Sarwar Danish, the former Vice President to Ashraf Ghani, has established “Justice and Freedom,” a new political party that seeks to fight ‘tyranny and oppression,’ in Afghanistan. Danish is the latest to establish a political party. Not that long ago, Hanif Atmar, who was often an opponent of the Ghani administration, made a similar announcement, revealing his own version — ‘Peace and Justice‘ party. The obvious question is, does Afghanistan need more political parties?
Some have pointed out that Danish and Atmar have a checkered history and should not be allowed to participate in the political arena. To be fair, one would be hard-pressed to find an Afghan politician who can claim otherwise. This Reuters report details Atmar’s resignation in 2018, when he resigned from his post as Ghani’s security advisor, citing “serious differences over policies and principles with [the] government leadership.”
Atmar could have very well used the phrase, ‘”irreconcilable differences” to indicate his discontent with how things were ran at the time. It would make sense because Afghans do not know of many happy political marriages. Too often, rivals seem to place their own wants above political unity and, therefore, above peace. Lacking marriage counseling and an inability to listen to each other sincerely, Afghan politicians have often resorted to violence — at least on numerous occasions.
So, the question remains: what exactly are Danish and Atmar hoping to achieve with their newly established political parties?
The answer will depend much on what one aims to achieve. Lacking a good track record, one must assume that both are attempting to repeat history. It should go without saying that this too-often-repeated cycle of politicians making new political parties will lead to the same catastrophic results. It would be wiser to ask questions on how one can cultivate a political arena where individuals do not immediately resort to seeing each other as rivals but instead as counterparts in the same democratic process. Answering the former leads to favoritism and other biases, whereas answering the latter would require an earnest discussion.
Afghanistan has a long history of political actors, all of whom vie for attention yet offer little if any serious ability to establish the grounds for a serious discussion.
It would be much wiser for these gentlemen to take a break from establishing new political parties – at least for a while; and rather focus on lending ears. Perhaps it is time that marriage counseling is given a chance when all else has failed.
Much like romantic ‘love triangles,’ political rivals tend to pursue their objects of desire even if death seems imminent. A glance at the past few decades of Afghan politics tells the same tale. If it is not possible for the object of desire to be shared amongst the rivals, then the only path to avoid a violent conflict is if the rivals step away from the scene through de-escalation.
Perhaps both Danish and Atmar, despite their complicated histories, have kind intentions toward the Afghan people. But we have all seen the same disappointing cycles again and again without much relief for the misery of the Afghan people. Something has to change.
