Proposals for Peace in Afghanistan

The Afghan Social Democratic Party's (Afghan Mellat) president Dr. Anwar Ahady's opening remarks at the US Senate Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia's hearings on Afghanistan, June 26, 1996 in Washington, D.C.

Afghan Social Democratic Party

The Honorable Members of the US Senate Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia:

First of all I would like to express my own gratitude and the appreciation of the Afghan Social Democratic Party (Afghan Mellat) for inviting me to this hearing.

On behalf of the Afghan Social Democratic Party, I would like to make the following points pertaining to the resolution of the conflict in Afghanistan.

First, it is essential that we differentiate between conflict among the warlords and conflict between the people and the warlords. Very often international efforts about Afghanistan are concerned with resolving the conflict between the warlords. The Afghan Social Democratic Party believes that the warlords in Afghanistan, including Mr. Rabbani's so-called government, have been consistently violating the basic civil rights of the people and do not accept the principle of the sovereignty of the people. We believe that no peace formula should sacrifice the civil rights of the people and the principle of the sovereignty of the nation in order to gain the cooperation of the warlords. Afghanistan is at a critical juncture. International support can help the people to protect their rights against present and future tyrants. Protecting people's rights against the warlords should be a major aim of international efforts for peace in Afghanistan.

Second, Mr. Chairman, as an Afghan democrat who believes in the power and sovereignty of the people, it is particularly painful for me to tell your committee and my compatriots in the audience that the Afghan conflict cannot be resolved by the Afghans themselves. Those warlords who have aspiration for national leadership cannot agree with each other on the distribution of power; nor are they powerful enough to eliminate their rivals. Some of the warlords find it in their best interest to perpetuate the division of the country because in division and anarchy these warlords, in their own zones, exercise tremendous amount of power without any responsibility. And, unfortunately, the people do not have the means to put an end to the current state of anarchy. If the people of Afghanistan could solve this problem by themselves, they would have done it a long time ago and would have not sought your help. Nor are the regional powers independently capable of resolving this complex problem. They are apprehensive of each other's intentions and react to developments in Afghanistan in the spirit of a zero-sum game. Consequently, international, especially US, involvement is absolutely essential. The resolution of the Afghan conflict requires determination and the willingness to allocate the required resources. The Afghan Social Democratic Party believes that the destruction of Afghanistan was partly caused by Cold War rivalry between the West and the former Soviet Union. The people of Afghanistan, with the help of the West, were able to defeat communism in Afghanistan, which triggered the collapse of communism in Easter Europe and the former Soviet Union as well. The West, including the United States, has benefited handsomely from the peace dividend that resulted from the demise of the Soviet Empire. Consequently, the Afghan Social Democratic Party believes that it is the moral responsibility of the West, especially the United State, to adopt decisive measures to establish peace in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, in the past three years the policies of Western countries, including the United States, regarding Afghanistan have not been adequate.

Third, the Afghan Social Democratic Party strongly supports the proposal to impose arms embargo on all warring factions, including Mr. Rabbani's so-called government. Large and fresh supplies of weapons from Russia and the regional powers to the Afghan combatants have certainly added to the intensity of violence and the magnitude of destruction. Arms embargo alone cannot solve the conflict. We also support the convening of an international conference on Afghanistan, which, we hope, will allay the fears of all regional powers regarding the intentions of their rivals in Afghanistan and build a consensus about non-interference in Afghanistan. In such gatherings, Mr. Rabbani's groups should not be treated as the government of Afghanistan. In our opinion there is no de facto or de jure government of Afghanistan. Treating Mr. Rabbani's faction as the government of Afghanistan distorts the political reality in the country and only strengthens the intransigence of this group.

Fourth, the Afghan Social Democratic Party believes that a viable peace plan has to combine elements of political justice and political realism. While political justice requires a significant role for the will of the people, at least in the short run, requires some concessions to the warlords. Combining political realism and political justice in a peace plan is a difficult task, but it is not impossible. We at the Afghan Social Democratic Party can conceive of at least three variants for a just and realistic peace plan. First, a Cambodian style peace plan whereby during a transitional period the UN would assume responsibility for security in Kabul and the rebuilding of central government institutions while the warlords will continue to be in charge of provincial government. At the end of the transitional period, general elections, open to participation for all groups, should determine the composition of the central government, which would assume control over the entire country. This is the most effective way to establish peace; however, this is likely to require a large amount of resources and great determination on the part of the international community. Second, the responsibility of rebuilding state institutions can be given to a team of politically neutral Afghan technocrats. These individuals cannot assume powerful governmental positions for a few years after the transitional period. Like in variant one, during the transitional period the warlords will continue to be in charge of provincial government; similarly, after the transitional period, general elections would determine the composition of a normal government which would assume control over the entire country. This variant does not require as much resources as the first one, but it does require strong international political and financial support for the central government. And, third, a broad-based government the representatives of the people should at least occupy 50% of the portfolios. Such a broad-based government, in close cooperation with the UN, should rebuild state institutions, disarm the various militias, establish security throughout the country, prepare a democratic constitution and conduct general elections under strong international supervision. The outcome of these general elections should determine the composition of a normal government for Afghanistan. Although the Afghan Social Democratic Party strongly prefers the second variant, it accepts any one of the above alternatives. We also support the well known peace plan of the former king of Afghanistan, Zahir Shah, as well as any other peace proposal as long as it allows for a significant role for the will of the people during the transitional period and accepts the principle of the sovereignty of the people for the long run.

Fifth, we believe that there are sufficient ideas available to work with for preparing a just and realistic comprehensive peace plan. We also believe that it is the task for the UN to identify the major elements of a comprehensive peace plan for Afghanistan. In formulating a peace plan, we believe that the UN ought to first seek the advice of experts and engage in the consultations with regional and international powers, especially the United States and the European Union, that are involved in Afghanistan. After acquiring the support of regional and international powers for such a plan, the UN must talk with the various Afghan factions, including groups that are not involved in the fighting, and make the necessary adjustments in the plan based on these discussions. The mistake of the former UN special envoy to Afghanistan, Mr. Mahmoud Mestiri, who talked to various sides without having clear ideas of his own, should not be repeated.

And, sixth, it is also absolutely important that the international community, including the US, through the UN, take a strong and clear stand regarding what it considers a fair formula for Afghanistan and exerts political pressure for its implementation. Pure meditation and expressions of good intentions rest of the international community to take a clear stand only helps the opponents of a fair solution to delay the resolution of this tragic conflict. Afghanistan already has mind-boggling problems of reconstruction. Any delay in peace can only add to the severity of these problems. In our opinion, we have spent more than enough time on fact-finding and discussions with the warlords; it is time to decide and take a clear and strong stand in favor of the adoption and implementation of a just and realistic peace plan for Afghanistan. To that end, the Afghan Social Democratic Party seeks your help.
 
 

Thank you.

Is Democracy Relevant to Afghanistan?

(professor of Political Science at Providence College)

The text of Dr. Ahady's speech delivered at the Conference on Peace and Reconstruction in Afghanistan, held in New York City on November 13, 1999.

Is Democracy Relevant to Afghanistan?

By: Dr. A. Ahady

(Recently a conference on Afghanistan was held in New York. Dr. Ahady, the president of the Afghan Social Democratic Party, was invited to address this conference. Dr. Ahady talked about the relevance of democracy to Afghanistan. The following is the text of Dr. Ahady's speech at this conference.)

Although in scholarly conferences the norm is to present non-advocacy papers, let me tell you at the outset that I advocate democracy. Given the fact that the meaning of major political concepts is usually controversial, let me also tell you that I follow Diamond, Linz, and Lipset's conception of democracy whereby a political system is democratic if it "meets three essential conditions: (1) meaningful and extensive competition among individuals and groups (especially political parties) for all effective positions of government power, at regular intervals and excluding the use of force; (2) a highly inclusive level of political participation in the selection of leaders and policies, at least through regular and fair elections such that no major (adult) social group is excluded; and (3) a level of civil and political liberties - freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom to form and join organizations - sufficient to ensure the integrity of political competition and participation." (Diamond, 1993, p.39). In addition to these three conditions, I would also insist that government accountability to the people is an essential feature of democracy.

I believe that democracy offers greater freedom and fairness than its alternatives. I also believe that a truly institutionalized democratic system ensures political stability and peaceful change.

Given my normative preference for democracy, naturally I would like to see democracy prevail in Afghanistan. However, many scholars and politicians believe that democracy is a luxury that has little relevance to the politics of less developed countries such as Afghanistan. Before presenting my arguments for the relevance of democracy to less developed countries, let me discuss the views of those who believe that only socially and economically developed societies can afford democracy.

At least since the nineteenth century some scholars have identified a direct link between industrial capitalism and democracy. They believe that the accumulation of economic resources at the hands of government promote authoritarian tendency in a government. To the extent that capitalism emphasizes the market distribution of economic resources and objects to a large role for the government in the economy, these scholars believe that capitalism is essential for the emergence and growth of democracy. Furthermore, they argue that industrial capitalism is the main force behind the rise of the middle class, which is considered the major social class supportive of democracy. These nineteenth century views are still strong among conservative intellectuals in the West. A good example of this is the Nobel prize winner economist Milton Friedman's views on this subject as expressed in his book Free to Choose.

In the 1950s, the famous American sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, after a long comparative study of many developed, semi-developed, and less developed countries, concluded that the level of economic development is directly related to democracy. Furthermore, Lipset maintained that in addition to a high level of economic development, democratic polities are also characterized by a high level of social development, as indicated by high levels of literacy, education, urbanization, and social differentiation. Of course, these are the socio-economic characteristics of the liberal democratic polities in Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. The obvious conclusion of Lipset's study was that democracy is a luxury that only the developed world could afford.

In another major study of democracy in the 1950s, Almond and Verba concluded that democracy required a democratic political culture among the masses. In their famous book The Civic Culture, Almond and Verba argued that citizens of democratic polities believe in tolerance, individualism, respect for human rights, secularism, and civil liberties. Once again, only the developed and liberal western societies had such a political culture.

