The role of political parties in Afghanistan’s highly centralised presidential system, with only limited parliamentary checks and balances, is an important yardstick by which to measure how the country has fared in its attempts to democratise in the post-Taleban era. This new AAN thematic report, in cooperation with the German Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS), looks at the complex issue of political party development over the period of 2001 to 2016, following up on a first paper published in 2006 and the parties’ impact on the nominally democratic system. AAN co-director Thomas Ruttig, who has been researching Afghan political party history for over 35 years, concludes that the parties have remained peripheral to the political system and that this is one key reason why the system is not progressing toward a more democratic political practice. In this introductory dispatch, which also serves as a short overview over developments not covered in the paper, he adds that this has not changed in the run-up to the upcoming parliamentary elections where parties, once again, will not play a major role.
The paper draws on and provides an update of the author’s 2006 paper on the same subject, published by Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS). It is based on research conducted during extensive fieldwork in Afghanistan between 2006 and 2016. It draws on a large number of interviews with political party leaders, activists and analysts, the many Afghanistan Analysts Network (AAN) publications on the Afghan political party scene since 2009 and other available literature. (You can find the list of AAN publications as an annex to the paper and as a separate dossier, here: add link).
The years since 2001 constitute the longest period in Afghanistan’s history during which political parties have been able to operate openly. For the first time parties are fully legal. Despite many shortcomings, they have become a reality within the polity of present-day Afghanistan. In reference to the democratic periods of 1947-52 and 1963-73, the post-2001 periofd could be dubbed Afghanistan’s “third democratic period.” But much of the democratic potential, particularly embodied in the political parties as a reflection of the country’s political diversity, has remained unused or even blocked. This is another similarity with both the 1947-52 and 1963-73 periods.
Notably, the three ideologically different historical political currents (Islamists, leftists and ethno-nationalists) have proven relatively stable since 2006, although to differing degrees. This cannot be said (yet) for the two new currents, the new democratic parties that openly emerged immediately after 2001 and the neo-Islamist groups that later became more prominent – and not for most existing political parties. The void in the centre of the political spectrum – ie the lack of a moderate, pro-government or pro-reform party – remains glaringly unoccupied.
A high degree of fragmentation and a personality-oriented character complicates the landscape for Afghanistan’s political parties.
Afghanistan’s laws regarding political parties and their participation in elections are highly ambivalent. As a result, while Afghanistan’s political parties are a political and legal reality today (as well as historically, with the first parties having emerged in the late 1940s) and while this system is constitutionally designed as a multi-party democracy, the parties cannot openly compete for power.
This is particularly the case in the parliamentary elections, where candidates are free to identify themselves as members of a certain party (although many do not), parties as such are unable to play an official role. Most significantly, in the current electoral system, which is individual-based, parties cannot field lists of their candidates, there are no parliamentary seats reserved for political parties, as in other countries, and parties are not allowed to establish factions in parliament. The latter provisions, even more paradoxically, have never been laid down in any legislation, yet they are still adhered to.
This situation also limits the necessity for inter-party competition and for the individual parties to tie members, sympathisers and potential voters closer to them. The level of political maturity, organisational stability and the internal democratic nature of Afghanistan’s political parties, remains low.
Legally, the parties are inherent to the political system, but in practice they remain outside it, or at least relegated to the sidelines. Their strength has never been measured by full and unhindered participation in elections. This has prevented any ‘natural selection’ based on voter mobilisation or the number of votes received, that usually curbs the number of political parties – which is seen as excessive by many in Afghanistan. This is what the author calls a “paradoxical system.”
More paradoxically, while parties as such have no place in the system as a result of an election, some of their leaders hold a very prominent place, as individuals, in the parallel political system built during the Karzai years. (This might by less so the case under the current government.) This has relegated the parties – ie their members and sympathisers – to a position where they mainly serve as voter mobilisation machines during times of election, while, in between elections, they drift back into insignificance and hold no influence on their leaders’ politics. Additionally, this has led to the emergence of a two-class party system, with some parties (or rather their leaders) within this parallel system and all other parties outside of it.
