January 13, 2010 |  6 comments |  Print this Article | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Timor  Sharan

Topic Balancing Power Politics

Timor Sharan: Seventeen out of twenty-four proposed Afghan cabinet ministers were rejected by parliament in a clear reaction to Karzai’s capitulation to international pressure. How will the President balance his commitments to local power-brokers as well as international demands to stem corruption?

After almost fifty days of delays and speculations, when President Karzai announced his new cabinet on December 19, he largely gave in to pressure by international donors who demanded a clean and effectual cabinet to tackle corruption. On the other hand, he neglected his reciprocal promise of government positions to the main warlords and other political power-brokers who helped him get elected; who took vengeance in the form of Parliament’s recent rejection of 17 of Karzai’s proposed 24 cabinet ministers a few days ago.

A closer look at Karzai's cabinet composition since 2001 helps explain the present crisis of elite disunity and fragmentation. Their actions have had serious implications concerning the direction and nature of state-building in the country.

The Bonn Agreement of 2001 de jure agreed to a "broad-based, multi-ethnic, politically balanced" government. However, de facto power was largely dominated by the Northern Alliance (NA), and within that by a small Military Wing of Jamiat Tanzim who were predominantly from Panjshir valley. NA took 17 of the 30 government positions, which included most the important ministries: Defence, Interior, Foreign, Intelligence, Planning and Commerce. Two main Chairman and Finance positions went to Rome Group.

This was a "winner-takes-all" scenario in which the Northern Alliance, who had liberated Kabul and were in possession of the city, took the most. It was an imbalanced cabinet, over-representing some groups and under-representing others. The failure to codify de facto power-sharing relations at Bonn brought about a fierce internal struggle between different elites within the Afghan government.

From 2003, Karzai pursued a policy of repression where he attempted to eliminate the main NA elites from his cabinet. The period between 2002 to 2005 became a fierce internal power struggle and contestation between different government elites, in which president Karzai and his Afghan Millet – with strong pro-Pashtun nationalist ideology – and close allies Jalili and Ahadi stood on one side, and the Northern Alliance Jihadis, mainly Panjshiris on the other.

By 2004 there was only one more NA member left in the cabinet, Dr Abdullah. However, he was eventually replaced by Dadfar Spanta, a Hirati, in 2006. The NA Jihadi elites were effectively replaced with predominantly Southern Pashtun and Western educated technocrats: Defense (Wardak), Finance (Abdul Haq Ahadi), Interior (Jalali), Reconstruction (Arsala), Economy (Farhang) and Rehabilitation and Rural Development (Hanif Atmar). Karzai's repression policy went beyond this. By 2004 he managed to coercively co-opt Ismail Khan, Rashid Dostum and Gul Aga Shirzai, three of the country's most powerful warlords, through the offer of positions in the central government.

Since 2006, Karzai has complemented his policy of repression with the policy of accommodation in creating a complex network of relationships with commanders, tribal leaders, and other power brokers. The 2009 election was a reflection of this policy, when Karzai struck deals with the main power-brokers such as Dostum, Mohaqeq, and others in exchange for promises of cabinet positions, further status and privileges. The interesting question is whether Karzai has given in to the interests of these power-brokers or not?

Karzai's proposed cabinet, overall, can hardly be characterised as a significant change. Half of the cabinet consists of the key ministries is Karzai's old boy network, who have been around him since 2005. These are also mainly Western-educated technocrats who are strongly favored by donor countries. He has kept thirteen out of twenty four ministers including Ministers of Defense Abdul Rahim Wardak, Interior Hanif Atmar, and Finance Omar Zakhilwal. There are only eight new faces appointed to the second-ranking ministries of Social Security, Trade, Border and Tribal Affair, etc. However, it is interesting to observe that these new appointees are not backed by the main ethnic-regional power-brokers and warlords who got Karzai elected in the first place. Therefore, the recent rejection by parliament of 17 cabinet ministers was a reaction from these main power-brokers who are either themselves an MP in the parliament or have influential party members inside.

It seems that once again these powerful elites have illustrated and exercised their direct and indirect power over the president. It will be interesting to see how president Karzai can balance international pressure on one hand, and these ethnic-regional power-brokers on the other.

Timor Sharan is a British-Afghan and is pursuing a PhD at the University of Exeter focusing on post-conflict intervention and state-building in Afghanistan.

Related Material on Atlantic Community:

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Unregistered User

January 13, 2010

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
An insightful and thought-provoking article. Goes into a lot of the complexities that are so often omitted in standard analyses. Thank you for sharing your expertise.
 
Member deleted

January 13, 2010

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Afghanistan catches the public eye by cruel civil wars and bloody tribal rivalries for decades, if not centuries. In how far Afghanistan can survive within its contemporary borders?

Are Afghan mandate areas split in accordance to ethnic distributions among its population?

Weak or strong central government?

Would a splitting of the nation decrease Taliban influence among its population as ethnic homogeneous federal states could lead to a more optimist political process across the mandates?

Does the Uzbek (Russian minority) heavyweight among armed personnel indicate the next civil war with the Pashtu majority?

Very insightful piece, but I think that there are much more fundamental questions to be answered, and there is no sight of business as usual, actually.
 
Unregistered User

January 14, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I just loved it
 
Abbas  Daiyar

January 15, 2010

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Insightful analysis. The problem with international media is that in all their commentary, local politics of Afghanistan is not discussed, which shapes the mainstream politics in Kabul.
The rejection of 70% of Karzai's cabinet nominees was also reported and analyzed as per the surface-analysis from western "experts on Afghanistan" saying it was a political blow to Karzai. The fact is that the rejection of cabinet nominees was expected for Karzai. He wanted and lobbied for the same to happen. All important ministers like Defense, Interior, Education...got approved with heavy mandate, and all of them belonged to Pushtoon ethnicity. Being a Pushtoon, Karzai is under criticism from tribal leaders of Pushtoons, and the reason why he is increasingly shouting for civilian causalities is to gain popularity among his ethnic fellows. Civilian causality in a state of war is a phenomenon, which is happening since last eight years, while Karzai started the outcry from last year, months before 2009 elections.
The rejected nominees were mostly those suggested by the power-brokers, as Mr. Sharaan mentions in this article. Karzai could only win the elections by their support, thus promised them cabinet positions. And now breaking away his promises in way that to keep his words and try his tactics.
Previously, whenever Parliament called for impeachment of any cabinet member, Karzai did a campaign, bribed some members and shut up the parliament. When the President sends his cabinet nominees, he makes it sure they get approved. Prior to this, the President used to have a proper homework inside the Parliament in order to make sure his 70% nominations are not rejected. But this time, he played double-game inside the parliament to decrease the socio-political importance of his allies--the ethnic and regional power brokers--at the same time keep his promise to them, made before elections. In Afghanistan, when you are out of power, you are out of politics, and no influence in public! But the international community has no other option, Karzai is worse corrupt and inefficient, among a crowd of worst corrupt and inefficient Afghan leaders!
 
Bernhard  Lucke

January 15, 2010

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
excellent, thoughtful article which demonstrates how the situation in Afghanistan is connected with politics, not the military!

we face a gross political failure there which is, in my opinion, the root of the military successes of the Taliban
 
Member deleted

January 15, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Bernhard,

Could my questions above indicate political resolutions or not?
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?