Was it a mistake not to recreate Afghanistan as a constitutional monarchy?

[Fuchs]

Maybe it would have served as a bond? Maybe the shiny memories of the old 30's to 70's age that old men talk about would have injected the necessary bit of promise and hope into the society(ies)?

It wouldn't have been a full cure, but maybe helpful?

[tequila]

Zahir Shah might have appealed to certain Pashtun factions, but he had correspondingly poor memories for our main military allies in Afghanistan at the time, especially the Panjshiris.

The Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Hazaras collectively do not want to return to an Afghanistan where they must assume second-class status under a Pashtun hegemony, which more or less is what they had under Zahir Shah.

[Entropy]

That's an important point, Tequila. The power relationship between the Pashtuns and the other ethnic groups is not what it's been historically and this factor is, and will continue to be, a significant barrier to creating a viable, representative and whole Afghan state.

I think the real problem with the Afghan government is overcentralization. Almost all power and money flow from Kabul and, in a society like Afghanistan, it's not surprising that little makes it down to the average Afghan. Afghanistan should be a decentralized federal system with most power and control of resources retained at the local level. Personally I don't think it's possible to make the current system provide any kind of meaningful governance outside of a few major population centers and consequently, I don't think the current government will be able to muster and field forces for a COIN campaign.

[tequila]

I agree with you to a certain extent.

However, a Kabul minister could just as easily argue that only a strong central government can prevent overpowerful local actors, i.e. warlords, from spinning off their own private domains and armies, especially given pushy neighbors like India, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia perfectly willing to fund local spoilers. This has happened numerous times in Afghan history, occasionally even seeing the localities overwhelming the center, as in 1929 and 1992.

[Schmedlap]

Fuchs,

I don't know if a constitutional monarchy would be appropriate, but I do think that there is a serious question regarding how appropriate the current GIRoA is for a country like Afghanistan. I asked a similar question a few weeks ago (http://www.schmedlap.com/weblog/comment.aspx?id=090923-1)...


... why would a strong central government be appropriate for Afghanistan? Their history is one of repelling invaders by independent action of many tribes. There is no history of the country being united under a single leader to repel invaders or invade others [am I correct in asserting this?]. The borders get redrawn in Afghanistan, but the people do not seem to care all that much, as they treat borders in the same way that Americans treat speed limits. It seems that the only people in favor of a strong central government are the outsiders, who want to create a state and to achieve their own national security objectives. Even if there were some yearning within Afghanistan to form a coherent political body that could meet the major characteristics of a state, this does not lead to the conclusion that the preferred form of that state would include a strong executive or even a strong central/federal government. It seems that a tribal confederation might be more appropriate or more appealing [note: I'm not advocating this, just citing an example].

One way to build a nation is to build a state and use it to create a national identity (who was it that said, “I’ve made Italy, now I need to make Italians”?). But Afghanistan already seems to have common characteristics sufficient be a nation: common religion, attachment to the same piece of land, ability to communicate with one another, even if the dialects vary, common history, identification with one another as significantly less foreign than those who live outside the internationally recognized borders, et cetera. Is nation-building necessary? Given that there seems no grass roots desire to build a strong central government, is nation-building likely to succeed if attempted by way of the state? Is building the state even likely to succeed?

The weakness of Afghanistan's tribal system, in terms of deterring or thwarting invasion, is that it does not function well if only a few tribes feel threatened. There is no incentive for the other tribes to fight against the invader. Perhaps some kind of government is necessary to prevent the country from becoming a haven to threaten others - some kind of mechanism whereby if a handful of tribes are overpowered by an organization then others will come to their aid. But beyond that, it seems that we may be imposing something upon them that they will refuse to accept.

[jmm99]

The issue of restoration of the Astan monarchy was discussed before, during and after the negotiation of the Bonn Agreement in late 2001. See these links for a summary:

US & Afghan Positions 2002-2008 - part 1 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=58343&postcount=28)

US & Afghan Positions 2002-2008 - part 2 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=58344&postcount=29)

US & Afghan Positions 2002-2008 - part 3 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=58345&postcount=30)

From the second link:


After the fall of Kabul in November 2001, the United Nations invited the major Afghan factions, most prominently the Northern Alliance and that of the former King - but not the Taliban - to a conference in Bonn, Germany. On December 5, 2001, the factions signed the “Bonn Agreement.”

and:


Permanent Constitution.

