Afghanistan's Political, Military, Social, and Economic Crisis

Introduction: Afghanistan and the Challenge of State-Building

Afghanistan is a country of many facets, of paramount importance to the broader region and to the global fight against terrorism. For the United States, it represented both a challenge for establishing new democratic principles and values and a cornerstone in the struggle against terrorism as an emerging security threat. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Afghanistan became the primary focus of U.S. administrations in an attempt to align its democratic structures with those of the Western world. The late 2001 invasion of Afghanistan marked, for the international community, the beginning of a new effort in state and democracy building. However, almost a decade later, coalition forces were facing deeply rooted fundamentalist challenges. The experience of the Afghan war proved once again that democracy is a process that must be built upon from within, and cannot simply be imposed from outside.

The current situation in Afghanistan provides yet another perspective on the difficulty Middle Eastern countries face in establishing democracy in any meaningful sense, and in adapting to democratic values and norms grounded in human rights and human dignity. This paper assesses the impact that the continuous war since 2001 has had on the political, military, social, and economic dimensions of life in the country.

The military perspective is analyzed with particular regard to the influence U.S. and coalition forces have had on the training and development of Afghan security forces. The political framework of the Afghan state is examined in terms of how international forces have positively or negatively shaped Afghan political life. The economic dimension plays an important role in the country's development and is closely tied to the societal fabric of Afghan life. The analysis highlights the dependency between the economic and social systems: in order to assess the level of development and change in Afghan society as a whole, it is necessary to observe whether economic evolution has influenced social evolution. At this point, the social component has yet to undergo meaningful development despite constant attempts to intervene financially and otherwise.

The current state of democracy and the economy in Afghanistan is largely determined by the level of instability the country continues to experience. Like any system that starts from zero, this country needed — and will always need — internal and external stability in order to progress. An analysis of the insurgency is therefore necessary to understand its causes and to consider how the Afghan government, together with its international partners, might address it.

Classical theories of civil wars and insurgencies are difficult to apply to Afghanistan. As Seth Jones clearly points out, there are at least two competing theories: the first is based on ethnic conflicts that transcend politics and time, and the second is based on the drive for resource accumulation and power by certain individuals (Jones, 2008). In the case of Afghanistan, one of the primary conditions enabling the insurgency's growth was a structural weakness in the country's political system: "weak governance is a common precondition of insurgencies. The Afghan government was unable to provide basic services to the population; its security forces were too weak to establish law and order; and too few international forces were available to fill the gap" (Jones, 2008, p. 8).

One important factor complicating Afghan politics — closely connected with social and cultural issues — lies deep within the ancient conflicts between ethnic groups across the broad territory that constitutes Afghanistan. After the fall of the Taliban government in 2001, the new democratic regime had to confront a serious challenge: uniting different and often mutually hostile ethnic groups under a single national framework. As one group gained something, the others perceived it as their loss, so any movement that favored one side risked igniting conflict. Political sustainability in a failed state like Afghanistan is therefore extremely difficult to achieve, even with the military and political support of major international actors and donors. Moving from a "collapsed" state to a "failed" state and beyond represents progress for Afghanistan, but the pace is extremely slow.

Political Landscape and Democratic Fragility

The current political situation in Afghanistan is the result of a profound lack of democratic culture, among both politicians and the general population. The capture of Kabul by the Northern Alliance in mid-November 2001 eventually led to the convening of the Bonn Conference, which established an international framework and political road map for "achieving peace and security, reestablishing key institutions, and reconstructing the country" (RAND Corporation, 2004). The system put in place envisaged the creation of a Temporary Authority, followed by a Transitional Authority, and ultimately the establishment of a national democratic government. However, the transition was not smooth, owing to the absence of democratic practice that had long characterized the political scene.

Although the U.S. and its allies attempted to approach the question of democracy differently from previous nation-building efforts (RAND Corporation, 2004), they failed to adequately account for the ethnic tensions that came to dominate political debates within the society. The differences among Pashtuns, Taliban factions, Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras all proved decisive in shaping the eventual formation of a national assembly. Although elections did take place, they were not representative of the democratic trend that Afghanistan needed.

