The father of modern sociology, Max Weber, pointed out that governments draw their legitimacy from three basic sources: traditional, religious, and legal. The first two are self-explanatory; by "legal," Weber meant Western-style democracies based on popular representation and the rule of law. But according to Afghan history demonstrates in the past legitimacy of governance there was derived exclusively from Weber's first two sources: traditional (in the form of the monarchy and tribal patriarchies) and religious. Either there has been a king, or religious leadership, or a leader validated by the caliphate (or afterwards by indigenous religious polities). In this case can we conclude that political failure in Afghanistan was baked into the cake in the 2001 Bonn Process? So it was a rush to stand up an overnight democratic success story, and the US and Europe overlooked Afghan history and finally was it a historical mistake?
May be we can prove our idea by giving some historical examples of leader ship and governance in Afghanistan. Often in Afghan history, legitimacy thus derived has been reinforced by other means, usually coercive and often brutal. For example, the rule of Amir Abdur Rahman, "The brute Amir," (1880-1901) and that of the Taliban (1996-2001) were predicated on accepted sources of legitimacy of governance (dynastic and religious, respectively), but reinforced by totalitarian methods. These two examples make the point that legitimacy should not be conflated with popularity: having the authority to rule is quite distinct from being a popular ruler. This historical reality poses a major problem for the US. Democracy is not a coat of paint. A feudal society in which women are still largely treated as property and literacy hovers below 10 percent in rural areas does not magically shortcut 400 years of political development and morph into a democracy in a decade. The current government of Afghanistan's claim to legitimacy is based entirely on a legal source – winning an election. Yet this has no historical basis for legitimizing Afghan rule. The winner of today's election will largely be seen as illegitimate because he is elected.
Some analysts may say that as same as An American cannot declare himself as a king and be seen as legitimate: monarchy is not a source of legitimacy of governance in America. Similarly, a man cannot be voted president in Afghanistan and be perceived as legitimate. Because Systems of government normally grow from existing traditions, as they did in the US after the Revolutionary War, for example. In Afghanistan, they were imposed externally. Representative democracy is simply not a source of legitimacy in Afghanistan at this point in its development. This explains in no small measure why a religious source of legitimacy in the form of the hated Taliban is making such a powerful comeback.
But these kinds of pessimistic ideas and opinions about Afghanistan could not be acceptable mow days in Afghanistan. We have a strong central government in Kabul which is genuinely seen as legitimate in the eyes of the Afghan people and which has significant public support across the country's ethno-sectarian divides.Talking about positive developments we should focus just on the potential which existed there. Talking about the changes, we all are witness to the changes. The tragedies of September 11th and later on, action led by the United States, support from the people of Afghanistan in the resistance which existed there prior to September 11th against terrorism. The efforts of the international community as a whole led to the Bonn agreement later on, loyal jirga and formation of transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan. This government was not the continuation of or did not start it as the continuation of another government in Afghanistan. It started from dealing with a country which was ruined for 30 years. It started from below zero. Our main priority was security, and it still is.
Overall, the security situation has improved throughout the country. It is talking about the security in a country that hasn't got a national police force, it hasn't got a national army, and other security institutions. The people of Afghanistan have turned against terrorism, the world has joined in a coalition, has started a campaign in Afghanistan against them. Afghan government is now working with its international partners in termination of national landmines. National formation of national police forces and National Judiciary Council is done. Humanitarian situation in some parts of the country is still in humanitarian phase or crisis, humanitarian crisis phase. While reconstruction activities have started, the people of Afghanistan, the people themselves they started before any other organization or any other country which is supportive of goverment efforts. Millions of school children have gone to school these years. Loya jirgas and elections were the process of democratic selection or election.
Afghanistan has been able to improve its relations with its neighboring countries with the hope looking towards the future, for a better future for our neighboring countries as well as Afghanistan. In that field Afghanistan has taken serious steps, important steps and historical steps. It is a fact that afghan neighboring countries will only benefit from a stable Afghanistan, their interest is in stability in Afghanistan, in a country which has a central government, a government which has got support from the people. In the past they had their own designs for Afghanistan, which didn't work, which has led to the disasters for our people, for our region, and worldwide. This is time to see the situation in the context of the new circumstances. Afghanistan relations with all its neighboring countries are good. the public policy of Afghanistan neighboring countries, Iran, Pakistan and the others, which is the support for the central government in Afghanistan.
