An interview with Malek Sitez, Programme Manager of the Civil Society and Human Rights Network and Senior Programme Advisor for Danish Institute
for Human Rights
Q: Western countries, particularly the United States, attacked Afghanistan in 2001 with the aim of fighting terror and establishing democracy in the country. But over the past year there have been moves towards reconciliation with those who were previously called terrorists. As a human rights and civil society activist, how do you assess this issue?
A: In my opinion, as you mentioned, the international community and the West aimed to establish democracy in Afghanistan, but from the beginning they made two big mistakes:
1. The social situation was ready for democracy after the collapse of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, but the international community faced a big problem in choosing its partner in Afghanistan. The community concentrated on cooperating with violators of democracy instead of preparing the public to accept democracy. The international community selected figures who had no commitment to democratic values and no respect for human rights. This was a very sinister beginning. Warlords, and those who violated human rights and democratic values became the partners of the West for strengthening democracy in Afghanistan. This issue raised questions about the legitimacy of democracy in the country.
2. The second mistake was that the West developed a strategy for establishing democracy and popularizing a culture of human rights with the support of figures who trivialized the issue of democracy and human rights. In my opinion, the non-existence of a good partner for popularizing democracy and the lack of a developed strategy for establishing a culture of human rights were the two big mistakes that the international community made in Afghanistan.
Q: Could you specify whom you mean by those partners? You mean those who came with slogans of democracy from the West and played a key role in the government during past eight years?
A: No, I mean that the West helped strengthen the institution of warlordism in Afghanistan. In my opinion, this institution includes warlords themselves, as well as technocrats with neckties, those who returned from the West, and apparently open-minded people. The institution is supported by warlords; therefore, warlordism was indirectly supported by the West. The warlords got extensive political and economical support; they extended and enhanced their presence inside different sectors of the government (executive, legislative and judiciary), and their base had been strengthened. No one can deny this fact now.
Q: You mentioned that Afghanistan was socially ready for democracy after the fall of the Taliban but the West made a mistake in choosing its partner; but, some analysts disagree and claim that Afghan society is not mature enough to accept the principles of democracy. And now the international community is moving towards traditional solutions like the Peace Jirga instead of using principles of democracy. What is your view in this regard?
A: We should first define democracy ourselves in Afghanistan. Is it a mechanism or a value? If we present it as a mechanism, then its pillars should be strengthened. But democracy was imposed as a useless mechanism in Afghanistan prior to strengthening its pillars. We imposed Western-style democracy on Afghan society; still, democracy is not defined, introduced and popularized for the people.
In fact, democracy never goes ahead without transparency and accountability. How could we implement democracy in a society where there is no transparency of systems and where the government is not accountable? In my opinion, democracy without transparency and accountability is something vague and useless. Democratic mechanisms cannot be stabilized without transparency and accountability; and a government cannot be democratic without transparency and accountability. Such a government will be ineffective and anarchic as we witness now in Afghanistan.
So, in my opinion, if the West really wants to establish democracy in Afghanistan, it should simultaneously put pressure on mechanisms for transparency and accountability. But, unfortunately, no actions have been taken in this regard. Warlordism has caused us to waste this opportunity; the warlords use international aid for their own benefit, putting assistance funds in their own pockets. Public opinion in the West is turning against assistance in Afghanistan, because of the lack of transparency and accountability within the Afghan government. The West will soon tire of such a process.
Q: The West seems intent on justifying its previous mistakes rather than repairing them. Over the past year, and particularly in recent months, there have been talks about negotiations with those who are famous for violating democracy and human rights. What do you think?
A: I think such efforts towards reconciliation stem from those errors. Westerners want to blind their people’s eyes, saying reconciliation is the only way to remedy the current situation in Afghanistan. They believe that Afghan society is traditional, where democracy cannot be established and cannot be useful. And Afghanistan should again return to traditional and tribal regimes. But I disagree with such thoughts.
I think the opportunity is there for the development of democracy in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was the place where democracy was presented to the world. The West had not yet thought of democracy when Korosh presented his human rights charter 2500 years ago in Afghanistan. If we review the different periods of Afghanistan’s history, we could easily demonstrate that it has shown its readiness to accept democratic changes. Democracy has been transformed into a political issue in Afghanistan; however, it is not a political issue, it is a question of values.
Afghan society will be ready to accept democracy if it understands its values. But now we have other countries trying to impose their own style of democracy on our country.
Q: Afghanistan has experienced different systems for last hundred years: the modernist state of Amanullah Khan, the monarchy of Nader Khan, the relatively democratic state of Zahir Shah, the republic of Dawood Khan, the Communist regime, the Islamic State of Mojahidin and the Taliban religious state. All of these systems have emphasized and exploited traditional and tribal Jirgas through its own style but such Jirgas have never been proved positive. So, why is the Afghan government using such traditional Jirgas?
A: Several principles are always being ignored with respect to reconciliation.
