The UN and Afghanistan: Contentions in Democratization and Statebuilding

Abstract

Following more than a decade of NATO's intervention in Afghanistan, it is often argued that the UN, alongside its international partners and the Afghan government, has failed to facilitate good governance and a stable democratic political order. In charting the evolving UN role in 'democratizing' Afghanistan, this article analyses why this is so. The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), facing considerable historical and institutional constraints, has had neither the will nor the capacity to implement its ambitious democratization mandate. Instead of aiming for a system of governance along 'Western' lines, it should focus primarily on promoting an appropriate, institutionalized, workable political order, regional consensus, and national reconciliation as the necessary foundations for bringing peace and stability to the country.

Mirage or Oasis? Assessing the Role of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan

“…During the US presence, UNAMA focused on two key elements: (1) politics and (2) humanitarian assistance and/or development. In 2002, the UN urged the Afghan government to establish an emergency Loya Jirga for political legitimacy (Saikal 2012). The Loya Jirga is a traditional Afghan institution that has been used throughout history as a means of bringing together representatives from various tribes and regions to discuss and resolve important issues (Smith 2019).…”

“…In addition, UNAMA has focused on counter-drug trafficking as part of its mandate, developing national drug control strategies and bolstering Afghanistan's police and judicial capabilities for combating opium production and smuggling. The United Nations Office on Narcotic Drugs and Crimes provides significant assistance to Afghanistan police to fight opium production and smuggling (Saikal 2012). Despite some improvements, including police training and infrastructure enhancement, UN efforts have not fully succeeded in curbing Afghanistan's role in the global opium trade (UNA-USA 2019).…”

“…During the US intervention, UNAMA effectively coordinated international aid in Afghanistan, working closely with the national government to optimize resource allocation and development efforts (Saikal 2012; see also Figure 4). Since the 2002 Tokyo donor conference, the Afghan government and UNAMA have collaborated with international donors on reconstruction and peacebuilding projects, with UNAMA also coordinating UN humanitarian activities (Margesson 2010).…”

“…UNAMA undertakes critical tasks in democratization and election management in Afghanistan, aligning with US priorities for stability in the country. Afghan society is made up of various religious, linguistic, and ethnic sects, they have never had a culture and tradition of democracy (Saikal 2012). Historically, Afghanistan has been dominated by authoritarianism, Islamic conservatism, and social divisions that create serious constraints to democratization.…”

A grounded theory of local ownership as meta-conflict in Afghanistan

“…The case of Afghanistan has presented one of the world’s most challenging environments for internationally sponsored political reform. Liberal peacebuilding intervention has targeted non-liberal aspects of the Afghan state with technical assistance and capacity-building programmes (Goodhand and Sedra, 2013: 242) in the hopes of producing a multi-ethnic representative democracy – essentially requiring the stunning transformation of a staunchly traditional Islamic society into a secular liberal one (Saikal, 2012: 217). This article focuses on these activities as frontline interactions between external peacebuilders and their domestic counterparts, wherein external conceptions of how to achieve political objectives are prioritised in spite of local politics and institutional culture.…”