Afghanistan’s current crisis and five years of Taliban rule have kept our people suspended in a deep predicament. Fronts have formed to fight against the existing tyranny and have taken some actions, but a close look at their activities reveals a very serious shortcoming. Beyond general slogans, press statements, and rudimentary charters, these fronts have not presented the people with a comprehensive, clear, and practical document. People still do not know what vision these groups truly have for governing the country, how well they understand today’s society, and whether they have a political program for tomorrow, or have simply slung a rifle over their shoulder. Most of these fronts are managed by people who held key positions and responsibilities in the former republic government. In principle, alongside the armed struggle, they should have offered a precise accounting of their past, explained the main causes of the republic’s collapse, and assured the people what fundamental changes they would make to their policies and conduct should they return to power. Reducing a cause solely to armed combat and focusing exclusively on guns is a fatal misdirection.
The history of political struggles has shown that guns without thought and organization ultimately either reproduce tyranny or are neutralized. Without an objective political program, a struggle cannot reach its conclusion, and the trust that society has lost cannot be rebuilt.
Our main problem today is not merely the presence of the Taliban or the interference of foreign powers, but the deep void that exists in the absence of political structure and thought. Society is, in effect, caught between two stones: on one side stands a ruling group that is driving the country toward ruin by closing schools and universities to girls, eliminating expertise, and relying on religious arrogance; on the other side are politicians frozen in their own past, who have not freed themselves from the shackles of parochialism and sectarianism.
Amid all this, the millions of educated people, women, young people, and members of the middle class who want a prosperous, democratic, and law-based country go unheard. The voice of this majority is lost in fragmentation, despair, and individual struggles. The greatest danger in such conditions is the passivity and despair of society’s conscious forces. Our problem is not a shortage of knowledgeable people, nor even the absence of reasonably constructive analysis in the media, but rather the lack of organization and stable institutions that could bring these scattered cadres together, provide intellectual backing to armed or civil struggle, and turn ideas into a genuine plan of action.
Individual effort, however enlightening, is like raindrops falling on thirsty soil that quickly dry up. Articles and media debates get lost in the daily flood of information and do not lead to immediate, lasting change. Individual work lacks three vital things. First, the accumulation of knowledge and systematic research: a single person cannot research all the complex dimensions of the economy, society, and politics alone, but an institution can offer objective analysis by relying on collective work. Second, credibility and a collective voice: when a position is put forward from the address of a specific institution, it gains weight and legal significance at the national and international levels. Third, the linking of theory to practice: even highly conscious individuals lack the capacity to act on their own ideas, and we need organizations and institutions to translate plans and theories into practice and to give direction to struggles on the ground.
A program and structure that is not project-based
The experience of the ruling group shows that the durability of their power stems less from any intellectual appeal than from their deeply rooted traditional structures, such as the madrasa system and the religious tax system. They use these same structures to train recruits, gather resources, and sustain themselves. By contrast, the parties and groups of the republic era, because of their project-based nature, their lack of organic contact with the people, and their lack of independent institutions, scattered like a bubble at the first political shock. Today’s armed fighters, if they fail to build an intellectual structure attuned to society’s real needs, will fall into a pit similar to the experience of the Islamic Republic, even if they achieve victory.
At the same time, such institutions and organizations must not turn into intellectual salons for debates detached from reality, or into project-based enterprises. The experience of the past republic era showed that project-based policies, because of their dependence on short-term funding and their focus on superficial aspects of issues, do not bring about fundamental transformation or build a lasting relationship with the people. Struggle, whether on the battlefield or in the political arena, requires intellectual work that arises from the real fabric of society and is rooted in the demands of the people.
The future political institutions, which must serve as the second wing of the current struggle, need a multi-stage program of action:
First, they must offer a concrete strategy for the transitional and post-Taliban period, and show how a national, democratic government can be reached out of Afghanistan’s harsh realities.
Second, they must identify and analyze the interests of peasants, workers, the urban middle class, women, and youth, and articulate their demands in simple, clear language.
Third, in the face of policies of anti-intellectualism and school closures, they must build intellectual authority and promote reason, science, and technology among the new generation, so that society can be rescued from the trap of superstition and fatalism.
Finally, by offering sustained analysis of the situation in the country, the region, and the world, they must clear the path for like-minded currents and fighters on the ground, so that guns are not fired blindly in the dark.
For this path not to go astray, collective work must rest on several fundamental, non-negotiable principles:
First, belief in the rule of law, democracy, and equal rights for all citizens regardless of ethnicity, language, and gender.
Second, a clear and unconditional line drawn against totalitarianism, religious arrogance, ethnic nationalism, and all the failed experiences of the factional and IRA eras that brought the country to this dark day.
Third, a practical commitment to education, balanced development, and the use of modern knowledge for rebuilding the homeland.
And fourth, submission to organizational discipline and acceptance of the truth that saving the country does not lie in the path of individual heroes, aimless guns, or backroom deals, but is only possible through systematic work, organization-building, and the creation of public trust.
Victory is possible
In the darkest periods, the greatest damage comes from losing hope and resigning oneself to the existing situation. Despair about change is precisely what despotic rulers want. But history has shown that no unjust, inhuman, and anti-scientific order lasts for long. The deep discontent that exists today among girls deprived of education, young people fearful of the future, and a hungry population shows society’s desire and hope for salvation. Hope is not naive optimism; hope is the product of reason, foresight, and practical action. Hopeful people are those who, beyond today’s darkness, have the capacity to see and build tomorrow.
Building institutions and organizations does not work miracles on its own, nor does it solve all problems overnight. But recognizing this need, and understanding this great deficiency, that guns without thought lead nowhere, places a moral and national responsibility on the shoulders of every conscious person. We must not wait for fully prepared, flawless plans or perfect consensus. Building institutions is itself the process of forming consensus and rebuilding trust. If we grasp this necessity, and gather with foresight and on democratic principles in circles, organizations, and political institutions, these points of support will quickly turn into a hopeful and transformative movement.
Younus Negah is a researcher and writer from Afghanistan who is currently in exile in Turkey.