Finally the most important issue which should be mention is the violation of law by some organizations and preference of tribal benefits to the national interests. In the case of parliamentary election results all organizations must support the decision of the independent election comity. Otherwise democratizing of Afghanistan
could not be possible.
http://www.outlookafghanistan.net/large/EDITORIAL%20P4.jpg
May be we can prove our idea by giving some historical examples of leader ship and governance in Afghanistan. Often in Afghan history, legitimacy thus derived has been reinforced by other means, usually coercive and often brutal. For example, the rule of Amir Abdur Rahman, "The brute Amir," (1880-1901) and that of the Taliban (1996-2001) were predicated on accepted sources of legitimacy of governance (dynastic and religious, respectively), but reinforced by totalitarian methods. These two examples make the point that legitimacy should not be conflated with popularity: having the authority to rule is quite distinct from being a popular ruler. This historical reality poses a major problem for the US. Democracy is not a coat of paint. A feudal society in which women are still largely treated as property and literacy hovers below 10 percent in rural areas does not magically shortcut 400 years of political development and morph into a democracy in a decade. The current government of Afghanistan's claim to legitimacy is based entirely on a legal source – winning an election. Yet this has no historical basis for legitimizing Afghan rule. The winner of today's election will largely be seen as illegitimate because he is elected.
Some analysts may say that as same as An American cannot declare himself as a king and be seen as legitimate: monarchy is not a source of legitimacy of governance in America. Similarly, a man cannot be voted president in Afghanistan and be perceived as legitimate. Because Systems of government normally grow from existing traditions, as they did in the US after the Revolutionary War, for example. In Afghanistan, they were imposed externally. Representative democracy is simply not a source of legitimacy in Afghanistan at this point in its development. This explains in no small measure why a religious source of legitimacy in the form of the hated Taliban is making such a powerful comeback.
But these kinds of pessimistic ideas and opinions about Afghanistan could not be acceptable mow days in Afghanistan. We have a strong central government in Kabul which is genuinely seen as legitimate in the eyes of the Afghan people and which has significant public support across the country's ethno-sectarian divides.Talking about positive developments we should focus just on the potential which existed there. Talking about the changes, we all are witness to the changes. The tragedies of September 11th and later on, action led by the United States, support from the people of Afghanistan in the resistance which existed there prior to September 11th against terrorism. The efforts of the international community as a whole led to the Bonn agreement later on, loyal jirga and formation of transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan. This government was not the continuation of or did not start it as the continuation of another government in Afghanistan. It started from dealing with a country which was ruined for 30 years. It started from below zero. Our main priority was security, and it still is.
Overall, the security situation has improved throughout the country. It is talking about the security in a country that hasn't got a national police force, it hasn't got a national army, and other security institutions. The people of Afghanistan have turned against terrorism, the world has joined in a coalition, has started a campaign in Afghanistan against them. Afghan government is now working with its international partners in termination of national landmines. National formation of national police forces and National Judiciary Council is done. Humanitarian situation in some parts of the country is still in humanitarian phase or crisis, humanitarian crisis phase. While reconstruction activities have started, the people of Afghanistan, the people themselves they started before any other organization or any other country which is supportive of goverment efforts. Millions of school children have gone to school these years. Loya jirgas and elections were the process of democratic selection or election.
Afghanistan has been able to improve its relations with its neighboring countries with the hope looking towards the future, for a better future for our neighboring countries as well as Afghanistan. In that field Afghanistan has taken serious steps, important steps and historical steps. It is a fact that afghan neighboring countries will only benefit from a stable Afghanistan, their interest is in stability in Afghanistan, in a country which has a central government, a government which has got support from the people. In the past they had their own designs for Afghanistan, which didn't work, which has led to the disasters for our people, for our region, and worldwide. This is time to see the situation in the context of the new circumstances. Afghanistan relations with all its neighboring countries are good. the public policy of Afghanistan neighboring countries, Iran, Pakistan and the others, which is the support for the central government in Afghanistan.
Finally the most important issue which should be mention is the violation of law by some organizations and preference of tribal benefits to the national interests. In the case of parliamentary election results all organizations must support the decision of the independent election comity. Otherwise democratizing of Afghanistan
could not be possible.
http://www.outlookafghanistan.net/large/EDITORIAL%20P4.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment