say they were happy with the settlement. Happy that the $2,000 should clean up the human mess that bombs leave behind. For those families with little money, their options were limited.In the west, some countries have a law to protect animals. If anyone dares to harm an animal, he or she will face justice. In my country a human life can be taken very easily because there is little justice.Since the war began, mass killing has become part and parcel of everyday life. If any dare to challenge this notion or to call for justice, perhaps, they accused of being insurgents. This is the story of the ordinary Afghan.The ordinary Afghan, who testimonies I have spent years collecting, does not understand why the international forces have not found Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar. He does not understand his fellow countrymen and women are paying the price.Three decades of war takes its toll.Some of those ordinary Afghans killed in the bombs on two fuel tankers earlier last month, had survived Russian invasion. They would not be surprised by theirs deaths because of what they had seen once before.When a small group of Taliban hijacked two tankers which carried fuel for NATO forces in northern Kundoz, local people saw it as a chance to get free fuel for their lamps.They remembered a time back in 1980s, when Mujahideen gave out captured equipment seized from the Russian invaders. These included fuel, food, cloths and car spare parts.On pondering further on the Russian invasion, the ordinary Afghan remembers that, despite war, the USSR considered attacks on locals’ haphazard and foolhardy way to conduct their military campaign. Such attacks would only bring retaliation and in turn cause a long drawn out battle.The Russians strategy was to give to the Afghan government at the time. They didn't keep private jails and they tolerated petty looting.But the Americans and Germans decided to frightened local people when the Taliban stole their tanks, heavily bombing them. After World War II it was the first mass killing committed by German troops in the history.Isn't it strange, Afghans are saying to themselves, that while we did not expect peace from the Russian army because, well they were invaders and committed to no international treaty.Yet these Americans and Germans invaded Afghanistan under the cloak of an international treaty committed to peace. But so far, it poses a continuous threat to normal life.Lives in countless Afghan villages have been threatened since 2003, for the lives of perhaps one or two Taliban militants were hidden there. Sometimes they are killed in these deadly air strikes, other times they escape. But what is consistent is that hundreds of ordinary villagers have been killed by wild card strikes.Women rights, democracy, human rights and political stability are the constant battle cry of the invaders. But ordinary Afghans appreciation of such gifts is tampered by heavy bombs, which are damaging all hopes of democracy and justice.Meanwhile, the criminals and sadly comical farce of Karzai's government remains. After allegedly winning the elections last month, and a recount still not complete, hopes of competency governance is vanishing fast.It seems unlikely that my country will be free of its current government, full of drug lords and war criminals, who care little for social justice and democracy and more about lining their already bulging pockets.This is just a snapshot of what my fellow Afghan witnesses day by day. He also sees a resurgent Taliban, offering an alternative.And it is because of this that NATO must talk to the Taliban. There is no option but to negotiate. The Taliban alternative, while distasteful to some, is more palatable than the trekking across Europe sleep on the streets of Calais or to stay at home and hope the bombs do not fall.
Sunday, 20 September 2009
حامد کرزی، حقوق بشر و انتخابات
تامین و محافظت حقوق بشر و دموکراسی در افغانستان به عنوان یکی از دلایل مهم موجودیت قوای نظامی و موسسات غیر دولتی در این کشور شناخته شده است. برای ممالکی که سربازان شان در افغانستان استند شعار هایی مانند دفاع از حقوق زنان و برابری یگانه وسیله خاموش نمودن تظاهرات افراد ملکی و جلوگیری از فشار برای بیرون کردن قوا از کشور است. مطبوعات خارج از کشور هم به اشکال مختلف کوشیده اند روی دست آورد ها در افغانستان تاکید نمایند تا از نارضایتی مردم جلوگیری کنند اما با گذشت زمان در داخل و بیرون از کشور حمایه از نیرو های خارجی کاهش یافته و بر فشار بالای دولت امریکا و سران ناتو افزوده است طوریکه ایتالیا و آلمان احتمالا به جستجوی راه بیرون رفت استند. تخلف های پی در پی دولت حامد کرزی مسبب بخشی از این نارضایتی ها است. ناتوانی حکومت مرکزی در پیگیری ناقضین حقوق بشر و حمایت آشکارای دولتی از بعضی از این متخلفین باعث دلسردی مردم افغان و جامعه جهانی می شود و باعث می شود که امید اندکی که برای بوجود آمدن ثبات و عدالت به وجود آمده هم از بین برود خصوصا چون حقوق بشر و مردم سالاری برای دولت افغانستان به مثابه شعاری برای جذب حمایت ممالک کمک کننده و ملل متحد است و خود دولت تعهد چندانی نسبت به آن ندارد.
انتخاباتی که گذشت مثالی روشنی بود از راه دوری که افغانستان تا دموکراسی دارد. حدود 1.5 میلیون رای مشکوک که 1.1 میلیون آن به نفع حامد کرزی به صندوق ها افگنده شده بودند نمایانگر این است که دولت افغانستان، که برای محافظت از حق ملت به وجود آمده بود، یکی از بزرگترین ناقضان حقوق بشر در این مملکت نیز هست. بازار گرم تجارت کارت های رای دهی و صندوق ها پر شده قبل از انتخابات که در آن حامد کرزی و طرفدارانش بزرگترین سهم را داشتند نیز نشانه بی توجهی رئیس دولت به نظر و رای مردم و بسته کردن دریچه ها به سوی مردم سالاری است. تخلف های انتخاباتی توسط آقای کرزی و گروه کمپاین انتخباتی اش به صد ها و شاید هم هزاران قضیه می رسد. اما مهم تر از همه این تخلفات استفاده کرزی از سیاست های قومی برای بدست آوردن رای مردم است. انتخاب سران قومی و جنگ سالاران احزاب وحدت، جمعیت و شورای نظار که ناقضان کهنه کار حقوق بشر در افغانستان استند به عنوان معاونین و مشارکین دولت ضربه بزرگی به افغانستان است. این رهبران سالها به نام این قوم و آن قوم با زندگی و سرنوشت مردم بازی کرده اند و نصب دوباره آنها به مقامات بلند پایه دولتی تیغی است که از عقب به افغانان و حقوق بشر زده شده. سیاست های دوگانه و قومی توسط کرزی و بعضی کاندیدا های دیگر باعث به وجود آمدن خلایی بزرگتر میان اقوام مختلف در مملکت شده و باعث می شود مردم ما چند سال دیگر را صرف جنجال با همدیگر کنند تا با استفاده از هرج و مرج جنایتکاران و مافیا افغانی و بین المللی کنترل مملکت را به دست بگیرند و راه به وجود آمدن حکومت مردمی را برای چند دهه دیگر ببندند.
قوم یگانه اسلحه برای به دست آوردن رای در انتخابات نبود حقوق اقلیت ها، حق زنان و آزادی بیان نیز نقشی بزرگی را ایفا نمودند. امضا نمودن قانون شخصیه احوال اهل تشیع افغانستان توسط کرزی را به گونه یک مثال بررسی می کنیم. بعضی از مواد این قانون که چندی پیش از سوی پارلمان تصویب و از سوی حامد کرزی، رئیس جمهوری افغانستان، توشیح گردید به صورت گستردهای مورد انتقاد نهاد های حقوق بشری و روشنفکران در داخل و خارج از کشور قرار گرفت. نقد اصلی این بود که در ساختن مواد این قانون زنان اهل تشیع پارلمان هیچ نقشی نداشتند و قانون آیینه طرز فکر و باور های فیصدی کوچکی از شیعه مذهبان بود. دلیل دیگر مخالفت این بود که کرزی فقط برای به دست آوردن دل بعضی از رهبران مذهبی و رای این قانون را ناخوانده امضا نمود. در حالیکه این حق تمام مذاهب افغانستان است تا قوانین مشخص به خود را داشته باشند اما مواد این قوانین باید مورد قبول اقشار مختلف آن جامعه باشد و قانون اساسی افغانستان را که حقوق مساوی برای زنان و مردان را تضمین می کند زیر پا نگذارد. توشیح این قانون نه تنها توهینی به زنان اهل تشیع افغانستان بلکه به تمام پیروان این مذهب بود و ضربه دیگری بر حقوق بشر در افغانستان بود.
