Afghanistan's Transition in the Making
Series
Study
Afghanistan's Transition in the Making
Afghanistan represents a very particular case of military intervention-cum-statebuilding-cum-democratization with high levels of political and sociocultural violence,ideologically based grievances, intersectional cleavages, a paucity of meritocratic,
non-fragmented political elites, and scarcity of a close-knit social fabric in a sustained conflict and insurgency context.
Peace, security, and conflict resolution; democracy and institution-building;human rights and their protection – these are the things that were promised to nationaland international audiences on either side of the intervention theater at the start of this millennium. In the intervention society itself, Afghanistan, those promises were heard, acknowledged, and taken into serious consideration by actors who intended to pick their chance for sociopolitical change and for an end to the decades-long fighting and violence. Fast forward to late 2012, the same international intervention actors announce that the first transition period is about to be (more or less) successfully completed – so goes the narrative – in order for another one, a locally owned one, to begin. owever, 2014 might prove to be a watershed year in several ways, given the announced withdrawal of international troops from fghanistan and the planned series of crucial elections and their impact on the sociopolitical transition and peacebuilding process in Afghanistan. Questions arise regarding the direction and speed of the transformation, its timing, support in terms of presence (civil and/or military), resources, as well as monitoring and capacity-building by the international community. (Inter)national debates oscillate between opinions of «too late, too much,» «as good as it gets» / «good enough,» «too early, too little» to «staying engaged.» In national and international debates, some actors dominate while other voices are seldom present, acknowledged, or taken into consideration, regardless of previous promises and commitments of UN Resolution 1325: namely, acknowledging the voices of Afghan women. At the same time, women will be particularly and most likely significantly affected by the transition process – be it in terms of a possible powersharing deal or a reconciliation agreement between the government and the insurgents; be it in terms of safeguarding the gender-specific achievements of the past decade in the fields of education and health or socioeconomic and political participation; be it in terms of gender-specific vulnerabilities and lack of sustainable support
nets. Given the experiences made in previous decades, particularly from the early 1990s onwards, most of those interviewed are of the opinion that the space to lobby for and implement gender equality policies will ultimately shrink and that women’s rights might once again become a bargaining chip for a potential power-sharing deal, thereby circumcising women’s public engagement and access to state institutions. The fear is of an autocratic regression, a backward transitory cycle, or even a cancellation of achievements. The signs identified are the continuously and increasingly high levels of conflict and incidents of violence against women in areas under transition, and those that have yet to make the transition.
Building on a previous study on gendered aspects of Afghanistan’s political institution-building in 2007/2008, the current study traces the nexus of gender and the post-2014 transition through in-depth interviews with women rights activists and women parliamentarians conducted in Kabul in the first half of September 2012. Interviewees were questioned on their understandings and perceptions of: (i) issues, concerns, interests, and agendas of the post-2001 intervention as well as the post-2014 transition process; (ii) what «transition» actually means and encompasses; (iii) the impact of the transition process on the recently established political institutions, their work and agendas; (iv) the role of the international community post-2014; along with (v) visions for Afghanistan in 2024, one decade after the supposedly completed withdrawal and another decade of transformation.
non-fragmented political elites, and scarcity of a close-knit social fabric in a sustained conflict and insurgency context.
Peace, security, and conflict resolution; democracy and institution-building;human rights and their protection – these are the things that were promised to nationaland international audiences on either side of the intervention theater at the start of this millennium. In the intervention society itself, Afghanistan, those promises were heard, acknowledged, and taken into serious consideration by actors who intended to pick their chance for sociopolitical change and for an end to the decades-long fighting and violence. Fast forward to late 2012, the same international intervention actors announce that the first transition period is about to be (more or less) successfully completed – so goes the narrative – in order for another one, a locally owned one, to begin. owever, 2014 might prove to be a watershed year in several ways, given the announced withdrawal of international troops from fghanistan and the planned series of crucial elections and their impact on the sociopolitical transition and peacebuilding process in Afghanistan. Questions arise regarding the direction and speed of the transformation, its timing, support in terms of presence (civil and/or military), resources, as well as monitoring and capacity-building by the international community. (Inter)national debates oscillate between opinions of «too late, too much,» «as good as it gets» / «good enough,» «too early, too little» to «staying engaged.» In national and international debates, some actors dominate while other voices are seldom present, acknowledged, or taken into consideration, regardless of previous promises and commitments of UN Resolution 1325: namely, acknowledging the voices of Afghan women. At the same time, women will be particularly and most likely significantly affected by the transition process – be it in terms of a possible powersharing deal or a reconciliation agreement between the government and the insurgents; be it in terms of safeguarding the gender-specific achievements of the past decade in the fields of education and health or socioeconomic and political participation; be it in terms of gender-specific vulnerabilities and lack of sustainable support
nets. Given the experiences made in previous decades, particularly from the early 1990s onwards, most of those interviewed are of the opinion that the space to lobby for and implement gender equality policies will ultimately shrink and that women’s rights might once again become a bargaining chip for a potential power-sharing deal, thereby circumcising women’s public engagement and access to state institutions. The fear is of an autocratic regression, a backward transitory cycle, or even a cancellation of achievements. The signs identified are the continuously and increasingly high levels of conflict and incidents of violence against women in areas under transition, and those that have yet to make the transition.
Building on a previous study on gendered aspects of Afghanistan’s political institution-building in 2007/2008, the current study traces the nexus of gender and the post-2014 transition through in-depth interviews with women rights activists and women parliamentarians conducted in Kabul in the first half of September 2012. Interviewees were questioned on their understandings and perceptions of: (i) issues, concerns, interests, and agendas of the post-2001 intervention as well as the post-2014 transition process; (ii) what «transition» actually means and encompasses; (iii) the impact of the transition process on the recently established political institutions, their work and agendas; (iv) the role of the international community post-2014; along with (v) visions for Afghanistan in 2024, one decade after the supposedly completed withdrawal and another decade of transformation.
Product details
Date of Publication
December 2012
Publisher
Heinrich Böll Stiftung
Number of Pages
50
Licence
All rights reserved