The Article here illustrates a problem for our Rule of Law effort. Although Afghanistan does have a history of formal justice, many parts of the country have relied on an informal system consisting of tribal jirgas or shuras.

The formal system is seen as corrupt and impartial. There is some truth to this, but the issue with the informal system is that it often transgresses the Afghan Constitution and Afghanistan's commitments under international law. Just yesterday, I spoke with the Head of the Huquq in one of the provinces (the Huquq is sort of a clearinghouse for handling cases that can either mediate, assign to the jirga, or assign to the court). I asked him to explain how they ensure jirga decisions comply with Constitutional and international law. He ultimately conceded that such complaince took a back seat to public order. The ultimate goal of the jirga is harmony within or among villages. This cuts against traditional western notions of justice, but works for Afghans. The question becomes how much compliance do we require? Can we get by with less than complete compliance or must we sacrifice a functioning, but imperfect, justice system on the alter of idealism?

Our own system of justice has been 236 years in the making (more if you count our English common law origins). Can we really expect perfection in the Afghan system in a mere 7 years (as measured from the 2004 Afghan Constitution)?