A critique of political illusion and an emphasis on the need for national mobilization against tribal tyranny in Afghanistan.
By Soraya Baha, critic and writer, especially for Sangar
For more than three centuries, Afghanistan was ruled by a Pashtun-centric tribal system. The country's political system was not based on the will of the people, but on force, terror, barbarity, and traditional tribal structures. As a result, non-Pashtun ethnic groups have always faced systematic discrimination, political and cultural marginalization, and oppression.
In a situation where Tajiks lived in an urban civilization and had a civic mind, tribal rule was a structure completely alien to urban culture and political rationality. This civilizational gap has always been a source of crisis, instability, and discontent among the people.
Over the past three years, since the Taliban came to power, its brutal and misogynistic behavior has excluded women from education, work, and public life, effectively locking them in their homes.
Meanwhile, some immigrant circles in the West have been proposing a version of federalism for Afghanistan for the past 25 years, without taking into account the cultural, historical, and political conditions of the country. This article attempts to criticize this political illusion and highlight the real and possible solution, namely, the mobilization of the population and a fundamental change in the power structure.
Why did federalism work in successful countries, but is ineffective only in Afghanistan?
1 - Different historical and cultural backgrounds
Our federalists cite countries such as Switzerland, Germany, or the United States of America as examples. These countries had independent biopolitical experience, peaceful coexistence, and a historical agreement on cooperation and partnership before becoming federal.
In contrast, Afghanistan not only lacks such experience, but its social structure is based on ethnic discrimination, the historical dominance of one ethnic group, and the systematic exclusion of other ethnic groups. Federalism here does not mean participation, but is more likely to lead to the division of ethnic spheres of influence, looting, and bloody conflicts.
2 - Lack of Rule of Law and Impartial Institutions
In successful federal systems, institutions such as a Supreme Court, a parliament, independent parties, and a free press ensure that no unit remains outside the national framework.
However, Afghanistan has no impartial national institutions, no widespread independent media, and not even a national party. In the absence of law and impartial institutions, federalism can lead to civil war.
3 - Lack of a Unified National Consciousness
In successful federal states, despite linguistic or regional differences, all people share a common national identity. Germans, Swiss, and Americans, despite local differences, consider themselves a single nation.
In Afghanistan, even the concept of "nation" is not recognized by many ethnic groups, and some Pashtun movements still consider others "second-class citizens." Federalism in such an environment may formalize discrimination rather than eliminate it.
4 - The Bitter Experience of Centralization and Hegemony
In Afghanistan, federalism was proposed not by the traditional holders of power (i.e., the Pashtuns) but by the disadvantaged ethnic groups. But no influential Pashtun is ready to cede power. Thus, even if federalism is implemented, it will still be designed from the top down and by the central government, which is a violation of the nature of true federalism.
On the other hand, the vast majority of Pashtuns are not interested in federalism. Their influential figures not only do not talk about the division of power, but also consider 300 years of hereditary power to be their natural right. The traditional power structure among them is based on the exclusive possession of the state, and any participation in power by others is seen as a threat to this hegemony. It is not without reason that no prominent Pashtun leader has come out in defense of federalism.
Response to Federalist Immigrants: Yes, federalism worked in the West not only because of the federal structure itself, but also because of the cultural context, legal institutions, the historical will of the people to participate, and a shared national consciousness.
Therefore, the federalist dogma has effectively remained only the slogans of immigrants in the West; slogans that, although they have just goals, cannot be realized in the real field of Afghan domestic politics. In fact, these slogans can also be considered a form of psychological relief or distraction from effective action, since it is impossible to change power with the help of slogans.
In Afghanistan, there are no such foundations. More than 90 percent of Afghans are illiterate and steeped in superstition. Therefore, federalism in Afghanistan is not only not a solution, but could lead to increased ethnic divisions, civil war, and the disintegration of the country.
Afghanistan is at a critical juncture in its history. Its fate cannot be changed by loud slogans in exile. Federalism, although successful in countries with a history of democratic cooperation, is inappropriate, unjustifiable, and even misleading in Afghanistan, where discrimination, tribalism, and exclusive domination are the foundations. We can only pave the way for justice, participation, and a better future through awareness, unity, and internal action.
Our proposal: The only way is national mobilization against tribal tyranny in Afghanistan.