Optimistically put, Afghanistan’s political party system is still a system in the making.
Thomas Ruttig, AAN co-director and senior analyst, at KAS Kabul on 6 May 2018, presenting his new AAN paper about political parties development in Afghanistan (2001-16). Photo: AAN
Some post-2016 developments
The upcoming parliamentary elections, scheduled now for 20 October 2018 (AAN analysis here), are already casting a shadow. Political parties’ positioning, alliance building and re-aligning has already started (see for example AAN’s analysis here, here and here).
Electoral reform, however, including the envisioned strengthening of the role of political parties, has not happened (AAN analysis here). A last ditch effort by a broad coalition of parties, including some usually close to President Ashraf Ghani (see AAN’s analysis here) has apparently been warded off. This was not too difficult, as the proposal came late and was contradictory, as it would have required a lengthy legislative procedure which, in turn, would have jeopardised the 20 October election date – that parties simultaneously insisted must be respected at all costs.
After the 2016 peace deal with the government, Hezb-e Islami and its leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar returned to the country. Various wings and factions reunited, although one of them – that of former minister Abdul Hadi Arghandiwal – challenged that Hekmatyar could claim the party’s official registration (AAN analysis here) that was done under his name, leading to Arghandiwal’s expulsion by Hekmatyar (media reporting here).
After internal power struggles in the government, Jamiat-e Islami and Jombesh-e Melli Islami set up an opposition coalition, dubbed the ‘Ankara coalition’ by the public – while many of their leading figures still occupied government positions (AAN analysis here). Jombesh itself has been challenged by the launch of a New Jombesh (AAN analysis here). In Jamiat, a struggle is underway about who should be the permanent replacement for its assassinated leader Ustad Borhanuddin Rabbani (AAN analysis here).
Supporters of former President Hamed Karzai, who continues to harbour ambitions of a political comeback, formed a new political grouping but then distanced themselves somewhat from him again, following a series of controversial political statements (AAN analysis here). Afghan Mellat, one of the country’s oldest parties, split (media report here). Its long-term leader, former minister Anwar-ul-Haq Ahadi, joined hands with the former mujahedin party of Harakat-e Enqilab-e Eslami-e Afghanistan (Islamic Revolution Movement of Afghanistan) (AAN analysis here), in a New National Front (media report here). This alliance has come out as the most vocal group demanding an end to the NUG and a political system re-launch by a Loya Jirga.
On the left side of the spectrum, some politicians re-launched the Hezb-e Watan (Fatherland Party) (AAN analysis here). A party under the same name wasthe successorof the Soviet-backed Hezb-e Dimukratik-e Khalq-e Afghanistan (People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, PDPA), which ruled the country following a coup in 1978 and during the Soviet occupation (1979-89) and was revamped by President Najibullah in 1990 when he tried to shed its communist past (an AAN dossier here).
The on-going rift within the National Unity Government, embodied by the opposing positions of the president and Chief Executive Abdullah, over the implementation of the roll-out of an electronic ID card (AAN analysis here) that would double as a voter card has pushed Abdullah’s party, Jamiat, deeper into opposition.
Finally, President Ghani offered the Taleban a chance to participate in the upcoming elections as a political party (AAN analysis here) – which was promptly declined by the insurgents.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ), unlike in 2009 and 2013/14, has refrained from unleashing another ‘re-registration’ exercise again, although there were hints it might do so in 2015 (media report here). But pressure on the parties has been kept up, particularly on the political party law’s stipulation that each party must have a clearly visible, separate office in at least 24 provinces (and not only a rented backroom). This keeps a Sword of Damocles hanging over them, as almost none of them – not even the more affluent ones – has the financial or organisational capacity to adhere to this stipulation.
Afghanistan’s political parties will once again remain peripheral to the upcoming parliamentary elections. Although their number, ie those registered with the MoJ, has risen again to 74 (from 57 in mid-2016), there will be no seats reserved for parties in the lower house of parliament, the Wolesi Jirga, no political party lists of candidates and no party-based parliamentary groups or factions.
Publication date: 06 May 2018
The full report can be downloaded here.
