In World Leadership I talk much about the challenge faced by emerging nation-states and I offer perspective on one such state in particular. I assert that Afghanistan would be better served by a monarchy than the republic it currently has, given the difficulties it has faced in making that republic work. I offer that this could eventually morph into a constitutional monarchy in the future.
I was at a New Year’s party on the first day of 2018, and I bumped into a recent emigre from Afghanistan. After discerning his willingness to discuss the subject, I ran by him my idea on Afghanistan’s state of governance and the benefits of moving back to a monarchy, or at least to a constitutional monarchy. While he acknowledged that it would likely work better performance-wise, he introduced a complicating factor.
He said that since 2003, when the Afghans established their republic, they have become sold on the idea of democracy as a way of leveling the playing field. In tribal Afghanistan, the Pashtuns had been the dominant power and one hope was that democracy would give other tribes greater influence in society’s affairs. So, while the republic may not be working very well, most Afghans are willing to tolerate it to preserve a more egalitarian society. They’re just waiting for something new to come along—some change, some tweak, some new arrangement that will make democracy function better for them.
This trade-off underscores the challenges often faced when societies transition forms of governance. In this case, many Afghans would rather tolerate poor nation-state governance than go back to the tribal inequality of a monarchy. Perhaps that “new something” they hope to find will come in the form of a compromise that levels the tribal playing field while maintaining the authority needed to govern. Developing the mechanisms needed to support this would be a good place to start looking for it.
No responses yet