Socio-political and Ethnical History of Afghanistan and Bordering Countries/ Studies Territories in XX century: Domestic and External Aspects

Boyko, Vladimir. The Patterns of Statehood in Afghanistan (XX Century Experiences) // XX Century in the History of Central Asia. The Fifth International Association of Central Asian Studies Conference. Tashkent, 2004. ã p. 8 ã 9

This paper aims to map the main political concepts/discourses and patterns of statehood and conflict, that took place in Afghanistan along uneasy period of late 1920s - early 2000s, with focus on two civil wars: Inqilab of 1929 and recent/current warfare of late 1970s ã early 2000s. The basic feature of that situation was disintegration of Afghan state and the formation of some regional centers of power (with reference to Inqilab times - õKabulistanæ under the rule of outlaw Amir Habibullah Ghazi (Bacha-e Saqao), Kandahar õnational governmentæ by ousted King Amanullah-khan, õHerat Republicæ by Abdul Rahim-khan, coalitional networks by national minorities in Afghan Turkistan). The first argument of this paper is, that new Kabul regime was established by alliance of some regional elites (mainly Shamali, that is landlords of areas north Kabul), former Amanullah officials (disappointed, bribed, etc), fractions of traditional nobility and clergy. Politically it had been shaped by traditional and religious attitudes and policies, but sometimes de-facto followed some patterns, introduced by Amanullah. So, according to fresh data, drawn from Russian archives, õKabulistanæ experience was rather an effort of elite fraction to correct by force ill-managed and too radical Amanullahôreforms (and, subsequently, to move to highest decision-making positions), than nation-wide mutiny of minorities and traditionals, as it was stated by many authors in the field.

The most remarkable case of managerial regionalism was that in Herat: local ruler Abdul Rahim, formally pro-Saqavi, introduced a kind of quasi-republican semi-autonomous regime, shaped by partial people participation through representative body (mejlis) and public opinion, as well controlled progressivist opposition, all this - heavily counter-balanced by Sharia courts, military bureaucracy, and Rahimôs behind-the-scene maneuvering.

The efforts to establish autonomous North Afghan state were made by former Saqavi-Central Asian ÝmigrÝs, both - marginals on Afghan political scene to early 1930s. But their projects appeared to be just a tactical gesture without considerable prospects.

Neither Amanullah, nor his followers didnôt advanced fresh ideas, sufficient for their return to power ã King soon fled abroad, and Amanists, in their turn, had been speedily converted to clandestine opportunist grouping. Eventual, though fragile consensus in Afghanistan was accomplished through installation of liberal-moderate monarchic regime by influential Pashtun sardar Nadir-khan. This controversive socio-political network became an output of intra-Afghan fighting, as well external involvement by British, Soviets, etc. The conclusion comes: Afghanistan experienced within relatively short, but fateful Inqilab-early post-Inqilab era some new, ideological and political, versions of statehood, ranging from conservative elite-rotated Amarat to embryonic republic, each ã with primarily regional implication.

Recent developments and socio-political conflicts of late 1970s ã early 2000s demonstrated again, that some ethnical mistrust and clan/tribe contradictions are long-lived phenomena and influential factor of Afghan as well regional politics. At the same time these events heavily proved the implication and reference of local governance/self-governance patterns (Dustomôs quasi-state at Afghan North, de-facto semi-independent Hazarajat, good-shaped economically and politically Western Afghanistan area under Ismail-khan, etc). This experience and tradition should be taken into account during forthcoming Presidential. Parliament, and District elections in Afghanistan, scheduled for Fall 2004.