In trying to help improve the situation, the U.S. and the international community must clearly support a process of ethnic reconciliation while ensuring that democracy is promoted within elected institutions. This may prove essential for the future development of civic spirit, as it would offer the population a sense of participatory action that could eventually lead to a reconception of the government's role in supporting the transition to a democratic system and a more stable security environment.

Insurgency, Peace Talks, and Electoral Failures

Current developments show that talks to end the war have been extensive among the parties involved, including members of President Hamid Karzai's circle and members of the Quetta Shura — the main body controlling the Taliban's military and political activities in Afghanistan. The latest developments suggest that a large portion of the Taliban leadership was open to negotiations and face-to-face talks with the NATO-backed Karzai administration in an attempt to establish some form of peace. Yet a major obstacle was that the principal Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, remained excluded from discussions due to his close ties with the Pakistani government. Although political contact existed between the Afghan government and the Taliban, whether these contacts could produce short- or medium-term effects on the battlefield remained uncertain. As Dexter Filkins correctly put it, "as long as the Taliban believe they are winning, they do not seem likely to want to make a deal" (Filkins, 2010). Even if the individuals participating in Kabul–Taliban discussions represented an important factor for change, there was no guarantee that Taliban military activities would cease. The group is not a democracy and maintained strong, independent networks across many parts of the country.

The overall assessment regarding the political and military situation in Afghanistan is that without a strong government and safeguarded democratic principles, the country risks failing once more. Signals were not encouraging. The November 2010 parliamentary elections did not produce the democratic wave of positive change the world had hoped for. To stabilize a country as volatile as Afghanistan and to create a democratic system based on transparent institutions, the people must represent the core of that change. The results instead led Afghans "into a new period of uncertainty, deepened skepticism of the government and stirred Afghanistan's always volatile ethnic fault lines" (Rubin, 2010).

These parliamentary elections cast a dark shadow over the country's future. Although President Karzai remained confident that the new parliament would function effectively when it convened in January, the high number of fraud complaints and the Taliban's ongoing disruption of the electoral process marked the results negatively in the eyes of the international community. The country's deep ethnic divisions were set in motion: the Pashtuns, the largest ethnic group in the country, were underrepresented in many provinces, amid widespread suspicions of fraud. With a fragmented and discredited new parliament, the country appeared to be on a downward trajectory. As public perception is enormously important in Afghanistan, parliament embodies the core of what democracy means, and citizens were losing trust in the democratic system that Karzai was attempting to build. Political, financial, and above all ethnic interests threatened "to further muddle the results. Perhaps most dangerous is that the results did not yield a Parliament whose ethnic proportions match those of the country, and will therefore be perceived as unfair, whether the seats were won by fraud or not" (Rubin, 2010).

Conclusion: The Path Forward

Overall, it can be concluded that the situation in Afghanistan is undergoing slow, if any, change. Since 2001, the volatile conditions in the country have encouraged a constant state of disarray and a lack of effectiveness in the measures taken to date. The military and political environments remain tense, particularly in light of the announced NATO troop withdrawal scheduled for 2014. At the same time, the economic and social situation shows little visible improvement, and the country's trajectory remains deeply uncertain.

All in all, the current situation in Afghanistan calls for a different and more socially grounded approach — one that places the well-being of Afghan citizens at its center and works to ensure that they can look forward to a better and more stable life.

References

Filkins, Dexter. "Taliban Elite, Aided by NATO, Join Talks for Afghan Peace." The New York Times, 2010.

Jones, Seth. "The Rise of Afghanistan's Insurgency: State Failure and Jihad." International Security, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Spring 2008), pp. 7–40.

RAND Corporation. "Afghanistan." America's Role in Nation Building: From Germany to Iraq. 2004, pp. 129–148.

Rotberg, Robert. Weak and Failing States: Critical New Security Issues. n.d.

Rubin, Alissa. "Contrary to Hopes, Afghan Vote Disappoints." The New York Times, 2010.

Schweich, Thomas. "Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?" The New York Times Magazine, 2008.

United Nations Development Programme. Afghanistan Country Profile on Human Development Index. 2010.