Interview with Kabul-based political analyst Wahid Mojhdah,

Q. The second Afghan Parliamentary Election is scheduled to take place in September, but recently a host of concerns have been raised regarding Afghanistan’s political and security situation. How would you assess the ongoing situation of Afghanistan? Is Afghanistan ready to conduct a genuinely democratic election?

A. There is a political crisis in Afghanistan and the security situation is not improving. The political crisis means that there is an ongoing conflict between the executive branch and Parliament. (President Hamid) Karzai’s legislative decree on the elections was rejected by Parliament in a democratic way, but the president wants to use force to get it approved. This implies that democracy in Afghanistan is not being properly implemented. In every democratic system of government, the three branches of power – the executive, the judiciary and the legislature -- are separate and independent, and function in close collaboration with each other. But unfortunately, the executive branch in Afghanistan is trying to dominate the other two branches.

As a result, democracy in its real sense cannot be seen in practice. The only factor which, to a certain extent, has muted the dictatorship of the executive in Afghanistan is freedom of speech. The media speaks freely, but in my opinion freedom of speech in Afghanistan is like tying a person’s hands and feet and but leaving his mouth open, then telling him “yell as much as you want, but there is no one to come to your rescue.”

As far as the security situation is concerned, the upcoming election is shrouded in mystery. The mystery lies in whether we will have a transparent and general election, or whether it will be the same as the last time, when the ballot boxes were left at the disposal of a few corrupt people who later filled them however they wanted. My perception is that the president is trying to find a good position in the upcoming parliament; he wants a docile legislature.

As we are inching towards the parliamentary elections, we can observe that everything is bleak and murky, and given the prevailing situation we are unable to predict whether the elections will be held or not.

Q. A number of analysts are of the view that our nascent democracy will collapse before it attains full maturity. The parliament rejected Karzai’s legislative decree, but the Independent Election Commission (IEC) adopted it as a legal framework for the forthcoming election nevertheless. Analysts observe that the international community keeps silent with regard to these events; they have forgotten even the slogans of democracy. How do you assess this issue?

A. In 2001, when the Bonn Conference was held, it was decided that Afghanistan should move towards democracy. Western officials frequently emphasized in the media that Afghanistan should be a model for the implementation of democracy in the region. At the time, this issue seemed very bizarre to me: how could a country that has witnessed decades of conflict and dictatorship be a model of democracy for all the countries of the region and as well as for the Islamic countries?

But Westerners believed that they could attain anything through the use of force and money. Their materialistic understanding of the very complex social issues here has even exacerbated the problem. If we look into the modern history of Afghanistan—from the 19th century to the present — we can see that there is a huge distance between the urban and rural areas in Afghanistan. Many regimes in Afghanistan have tried to pay attention to just a few selected cities, totally ignoring the villages. We can see that when the British came to Afghanistan, they were confronted with stiff resistance from the villagers. King Amanullah Khan was dethroned by the villagers. War against the Soviet Union was more of a village war. The mujahidden and later the Taliban emerged from the rural areas. In fact, Afghanistan is facing conflict between the urban and rural areas. Throughout history we can see that rural areas have been the source of insecurity in Afghanistan. However, the international community has not paid sufficient attention to the rural areas and thus democracy remains an unknown subject to Afghan villagers.

Q. From a structural viewpoint, we have had good achievements in the areas of democracy. For example, we have established a new Constitution based on the principles of democracy and on the basis of this we have conducted several elections. However, we can see in the past two years, particularly in recent months, that we have turned away from democratic processes and moved towards an undemocratic path rife with ethnic controversy.

A. Undoubtedly, the institution of the jirga is a part of the tribal system, but I witnessed something strange in this latest jirga: it was more of a modern body than a traditional, tribal jirga. The classification into groups, the appointment of a secretary for each jirga and similar structures cannot be seen in traditional jirgas. This was not a traditional jirga; in fact, it was a three-day gathering whose framework was already determined, with specific objectives. Karzai determined that framework in his inaugural speech.

The major problem for the Americans in Afghanistan is that they have not invested in a system or in institutions. Instead, they have invested in individuals. The former U.S. president, George Bush, for example, thought that by eliminating Saddam, the problem of Iraq would be solved. He also thought that if there were no Mullah Omar, the Afghan problem would be resolved. Given the ethnic problems prevailing in Afghanistan, the Americans reached the conclusion that after the rout of Taliban they would have to deal with a Pashtun because the Pashtuns have traditionally held the reins of power in Afghanistan. In a bid to appease the Pashtuns, and given the fact that most of the names on the U.S. blacklist are those of Pashtuns, the United States decided to bring a Pashtun into power. Indeed, the only person in whom they have invested is Karzai. President Karzai knows that the Americans need him and cannot afford to remove him at this stage. As a result, he takes the utmost advantage of his position.

Q. Taking into account all these points, how successful do you think the Parliamentary Election will be, given last year’s experience with the presidential elections, and the unprecedented outcry it created throughout the international arena?

A. In my opinion, the Taliban will thwart this election. However, there are certain other actions taking place behind the scenes which are not very tangible and perceptible. For example, it seems that Karzai may be trying to attract some of the Taliban, to keep them from creating problems during the elections. The release of Taliban prisoners and some other actions are testimony to this. But if things remain the same, I believe we will not see an election.

Q. Based on all you have said, where do you think Afghanistan is heading? Will the situation in Afghanistan remain the same as it has been during the last nine years? Or is there any likelihood that the political direction of Afghanistan will change?

Afghanistan is a country that has fought many wars throughout its history and even now war is not something unfamiliar to people. The war will continue. There are countries in the region that do not want to see the United States triumph but neither do they want a sudden defeat for the United States. They would rather see the United States gradually collapse, like the Soviet Union did. As a whole we can say that the Afghan war will be devastating to the United States of America.

The fragile democracy in Afghanistan will be impossible to sustain if we do not take advantage of the foreigners’ presence and change our ethnic vision to a national vision. We should be able to create national foundations and change the ethnic foundations into national foundations.

Today, you can see that the majority of political parties in Afghanistan are divided along ethnic lines.  For example, if the leader of any political party is Hazara, 99.9 percent of its members are also Hazara. If the leader of the political party is Pashtun, most of its members are Pashtuns and if the leader is Tajik, the bulk of its members are Tajik. Thus, these issues have nothing to do with democracy; rather they are the by-products of ethnic and tribal affiliations.

The slogans of democracy are only voiced in the shining, posh hotels of major cities such as Kabul, Mazar-e-Sharif and Herat. Our villages know nothing of democracy. A villager sees no difference between today’s democracy and yesterday’s socialism, which he fought against.

The reality is that you cannot find a government supporter among the villagers. The reason for this is that during the past nine years everything was implemented in an inappropriate fashion. As (Member of Parliament Ramazan) Bashardost has rightly asserted time and again, if you go to a village and speak of democracy, people will brand you as a non-Muslim and drive you out. Unfortunately, it is for this very reason that in the past few years a negative image of democracy has been presented to the people.