پیگیری نکردن قضایای تجاوز به کودکان در سرپل، هرات و بدخشان، سنگسار یک زن در بدخشان و قتل خبرنگاران متعدد و خاموشی دولت در مقابل از بین رفتن صد ها افغان ملکی توسط قوای ناتو و ایساف در حملات هوایی و دهها جنایت دیگر روز بروز باعث پایین رفتن اعتبار دولت و حمایه کنندگان خارجی آن و بیزاری مردم از آنها می شود. تمام این قضایای و ده ها مثال دیگر از بی توجهی دولت نسبت به حقوق بشر باعث می شود که نه تنها جامعه جهانی از کمک به افغانستان رو بگرداند بلکه مردم افغان نیز نسبت به ملت سازی بی باورتر شده و اگر تا حال چنین نکرده باشند کم کم دوباره به ممالک دیگر پناه ببرند.
Thursday, 17 September 2009
War is a big monstor
I always thought war is a big monster with spiky blue skin and a big left nostril that he nourishes with the smell of blood. When I was four, I imagined that every time I quarreled with my sister over the Barbie doll that we shared, War would drink a glass of Champaign with his other monster friends and laugh at how easily he tempts and conquers his human toys. Afraid of being confirmed on this frightening thought, I didn’t share it with anyone but my mother. My mom had smiled and kissed me on face saying “I will never let that monster touch you, honey.” Even though in school we were taught that all truth is worth knowing, my mother always said we should distinguish between the facts we need to know and the ones we do not. She said: “it doesn’t matter whether the monster exists or not, the important thing is how we let it control us even when it doesn’t exist.” I didn’t understand that until I was thirteen.
My mother had met War when she was a blooming rose and enjoyed over-the-wall talks with her friends. For the past 15 years I have watched the colors of this rose fade. I have seen some of the petals drop on the Bukhari* and burn as the winter wind blew harshly through the holes of our wooden door and brick cottage. Father had said we would cover the holes with wood and mud before next year’s first snow. “Until then”, he said, “You gals should hug each other tight and make sure all of you are covered and warm.” Despite the cold, the water dripping from the leak of the roof provided us, the four daughters, with entertainment as we competed on catching them before they fall into the bucket placed by mother. The rainy and snowy nights of winter were haunted with poverty, hunger and need for peace but the tales of elders in the family kept us distracted and warm until we fall asleep.
The elders would talk politics, gossip about the evils of the war and drink lots of tea to stay warm. They would warn us, the children, to avoid becoming toys in the hands of humans who were loyal servants to war. “War brings poverty and ignorance, which cause slavery of one’s body and mind” my grandma would say as she braided my hair. I knew the monster would shiver and scream with outrage when we heard these words of wisdom. I knew he would breathe heavily and his nostrils would expand. He would feel thirst for more celebrations, more blood, more hunger and more devastation.
The thorny fingers of war touched me in 1991 when I was 40 days old. 18 years I have lived with war and watched the bricks of our house fall. My mom hugged me and run out of our house to the street. Houses falling everywhere. Bricks breaking everywhere. I saw how everyone claimed and fought for one of the bricks without thinking of the house. Today, I watch people trying to build new houses with their one brick forgetting about the common house; the house where they come from. I don’t see any hands covering the holes and protecting the children against the cold breeze. I see blood streams flowing out each hole. There were children with fingers that froze searching for food and parents who sold their children to save them from starvation. The monster watched women with burqas who stayed nights out to survive poverty and save their children and mocked us. There were more Champaign glasses for the monster. I know if we don’t open the windows for sunlight to reach, many more roses will also lose color and die and many more will steal the bricks of our house to build their own palaces.
