We grow because we struggle, we change because we differ and as a result we improve, at least this is how I perceive development. And it seems that I am not alone; Lipset makes a similar observation with regards to the development of democracy and democratic rights with which I could not, but agree, and to which, I could not but draw parallels. Complete or partial, no matter how we may address it, to my opinion, democracy and the development of democratic political rights in Afghanistan is not an imported or imposed phenomenon. While the Soviet resistance war and the consequent decade of civil wars must have played a major part in the development of democratic values in Afghanistan analogous to Therborn’s analysis of the relation between war and democratic development, a more prominent role was played by over 60 years of ideological conflict between different groups, originating in early to late 1960s. The connection between current politics in Afghanistan and the student movements of mid 20th century is too obvious to ignore. Inspired by the Soviet and Chinese revolutions, the left movement started taking shape in the form of Progressive Youth Organization in October 1965, opposition to which on the right side surfaced in the shape of Muslim Youth Organization in 1969. Interestingly the center of all these activities was Kabul University; the audiences were students, who were the main players of the Afghan Soviet war, and who remain to be today’s leaders.
It is interesting to go further back in the Afghan history and notice similar parallels to Therborn’s analysis of the conflict between the industrialists and feudal landlords and its impact on the development of democratic values. Basically I see the theme of both Therborn and Lipset to be the same, which lays emphasis on growth through conflict and contradiction. If it would have not been for the social, political and economic reforms introduced by King Amanullah (1919-1929) in 1919, right after Afghanistan gained its independence from the Britain following the third and the last Anglo-Afghan War, and despite severe opposition from the feudal, land owning conservative class, which led to revolt against him in 1927, student movements of 1960s and today’s democracy would have not been, but a dream[1].
Since fortunately it was not only a dream, we are on the path towards democracy.
The process of development of democracy in Afghanistan, and its starting point in terms of content is different however. This determines the nature of Afghan democracy to be a partial polyarchal democracy if analyzed on the basis of the necessary political conditions as defined by Dahl. For as long as I remember to have witnessed or read, we have never had restrictions placed on democratic practices such as elections with regards to literacy, sex, ethnicity or race. This has been so because democratic development in Afghanistan started to grow in a different timeframe, which gave its advocates or practitioners the luxury of taking for granted the democratic principles that European or American nations lacked in their respective times. We, as a nation have the advantage of having the opportunity to base our understanding of democracy on numerous already developed models that others did not have; if used intelligently, this is a great advantage. I however, by no means would want to negate that there is always room for improvement, “more room for democracy” as rightly put by Dahl.
[1]For historical background see Mir Gholam Mohammad Ghobar, Afghanistan in the Course of History, Vol-II (Hashmat K. Ghobar, 2001)