1. Legitimacy: Is the reconciliation process we are talking about legitimate or not? I think it is not legitimate. We can have legitimacy only when there is national consensus on mechanisms for establishing peace. Our president goes to Saudi Arabia and asks the monarch to mediate in the peace process. In my opinion, the president’s action has no national legitimacy. Reconciliation needs national legitimacy, which can be obtained only through national dialogue in which all social and political entities take part; it is not within the president’s sole competency. Such dialogues should establish a mechanism for reconciliation and the Afghan government can act only as implementer of such a mechanism.
2. Another important point is that no accurate research has been conducted on conflict in Afghanistan to see why Afghanistan has become a center of national and international conflict. Who plays the key role in these conflicts? Is Afghanistan really a land of violence? If yes, what are the reasons for creating negative, tribal, regional and international conflicts here? Assessments and policies in connection with reconciliation lack legitimacy and accurate research. This is another important point. Hence, any assessment and/or policy - without legitimacy and accurate research - is a mistake. In the present world, without conducting precise research on challenges and solutions, any steps will be a mistake.
3. The other point is the establishment of mechanisms. Jirgas may play a part in such mechanisms but it is not the only solution for bringing peace. Such mechanisms should be established based on the spirit of the times. The 21tst century requires that nations should act differently. Issues of national and international partnership are now under consideration in Afghanistan. We see now that the West wants to repeat the Balkan experience in Afghanistan. They imposed peace in the Balkans by NATO fighter jets, but now the Balkans are poised on the brink of violence.
Therefore, the reconciliation process will not reach an ideal result until the Afghan government creates the capacity of establishing peace and peace mechanisms, and the capacity of presenting peace strategies.
Q: It is a fact that the majority of the principles you mentioned are being ignored during the reconciliation process. How do you see the future of reconciliation in Afghanistan?
A: We have two types of peace, according to international laws and relations, and legal mechanisms of governance: cold peace, which means a ceasefire. In this type of peace, the only focus is to stop the fighting. Another type is called warm peace, in which a base for socio/cultural and politico/economical development is created. While we are talking about security we do not mean only military security; we consider social, culture and economical security too. If peace creates such security, we will go towards a sustainable and stable peace in our country.
Unfortunately, our present movement towards reconciliation is a movement towards cold peace, which may create a temporary ceasefire but will never have stability and sustainability.
Q: Will not the integration of elements like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who openly confirmed his relation with Al-Qaida, weaken the process of democracy instead of bringing temporary peace? What will happen with the future of democracy in Afghanistan?
A: I do not want to comment in this regard. Any citizen of Afghanistan can anticipate the consequences of such an issue. We have experienced such reconciliations for almost thirty years and have seen the results. If such reconciliation takes place once again with whom you mentioned and these elements join with pre-existed warlords, it will have a very terrible consequence for peace, governance and democracy in Afghanistan.
Q: Are we really heading towards democracy? If yes, what are the main challenges to democracy in Afghanistan?
A: We are in a transitional phase of democracy and we should rely on a series of international structures because democracy is very fragile in this phase. Simultaneously, we are struggling with the war against terrorism.
Off course, there are some entities that are trying to democratize the system in Afghanistan. For instance, our conversation on democracy itself is an effort towards democracy. Freedom of speech, media and civil associations show that we are going ahead towards democracy. Steps towards establishing mechanisms such as parliament and elections are also good signs.
The main challenge for democracy is the lack of access to information, because information paves the way for sound choices. Access to information should become a central issue; the Afghan government as well as the international community should consider the fact that access to information can make democracy indigenous and Afghan. The government must be obligated to present information to the public regarding its state budget, polices and practical programs as well activities conducted by international community. Access to information provides space to choose correctly. Democracy will face a big challenge unless the government provides the public with the required information.
Civil society has become merely a symbol and this is another challenge for democracy. Civil Society should be accepted as a fact in the society. The president of Afghanistan has 45 advisors in different fields but there is no advisor to work as a liaison between the government and civil society. On the one hand the Afghan government claims that it is establishing democracy but on the other hand it does not recognize civil society.
Another challenge is media outlets whose mission is contrary to civil society. Media outlets should be changed to responsive media. We have a number of media outlets working for democracy but most of the media belong to warlords who broadcast their own ideologies.
In order to overcome these challenges, the international community, in particular, international entities working to establish democracy should consider the above-mentioned challenges to enhance democracy in Afghanistan.
Q: What we have so far talked about are opinions and suggestions; how much are you optimistic to the current democracy process?
A: I am optimistic about the current democratic process but with much anxiety and fear. I am optimistic because we have the international community with us and this is good news for anyone who works for democracy and human rights.
Having a big supporter and a legal democratic framework for democracy which is the constitution are the main factors making me happy about the process.
Q: You are anxious because of the points that you mentioned before?
A: Yes, that is absolutely correct.