*Bukhari: Afghan traditional heater
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
G20 Summit and Afghanistan
In my previous article, I have explained in detail the impacts of Global Financial crisis on Afghanistan. This article will analyse the importance of G-20 summit for Afghanistan.As the World economy further gets victimised by the “economic monster” of modern capitalism and an increasing number of both developed and developing nations enter recession, it was obvious that G-20 summit in London will largely focus on tackling the economic slump. It has been over a week since the heads of state and governments of G-20 group gathered in London to seek solutions for the many economic challenges created by financial crises. Leaders of the world’s largest economies discussed plans to deal with the severe economic downturn, restore growth in the short term, reshape financial system, preserve global trading system, and laying foundations for a sustainable economic recovery.
Despite agreeing on some key points to restore confidence, growths, and jobs, strengthen financial supervision and regulation, fund and reform international financial institutions to overcome such crisis and prevent future ones, promote global trade and investment and reject protectionism, support sustainable recovery, the summit also agreed on providing $1.1 trillion in resources to the IMF and other international institutions to confront the economic crises. The figure includes an agreement to boost the IMF's lending resources from its current level of $250 billion to $750 billion while an additional $250 billion is allocated to boost World trade and $100 billion would be given in aid for developing countries.
Afghanistan would certainly be benefited directly and indirectly both in the long and short terms by the agreements made in the G-20 summit. Firstly, Afghanistan requires exactly the same parameters to economically grow and to have strong financial integrated markets. This may well be a long term goal but it would only be possible if the global economy is in good health. Secondly, there are now more funds available ($750bn) with international financial institutions and a small fraction of which can rescue Afghanistan in the time of need, in case the international community fails to finance Afghan government machinery, which is very unlikely, but that would be costly and tied with many unkind conditions. However, in the past six months many developing nations such as Ukraine, Hungary and Pakistan have turned to IMF for much needed funds despite many strict demands. Thirdly, the extra $100bn in aid for developing countries will help Afghanistan to continue with projects mostly financed by the International development and financial organisations such the World Bank, IMF, and Asian Development Bank. Fourthly and most importantly, Afghanistan is likely to benefit more from the promotion of global trade and investment than borrowing, charity or aid. The figure of $250 billion is set aside to boost World trade; however it is too early to comment on the share and nature of trade and investment promotion Afghanistan will receive.
In short, the G-20 summit would benefit the World’s economy and developing countries including Afghanistan to an extent but it would not find magic solutions within few months or perhaps few years. Nevertheless, the recovery of World’s economy will have two very important positive impacts on Afghanistan’s economy.
First – Private sector development, international trade and investment would grow again, and which is vital for a Self-sufficient Economy. In the initial euphoria after the fall of Taliban in 2001, private investment grew steadily to $1.2-billion in 2006. But it slid to $646-million in 2007 and has plummeted further to $316-million by September 2008. The figure for 2009 is also not very promising either according to the Afghan Investment Support Agency. Private sector development will only take when the World’s economy is in good shape. Historically, World economy has grown well after such crisis and developing nations are equally benefited.
Second - Aid from the international community and non-governmental organizations makes up about 40 percent of Afghanistan's legal GDP, which means, greater the financial crisis, deeper the negative impacts would be on Afghanistan. Thus, the recovery of global economy is in the best interest of Afghanistan, which would ensure the continuous inflow of funds in the form of international aid to finance government’s spending and funding other key projects.
G-20 summit may help to ease the global economic pain. However, Afghanistan needs a G-20 style summit to specifically assist in rebuilding financial system, fostering trade and investment and strengthening overall economy. The international community prioritizing economic reconstruction and infrastructural development is still lacking.
Afghanistan probably does not need more NGOs that come, start projects and leave when the funding runs out. We need the development of private sector which is something not largely prioritized and as a result reconstruction goals have not been met and strategic economic objectives are not achieved. Afghanistan needs investment, which would simply create more jobs, will generate more revenue for the government, would increase production and exports, and would lay down an economic platform for ordinary Afghans. Unless, the international community pave the way for a long-term sustainable economic recovery and growth, and help to establish an environment suitable for trade and investment, Afghanistan would fail to boost fiscal revenue, create the required amount of jobs, and alleviate mounting poverty. The Afghan government would also need to work hard with the international community to ensure good, transparent and accountable governance, correct enforcement of laws and regulations and the correct implementation and execution of trade and investment policies if they are truly serious to secure a viable economic future.