An “emergency” loya jirga (June 2002) put a popular imprimatur on the transition government. Former King Zahir Shah returned to Afghanistan in April 2002 for the meeting, for which 381 districts of Afghanistan chose 1,550 delegates, of which about 200 were women. At the assembly, the former King and Rabbani withdrew their candidacies and Karzai was selected to remain leader until presidential elections.

So, history has it that the issue was resolved by the Afghanis and by the former King.

Given the political and military environment in Astan, I can't see how any sort of non-speculative answer can be given to Fuchs' question:


Was it a mistake not to recreate Afghanistan as a constitutional monarchy?

but if the answer is "yes", the Germans are obviously to blame - they hosted the Bonn conference. :D

Have fun with alternative history. I'll pass.

Cheers to all

Mike

[Entropy]

I agree with you to a certain extent.

However, a Kabul minister could just as easily argue that only a strong central government can prevent overpowerful local actors, i.e. warlords, from spinning off their own private domains and armies, especially given pushy neighbors like India, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia perfectly willing to fund local spoilers. This has happened numerous times in Afghan history, occasionally even seeing the localities overwhelming the center, as in 1929 and 1992.

Sure, but that Kabul minister is likely one of those "retired" warlords or at least someone with powerful tribal and familial connections. He is likely using his position to keep those connections well lubricated through patronage.

Secondly, it's been pretty clear over the past eight years that "honest" people who are appointed to the governorship don't do very well. Since they are often outsiders, the locals don't trust them and the local powerbrokers work to undermine them and some of those powerbrokers have influential positions in the central government.

In my mind, it's possible to have local control without enabling warlords although I think one has to realize that there is going to be a certain amount of warlordism regardless. Even today, former warlords still have a loyal base and could reconstitute quickly if the government collapsed. Regardless, I don't see any reason why district and provincial populations should not be able to select their governor either through direct election or shuras. Resources should also be allocated directly to the districts and provinces instead of going through the ministries in Kabul. Currently, the district and provincial councils are supposed to have a significant role beyond selecting members of parliament, but they have never been given the resources to do anything. Not surprising, those officials in Kabul who hold the purse strings are not interested in giving them any resources....

In short, there is a traditional governance system in Afghanistan that's based on councils and works best at the local level. Why are we working against that structure instead of working with it?

[slapout9]

Does anyone know of any maps of A'stan that show who owns the land? Or anytype of Tax maps?

[J Wolfsberger]

Not sure about a monarchy. But a Loya Jirga would definitely have been the right start.

[tequila]

Regardless, I don't see any reason why district and provincial populations should not be able to select their governor either through direct election or shuras. Resources should also be allocated directly to the districts and provinces instead of going through the ministries in Kabul.

Agree with you here 100%.

A constitutional revamp isn't going to happen. But this sort of procedural reallocation of resources is just what we should be pushing for.

J Wolfsberger, there was a Constitutional loya jirga in 2003. It gave us the current abortion of a system.

[Entropy]

Does anyone know of any maps of A'stan that show who owns the land? Or anytype of Tax maps?

No, there hasn't been anything like that done, that I know of, since before the Soviet intervention.

[Abu Suleyman]

While it may be interesting to to debate whether a monarchy would have been better, but it is really a moot point, because Zahir Shah, the heir apparent actively opposed the restoration of the monarchy (http://www.biography.com/articles/King-Mohammed-Zahir-Shah-9540049). Without him on board, the question becomes who do you make the king, and we return pretty much to the same problems we have today.

[marct]

Hi Mike,


So, history has it that the issue was resolved by the Afghanis and by the former King.

Hmmm, from what I have heard, that "resolution" was "suggested" and only applicable to the king in his own person and right and not to the monarchy as a whole.


Given the political and military environment in Astan, I can't see how any sort of non-speculative answer can be given to Fuchs' question:

True; then again, the question does require speculation :D.

Cheers,

Marc