Development Outreach

The role of history and tradition

Afghanistan has always had a government. At times even powerful ones, that conquered neighboring countries and managed to go as far as Isfahan to the West and India to the East. Our history proves that establishing a good government in Afghanistan is possible and that we can build a strong, capable state in this country.

Today—as in the past—the government is the only entity in Afghanistan that has the power to mobilize people. The typical jirgas and shuras for which we are famous have never actually managed to control the population. Their work has mainly been a temporary measure, limited to dealing with smaller matters. It has been governments, however, that have managed to control the population and establish law and order. We even have a fairly successful taxation system that has been in place since the very old days.

Geography shapes development

Afghanistan’s history has been shaped by its geography. It has been an important crossing point for conquest and many of the neighboring countries’ armies marched through our land be it from South to the North, or from the North to the South and West. But at the same time, the particularities of our country have also denied victory to powerful military operations which failed to achieve their goals.

Afghanistan’s position as a landlocked country has been limiting its trade and international outreach options. Our natural resources were underused as a result and the lacking access to markets hampered our economy. The Silk Road, once our main economic support, lost its importance when the region’s markets were increasingly connected by sea lanes.

How can the international community help push forward state building?

The top priority of any state building agenda is to establish security. The international community should either take a sequential or parallel approach to the security-development nexus. These effort needs to take into account that some countries still provide support to terrorism directly and indirectly and support the restoration of the Taliban rule of Afghanistan instead of seeking development in this country.

State building is costly, particularly in Afghanistan where all institutions were destroyed and no legal framework is in place as a consequence of the 30 years of war. Infrastructure suffered equal destruction. We expect the international community to support the rebuilding of institutions, such as the holding of democratic elections. It is an expensive process and Afghanistan alone could never cover its costs.

The financial support of the international community requires accountability, which is unfortunately lacking so far. At present, there is not much international attention dedicated to project and program evaluation, monitoring or results feedback. Few donors hold the government accountable for corruption associated with aid money. This is an area that needs attention and the current approach has to change.

How to help build the state without undermining it?

While state building is a lengthy process, areas such as law and order should be a top priority and receive continuous attention. Afghanistan had some judicial systems that worked even during the years of war. These systems did not receive attention once larger-scale work on legal institution building began. As a consequence the judicial system overall suffered and is now marked by high levels of corruption.

Civil society needs to be strengthened. Only when the government feels there is a strong opposition or a strong public demand for the delivery of services will it be competitive and start performing. While supporting the government in the delivery of services, donors should start a focused program of strengthening civil society and demand for good governance.

The government needs to be in the driver’s seat. At this stage, the international community should assume a helping role and follow the guidance of the government. People should start feeling that their government is working and delivering. The National Solidarity Program is an interesting example worthy of support: although the program has many flaws, it provides the government with some legitimacy. The international community should steer clear of becoming a shadow government next to the Afghan government and provide all funding through the government or have the government monitor it.

On the military front, increased coordination and information-sharing between international troops and the Afghan army will help to reduce civilian casualties and damage.

For some countries, Afghanistan’s future and state-building are not the central objective. Their objectives are short-term and their priority is focused on the security of their own homelands. Their help is self-motivated and, therefore, this mindset has to change. Any development and military strategy should be designed with the good of Afghanistan in the short and the long term as the primary objective, and not as a consequential aspect.

How to address the risk of building a corrupt state?

The process of state building requires the support of civil society; without it the government’s legitimacy will be questioned. Without such broad based public support governments depend on a narrow power-structure, and patronage is the result.

International funds can be misused. Without transparency, accountability and the rule of law, corruption flourishes. Corruption is prevalent at the central state level and patronage rules. Donor projects provide no corruption checks as they are process and not result oriented.

At the sub-national level, many senior government representatives facilitate drug production and trafficking. Political appointments are not merit based but a result of the central state’s patronage system.
In short, merit-based recruitment, a competitive election process, and accountability paired with the rule of law would ensure a less corrupt state. To work towards this end the donor community needs to call for accountability and dare to “name names.”

Dilemmas in addressing the drug industry

• Without an effective plan to address the issue of narcotics trade, state-building will not be achieved in Afghanistan.
• Without security in place, there will be further narcotics cultivation and trafficking.
• There is no appropriate alternative livelihood program. The current approach, by the government as well as the international community, is superficial, both in scope and quality.
• Demand for the drugs remains high in the region and internationally. Many sub-national governments in this country have become mafia-like facilitators of the narcotics trade. The drug trade fuels the engine of terroristic agendas, military activities, political ambitions and personal gains.
• The lack of a working judicial system provides those involved with impunity.

Afghanistan needs a comprehensive approach that tackles the economic, political and judicial aspects of the country’s narcotic industry—without such a strategic approach the
international and national state building efforts will not
succeed.

Seema Ghani is Director of Baawar Consulting Group, Afghanistan.