Studies on radicalization & comments

[Steve the Planner]

Bob:

Brilliant:

In Afghanistan they have system of Shuras and Jirgas with Village, Tribal and Religious leaders all feeding into it. Since the mid 1700s they have used this to create national governance as well (National Afghan-style, not Western-style). I would recommend enforcing and enabling the systems that already exist within a culture. Sometimes these systems get damaged by outside interference or internal manipulation. Returning to the roots of what works for a culture is more apt to produce "legitimacy" than a wholesale replacement by outsiders with a foreign system.

The problem, as I have heard from a very few wise folks, is that the problem is in the Constitution, pushed by us, and adopted by a few under pressure without deep understanding.

Now, the have tried it, and the problems in implementation are evident.

As a dumb Marylander, I know that our state constitution actually provides for a diversity of county, town, and special area/purpose governance structures. There are three hierarchies of County forms (from virtual autonomy to minimal), and every manner of municipality (big cities, six person towns), and tons of special purpose, regional and multi-regional formal regulatory structures. If you are bored, you can always go to a local school board meeting, or County zoning committee, or formal community association with special tax district authority.

How could anybody believe that Afghanistan could not be the same way. Our overly-simplified one step approach for "other" countries never could have worked here, and won't work anywhere else.

How to facilitate systems that can work, and are deeply embedded in the Urf of what is known?