Political discipline is Mullah Hibatullah’s strength
Despite all his ugliness, Mullah Hibatullah has one undeniable advantage over his rivals: political discipline. While his political opponents still deny his importance — some even question his physical existence as others dismiss him as a pawn of foreign intelligence agencies — over time, he has made his authority undeniable by doggedly sticking to his positions.
There is no longer any doubt that Mullah Hibatullah and his inner circle have a clear agenda for Afghanistan. They do not participate in political maneuvering or intelligence deals without a plan. Instead, they have an agenda before sitting at negotiation tables or engaging in diplomatic tensions. In a country where most political cadres are without goals and are mere pawns of foreign powers, this trait makes Mullah Hibatullah stand out among Afghanistan’s political players.
During a crisis, political discipline is highly valued. Afghanistan’s history in the 20th century provides examples of authoritarian figures who demonstrated discipline and a clear vision for shaping society in addition to their tyranny. Nadir Khan, Daoud Khan, and Hafizullah Amin were such leaders.
After his short four-year rule, Mohammad Nadir Khan left behind a political legacy that his successors carried forward, leading to a prolonged period of authoritarian stability in Afghanistan. The administrative traditions and state institutions of modern Afghanistan took shape during this fifty-year period that began with Nadir and ended with Mohammad Daoud Khan.
Daoud Khan in two distinct periods as prime minister and another as president ruled for more than a decade and had ample time to pursue his political ambitions. Hafizullah Amin was another disciplined authoritarian with a plan who pursued it with discipline and brutality. He is famously quoted as saying that to build his vision of Afghanistan, it would be enough if just one million people survived. His political peers described him as hardworking, highly disciplined, ambitious, and methodical.
Authoritarianism, unilateral decision-making, and violence were the dark sides of these politicians. However, the political discipline they demonstrated in pursuing their goals and visions remains something that many Afghan politicians today can only envy.
The years of jihad and the two decades of the Islamic Republic were marked by a decided lack of discipline and lack of planning. Violence and crude authoritarianism were accompanied by short-sighted opportunism. Some concealed their lack of planning behind vague Islamist rhetoric while others disguised their lack of discipline under the label of democracy: jihadi leaders had no structured plans for Islamic governance beyond their populist slogans while those who wore the cloak of democracy really did not believe in democratic values.
Take Ashraf Ghani, for example. Despite his talk of five-year, 10-year, and even 100-year plans, in practice, he was an unprincipled politician who constantly made concessions to his inner circle, rivals, and patrons to maintain his grip on power. Despite his liberal pretensions, he was willing to compromise on his principles to keep his position.
In the final years of his presidency, he clung tightly to the Arg (presidential palace), saying, “Take everything from me, but not this seat.” To keep it, he was ready to Talibanize the Ministry of Education, release Taliban prisoners, divert the country’s meager revenues to funding extremist madrasas, and, quite possibly, even negotiate away the constitution itself. One of his absurd plans to gain favour among traditionalist factions was the construction of a mosque in Kabul, for which soil was supposed to be brought from every district of Afghanistan. And his plan to merge madrasas with modern schools, a move backed by minister of education Rangina Hamidi, who once said that children should study in mosques until the third grade.
The fundamental flaw of Ashraf Ghani, Rangina Hamidi, and their ilk was their lack of political discipline. They had no clear vision for Afghanistan’s future and did not systematically work to achieve their stated goals.
Imagine if leaders of the Republic had been as committed to democracy, freedom of speech, universal education, and development as Mullah Hibatullah is to banning education, closing the doors of freedom, and rejecting elections, the constitution, and the right to vote — would the outcome have been different? The anti-Taliban forces and those who believed in education, freedom, and a democratic system were not numerically smaller than the Taliban. But they lacked political organization and dedicated disciplined leadership.
Another example of the gap between Mullah Hibatullah and his rivals is their approach to family and personal sacrifice.
In the final years of the Islamic Republic, while Mullah Hibatullah was losing family members in battle against the government and its allies — and had even sent his own son on a suicide mission — Ashraf Ghani was accused of relocating the National Radio and Television archives to the presidential palace so that his daughter could safely access them for her research project. Meanwhile, Ata Mohammad Noor, Mohaqiq, Khalili, Dostum, and others were busy promoting their sons’ political careers.
After the young son of Mohammad Mohaqiq passed away in 2020, the prominent politician spent a long time in mourning, commemorating his son’s memory in a way that seemed to have become his main preoccupation, including sharing photos and memories on Facebook and writing elegies for his dead son.
From the perspective of an ordinary person living in a normal society, the way Ghani and Mohaqiq prioritized their families over political struggles may seem more justifiable than Hibatullah’s choices. But Afghanistan’s political world is far from normal, especially in the final decade of the Islamic Republic when the country had turned into a battleground—a place where constant vigilance, discipline, and relentless effort were essential for survival.
This lack of discipline and complacency was not limited to individual leaders but was a broader issue affecting the entire anti-Taliban, pro-democracy camp. The organizations, institutions, and figures who identified as defenders of freedom and a non-Taliban system were unwilling to take risks to protect their values. They were not ready to endure the hardships of discipline and organization, and as a result, waves of political change swept them away, throwing them into a deep pit from which escape is no easy task.
Today, Mullah Hibatullah is widely condemned for his inhumane policies — even his own allies, executioners, and terrorists hesitate to be associated too closely with his brutality. But alongside his many undeniable flaws, one uncomfortable truth remains: no other prominent Afghan political figure today is willing to take personal risks for their “cause” the way he has.
The new generation of Afghan politicians must learn from this reality. Governing a deeply unstable country without political discipline and personal sacrifice is impossible. If you wish to defeat Mullah Hibatullah and the Taliban, at the very least, you must be steadfast in pursuing your ideals and work tirelessly for the country you wish to build.
Younus Negah is a researcher and writer from Afghanistan who is currently in exile in Turkey.
