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?
Bookmarks