Unfortunately this scholarship strengthened the claim of many authoritarian regimes and political groups that less developed countries were not ready for democracy. Thus, the most that less developed countries could expect was enlightened authoritarianism. Indeed, some scholars argued that while enlightened authoritarianism, through emphasis on socio-economic development, could prepare a society for democratization in the distant future, premature experiments in democracy are actually harmful to democratization in the long run. Although the democratic experiences of India contradicted the thesis that economic development and democratic political culture among the masses are prerequisites for democracy, these scholarly studies dismissed India as an insignificant anomaly.

The implication of this scholarship on the cultural and economic preconditions of democracy was very discouraging for advocates of democracy in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a core underdeveloped country. Many scholars of Afghanistan have maintained that the political culture in Afghanistan still emphasizes clan, tribal, ethnic, regional, and sectarian loyalties. Furthermore, they maintain that the Afghans are very intolerant of cultural, religious and political differences. In short, if democracy's prospects were dim in other less developed countries, its chances were negligent in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, with the exception of a few small political groups, even most Afghan intellectuals and political activists believed in such a bleak future for democracy in Afghanistan. Indeed, the failure of King Zahr Shah's efforts at liberalization in the 1970s was blamed on the socio-economic underdevelopment of Afghanistan.

The 1990s have witnessed a new scholarly interest in democracy. The main reason for this new interest in democracy is what Samuel Huntington has called the third wave of democratization. Since the mid-1970s a large number of countries have adopted democracy. While in the 1960s democracy prevailed in less than thirty countries throughout the world, according to a Freedom House survey, in 1991 democracy ruled in 89 countries. And, according to Seymour Martin Lipset, by 1993, 107 UN members had competitive elections. The third wave of democracy has had tremendous impact in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, and South-East Asia. Unfortunately, the third wave of democratization has not had a major impact on the Middle East, even though there too signs of liberalization, if not genuine democratization, have been observed.

The third wave of democratization has challenged the 1950s theories of the preconditions of democracy. Many countries that have not achieved a high level of socio-economic development and have not demonstrated the Almond and Verba type of civic culture have adopted democracy. Consequently, new studies of the correlates of democracy have been conducted. One of the most rigorous studies of democracy has been conducted by O'Donnel and Schmitter. To the surprise of the old theorists of democracy, O'Donnel and Schmitter found out that economic development and mass civic culture do not constitute the preconditions for democracy. Indeed, they concluded that any search for finding structural prerequisites for democracy is futile. Instead, they found out that the most critical variable in the process of democratization is the position of the strategic elites. If the strategic elites accept democratic rules, democracy can work even in less developed countries such as India and Costa Rica. O'Donnel and Schmitter assert that the strategic elites do not have to be true believers in democracy. As long as the strategic elites believe that they cannot resolve their differences outside of a democratic framework, and accept democracy, even though out of necessity, not convictions, democratization can succeed.

Similarly, in other studies, Diamond and Shin have found that in the third wave of democratization the international factor has been very effective in the worldwide spread of democracy. According to these studies, after the end of the Cold War, Western support for democratization has been very influential in a number of countries. Many aid-dependent countries have allowed liberalization and democratization in order to attract foreign aid.

What is the implication of these new findings for democracy in Afghanistan? The obvious implication is that the absence of democracy in Afghanistan cannot be blamed on economic underdevelopment, the political culture of the masses, or the high rate of illiteracy. Strategic political elites are responsible for the absence of democracy in Afghanistan. King Zahr Shah's efforts at liberalization did not fail because of opposition from the people; rather the ten-year old experiment in liberalization came to a halt because of the opposition of some elements among the strategic elites. Unfortunately, in the past three decades, two important segments of the strategic elites in Afghanistan, the communists and the Islamists, have been in theory and action openly against democracy. Even some prominent nationalists such as the late President Daud have consistently disregarded democratic principles.

The current strategic elites, both among the Taliban and the United Front, are still against democracy. Obviously this does not bode well for the future of democracy in Afghanistan. However, because state-building and reconstruction require foreign aid, I believe that the strategic elites in Afghanistan are vulnerable to international pressure. The international community should continue its concern over developments in Afghanistan. The international community should insist that any peace settlement in Afghanistan ought to grant civil liberties to the people and allow the people to participate in the political process. Furthermore, any future government in Afghanistan ought to be accountable to the people.

In addition to international pressure in favor of democracy in Afghanistan, the Afghans should organize themselves in democratic political parties, demand civil liberties and the observance of the principal of the sovereignty of the people. The emergence of strong democratic political parties is essential for democracy.

Thus, to conclude, democracy is not a luxury beyond the reach of the less developed countries such as Afghanistan. To allay the concern of some Islamists, there is abundant literature arguing for the compatibility of Islam and democracy. Like any other people, Afghans are entitled to democracy. Continuous domestic and international pressure should be exerted on the strategic elites to allow democratization in Afghanistan.

I hope that we can soon witness the emergence of an Afghanistan where all the citizens accept the Afghan identity of the state and society, the legal equality of all citizens, the dominance of Islamic values, and the rights of the people to participate in the political process, especially in the selection of governmental leaders.
 
 

Thank you.