Mueen Uddin Ahmed
As expressed by Immanuel Kant, an 18th century philosopher, constitutional
republics are one of the prerequisites of achieving perpetual peace in the world
because democracies are more peaceful in their foreign relations. Commentators
of the democratic peace theory argue that democracies are more peaceful towards
other democracies; however, at times find it difficult to maintain good
relations with non-democratic states. Ironically, bilateral relations between
Pakistan and Afghanistan despite being democratic have remained far from normal,
up till the meeting between Premier Abbasi and President Ghani early in April
2018 when both leaders agreed to operationalize half a dozen working groups
under the Afghanistan Pakistan Action Plan for Peace and Solidarity (APAPPS).
For the purpose of explaining uneasy peace in retrospect and prospects of
political consonance between the two countries, an intricate examination of
prevailing political environment and systems has been carried out.
Pakistan and Afghanistan have witnessed democratic form of governments for at
least the past decade now, however Pakistani democracy in essence is much older
and mature than the Afghan democracy. The structural variant of democratic peace
theory explains that the institutions of representative governments hold
decision makers accountable to masses; while normative variant argues that
liberal values like free press and competitive party system best explain the
peace between democratic states.
National Assembly of Pakistan has 272 directly elected representatives plus 70
reserved seats. The last general elections were held in 2013 and fresh are due
next week, July 25, 2018. There are 17 National Assembly constituencies
bordering Afghanistan including 9 from FATA, however it remains unrepresented in
the provincial assemblies of KP and Balochistan and is governed directly by the
Centre. This partially results in undermining of people’s aspiration when it
comes to distribution of resources and legislation. There is no parallel of FATA
and PATA in Afghanistan where people live outside the main law. Remedial
measures in Pakistan have begun by the 25th Constitutional Amendment in
Pakistan.
Afghanistan follows a presidential form of government; however,2014 elections
resulted in a US-brokered National Unity Government (NUG) according to which an
additional appointment of Chief Executive (CE) was created, besides President.
So far most of the points of NUG agreement between Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf
Ghani remain unimplemented, glaring ones being: non-regularization of CE post in
the constitution of Afghanistan leading to no role of CE in state affairs and
appointment of ministers; parliamentary elections (Wolesi Jirga) not carried out
since 2010, though the term of current parliament expired in 2015; district
council elections have never been carried out, which essentially contribute
towards selection of the Afghan Senate (Mesharano Jirga); Loya Jirga (Grand
Council – epic law making institution of Afghanistan) has not been convened to
carryout constitutional and electoral reforms.
According to former National Security Advisor Lt Gen (r) Nasser Khan Janjua,
Pak-Afghan peace and prosperity is interdependent and both countries have common
destiny. Here a question arises, why do two democratic states find it so hard to
patch up? Few probable reasons to this situation are best answered through lens
of democratic peace theory.
Firstly, Pak-Afghan political rapprochement initiatives through 2014 to date
could not achieve desired results because true representatives of Afghan people
are still absent from the Afghan Parliament and Senate. In such a scenario, no
matter how much the Government of Pakistan cooperates and facilitates
people-to-people contacts; the lack of true representation does not put enough
pressure on the Afghan government to work for the aspirations of their people to
achieve peace and prosperity.
Secondly, non-implementation of NUG agreement and the persistent tussle for
power between President and CE affects not only the functioning of their
political system but also breeds resentment in the Afghan society. Polarization
in Afghan society is evident from resentment shown by other ethnicities on
adoption of the word ‘Afghan’ to describe them. Afghan political system largely
remains volatile and dependent on foreign mediation for stability, subtly
shedding its sovereign character. To achieve democratic confidence, a
well-represented Afghan political system encompassing all ethnicities is
pivotal, while the non-implementation of NUG agreement also remains a hurdle.
Thirdly, the delayed parliamentary and district council elections in Afghanistan
are now due on October 20, 2018. However, various political parties have
demanded that these elections be held under an interim government and not under
President Ashraf Ghani (a Pushtun). Apparently, the demand seems fair enough
since many independent observers have acknowledged that elections could be
influenced by the government machinery. Moreover, results of parliamentary
elections directly contribute towards presidential elections, selection of
Senate and the Loya Jirga.
Fourthly, the governmental writ, democratic values and institutions in
Afghanistan have eroded as compared to the monarchy era, instead of getting
stronger. Political parties are drifting from their agenda and performance based
politics is being replaced by ethnicity based politics. The three-party alliance
between Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara political parties initially formed to challenge
Pushtun domination has been so successful that it has also started to attract
few anti-Ghani Pushtuns. According to a study, 58% of Afghan constitution (94
out of 162 Articles) stand violated as of today. The first vice president,
Rashid Dostum, is in exile and various provincial governors have openly
challenged their removal by the President. The Kandahar IGP, General Raziq,
claims that not even the President could remove him from his position, despite
being implicated in human rights violations by international institutions. The
insurgents control or contest approximately 40% of Afghanistan, which is
increasing.
If we want to forecast the trajectory post-parliamentary and post-presidential
elections in Afghanistan, some projections seem evident. Firstly, the growing
polarity between Pushtuns and other ethnicities could result in another deadlock
leading to possibly another power sharing formula, which has a bad legacy
already. Secondly, Ashraf Ghani has offered political dispensation to Taliban
(mostly Pushtuns), which, hypothetically speaking, if accepted would add to the
worries of non-Pushtunsin Afghanistan. Thirdly, policymaking and implementation
would remain hostage to internal ethnic representation challenges and indirectly
remain dependent on foreign mediation for stability through military presence
and politico-diplomatic expediencies. Resultantly, true aspirations of Afghan
people to achieve peace and prosperity through better relations with Pakistan
could largely remain unattended.
As of today, a forlorn Afghan democratic government is one of the reasons for
uneasy peace between the two neighbours, which does not take any pressure from
the Afghan society to genuinely pursue a lasting peace with Pakistan, in spite
of shared history, culture, demography and geography. To conclude, the Afghan
political system thatfavours and accommodates aspirations of the Afghan people
has not been truly implemented. Afghan parliament is run under a presidential
decree and not by elected representatives as required by Constitution. At the
local and border level, merger of FATA in KP would add to the stability through
better governance and empowerment of people-to-people contacts. While,
inter-governmental level working groups being most suitable at the moment,
Pakistan should take Afghan democratic fault lines into consideration and wait
for the other shoe to drop before engaging in any long term agreements with
Afghanistan.
(The author is M.Phil in Peace and Conflict Studies)