Monday, 6 April 2009
The impact of Global Financial crisis on Afghanistan
The global financial crisis has already greatly damaged developed economies and the economic slowdown is yet to continue in most developing countries. Governments across the World injected huge amount of cash into financial markets and brought interest rates to record level low, but many economists believe that the worst is yet to come. The World seems to be trapped in deep financial crises with major Stock markets around the globe down by more than 40% from their recent high while several major Investment banks have collapsed and many other rescued by their national government’s bailout packages. Key indicators of the global economic activities such as shipping rates are dropping at shocking rates.
What does this all mean for Afghanistan and how Afghanistan would be affected by the global financial crisis?
The impact of financial crisis may have not yet heavily felt in Afghanistan primarily because our economy is not fully integrated with the modern global economy and global financial markets. This financial isolation may be to Afghanistan’s benefit, keeping the economy away from the immediate effects of the economic meltdown across the world. The World Bank's country manager for Afghanistan Mariam Sherman is also positive about the economic outlook of Afghanistan and feels that “the global financial crisis is unlikely to have great damaging implications for Afghanistan primarily because the financial sector of Afghanistan is relatively small and has no major role in financing economic activities, and has also very limited international exposure".
However, the analysis of Sherman does not mean that we may completely escape the shocks of “once-in-a-century credit tsunami” as termed by Alan Greenspan. Like many other developing countries, Afghanistan may possibly face new challenges and there could be long-term direct and indirect consequences of the global financial crisis.
The single major and immediate direct risk is Foreign aid. Afghanistan is a highly aid dependent country and relies heavily on foreign aid for 90 percent of government budget. As also pointed by Sherman that any cuts on aid by donor countries, which themselves are in deep financial crisis can adversely affect the inflows of aid and that would be challenging for Afghanistan.
Canada and some European countries are facing increasing economic problems at home and many question, whether they will pour billions of dollars at a time when they are strapped for cash with increasing criticism from their public that there are few signs of success in Afghanistan. It is however, the US that provides more than half of foreign aid and if this crisis worsens further in America, where President Obama is struggling to cut back on an ever increasing budget deficit, then many experts believe that foreign aid might be slashed down and Afghanistan would have to bear the brunt of a global crisis.
Another area that can possibly be affected is the foreign investment in Afghanistan. Foreign direct investment in Afghanistan has been increased year-on-year and has been enjoying steadily growth since 2002. Foreign investment in Afghanistan may fall as many companies and investors face huge cash shortages and there may also be the possibility of slashing funds from ongoing projects. The worsening security situation in the country may further create challenges for the Afghan government.
The indirect consequences will be that Afghanistan’s exports may decline as imports of the recession hit economies would fall. Export growth is already slowing markedly in several developing countries.
Remittances from Afghan expatriates, communities and workers abroad may also decline mostly in recession affected rich countries. Afghanistan has received over $3.3 billion from its expatriate community in 2006 alone while $500 million come from Iran annually. If countries like Iran, Germany, Netherlands, Canada, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Turkey and India with sizeable Afghan population plunge into extend financial crisis, the affect would surely be felt at home in the form of less remittances being sent to Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is not exposed to other potential risks faced by many other developing countries such the sudden withdrawal of foreign capital from several developing countries which has caused dramatic falls in their exchange rate. While other developing currencies rise and fall, the Afghani remains stable at around 52 to the dollar which is about the same since the start of financial crisis which is again partly due to US support of the Da Afgahistan Bank / Central Bank.
There is also the risk of unemployment in the case of prolong financial crisis and cuts in foreign aid which could also have social effects such lower growth translating into higher poverty, more crime, corruption, less spending in the public services and even more difficulties meeting the strategic Development challenges of Afghanistan.
As the global financial crisis are becoming viral and the goal to increase more troops and financial funding may become even tougher for Afghanistan. The Afghan government and International Community now more than ever, need a clear financial strategy as well as military strategy if it is to “win” this struggle in Afghanistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)