This report is simultaneously published in German at the KAS’s Kabul office website, here.
There also will be an AAN dossier on Afghanistan’s political parties up here soon.
Opening of the presentation by Matthias Riesenhuber, head of the KAS country office in Kabul, and project manager Khalid Gharanai. Photo: KAS Kabul.
The European Defence Agency’s (EDA) ministerial Steering Board met this Saturday morning in Sofia under the chairmanship of HR/VP Federica Mogherini in her capacity as Head of the Agency. Defence ministers among other things welcomed the Agency’s progress on taking forward the new European defence initiatives and encouraged EDA to further develop initiatives in areas such as military mobility and the Main Battle Tank capability.
EDA plays a central role in many of the initiatives implementing the security and defence aspects of the EU Global Strategy presented by HR/VP Federica Mogherini in 2016. Federica Mogherini highlighted the Agency’s aim to support coherence between the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD), the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund (EDF) – using the Capability Development Plan (CDP) as baseline for developing the European capability landscape.
The currently ongoing revision of the CDP will be finalised by June 2018 and Defence Ministers highlighted the importance of ensuring coherence of output and timelines between EU and NATO defence planning processes. At the same time, an Overarching Strategic Research Agenda (OSRA) is being developed with a view to guiding future investments in collaborative European defence research. Ministers of Defence welcomed the progress achieved so far in the trial run of the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence implemented by EDA in its capacity as CARD Secretariat. The first CARD report will be presented in November 2018. EDA also supports Member States as part of the PESCO Secretariat. On 2 May, the PESCO Secretariat (EDA together with EEAS/EUMS) issued the second call for project proposals to PESCO participating Member States to be submitted by 31 July 2018.
Military Mobility
Regarding Military Mobility, and in line with the scope and timelines mentioned in the European Union Action Plan, the Agency is currently preparing two ambitious programmes on the harmonisation of military requirements related to customs and on cross border movement permission.
Both programmes aim at facilitating military mobility activities. The Agency together with the participating Member States will look at harmonising the military requirements related to customs. The programme on cross border movement permission builds on the successful Diplomatic Clearances arrangement which foresees annually issued clearance numbers for air transport aircraft. The arrangement has proven its value by reducing administrative burden and time. The new programme will build on this good practice by looking at surface movement to enhance military mobility for road, rail and inland waterways, also including air assets such as helicopters and air-to-air refuelling aircraft. The Agency’s work in this area is coordinated with the PESCO project on military mobility and conducted in close cooperation with the EEAS, EUMS, the Commission and other stakeholders. It is also coherent with respective NATO initiatives.
Main Battle Tank
Defence Ministers invited the Agency to pursue the development of the Pooling and Sharing initiative on Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) based on identified MBT surplus capacities in a number of Member States (Providers) and a demand for the acquisition of such assets in others (Receivers). The Agency together with national experts and industry investigated to what extent Providers could pool & share their surplus assets with interested Receivers and upgrade the MBTs to the latest configuration available. In addition, some Member States have voiced interest in upgrading their national fleets and keep them under full national control (Upgraders). The project will provide economies of scale throughout the entire life cycle while enhancing interoperability among Member States.
Cooperative Financial Mechanism & other topics
The Steering Board was informed about the progress achieved in the negotiation of the Programme Arrangement of the Cooperative Financial Mechanism. It is intended that the CFM will be structured around two pillars, one intergovernmental, and one involving the European Investment Bank as the sole lender for defence-related projects and programmes in line with its lending policy. Following calls from the European Council to support investments in defence research and development activities, the European Investment Bank and the European Defence Agency concluded a cooperation agreement on 28 February 2018.
Ministers welcomed closer interaction between EDA and NATO. They were also presented with lessons learnt on the successful implementation of the Pilot Project and the first work programme of the Preparatory Action on Defence Research by the Agency under delegation of the European Commission. Finally, the Steering Board welcomed the progress made with regard to the implementation of the dual-use strategy on RPAS regulation, based on close coordination with the European Commission, the SESAR Joint Undertaking and EASA.