By Bipin Ghimire &
Reza Ehsan
Published at: South
Asia Monitor
In a country
devastated by wars and lacking national cohesion, Afghan civil activists have
consistently been in a state of alert to the unwanted and catastrophic events.
Fuelled by aid from international donors, civil activism in Afghanistan has had steady growth over the last decade during the involvement of the US and its allies
with the country.
Civil activism in
Afghanistan reached its peak in the last two years but failed to earn any
positive response from the government -- and accelerated by the direct attacks
of insurgent groups on the activists, it seems that civil activism in the
conflict-ridden nation is declining. An unprecedented democratic achievement is
facing a tragic death.
On November 11, 2015,
a mass of peaceful protestors surrounded the Presidential Palace in Kabul
demanding justice in the case of beheadings of seven members of the Hazara
community, including a seven-year-old girl, on the Kabul-Qandahar highway.
There was another
round of protests -- organised by the same activists -- on May 16, 2016, against
the re-routing of a power line project which was originally set to pass through
the Bamyan province (a Hazara-dominated province) of central Afghanistan.
However, the government apparently abandoned the previous plan and decided to
proceed through Salang pass, a new route. The protestors were accusing the
government of systematic discrimination against ethnic Hazaras who
predominantly inhabit the central provinces of Afghanistan.
A couple of months
later, on July 22, 2016, two explosions took place among the protestors during
their second round of protests, which resulted in 80 casualties and left more
than 231 injured. These protests became famous as 'The Enlightenment movement'.
After this explosion, the movement did not launch any further protests fearing
attacks.
Hitherto, the social
movements in Afghanistan have not been able to earn governments concessions.
This situation has raised two questions -- whether the civil movements are
failing or does the government intend to get rid of civil activism.
The Afghan government
has shown token acceptance of civil activism and democratic movements, merely
to attract aid and assistance from the liberal world, particularly from the US.
There are two reasons behind it -- the totalitarian tradition of governance,
which still casts its shadow over the conduct of the post-2001 bureaucrats and
the over-concentration on security politics.
The post-2001
government in Afghanistan is old wine in a new bottle which replicates the
1970s bureaucratic settings. The same bureaucrats from 1970s-1980s totalitarian
governments were recalled on the onset of Hamid Karzai's administration. Not
used to the democratic ways of governance, the Afghan officials lack both
accountability and transparency to the public or civil activists.
This lack of
democratic accountability is backed by the high political prioritisation on
security issues. Such an over-focus on high politics have led to not only the
official corps inherited from 1980s but also the President, a former World Bank
official, turning a blind eye to non-security issues.
Incumbent President
Ashraf Ghani, in one of his speeches to military officials, satirically
criticised the media saying "winds come out of TV channels, we count on
you; bombs come out of you". Many media activists interpreted his words as
not being sensitive to the media and popular opinion.
The decline of civil
activism may allow the Afghan state to carry on with its priorities without
civil griping in its ears. However, overwhelmed with its undemocratic
bureaucratic background and its traditional governmental setup in place, it is
prone to authoritarian rule.
The presence of the international community in the country since 2001 assisted civil activists to
create an internal self-re-correcting mechanism within the Afghan society which
constantly undercuts governmental aspirations for totalitarian behaviours.
To rescue the Afghan
civil activists, firstly, the Afghan government needs to create a safe
environment for their activities with specific protective measures to secure
them against attacks by terrorists and insurgents. Secondly, the government
should respond positively to their demands to keep civil movements alive which
in turn, encourages the armed opposition to seek their political demands through
civil activism.
(Bipin Ghimire is a
Doctoral fellow (International Relations) at the New Delhi-based South Asian
University. Reza Ehsan is pursuing MA in development economics at the same
institution. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent to
editor@spsindia.in)
