PDA

View Full Version : Loya Jirga!


Paul Siraisi
09-12-2009, 08:28 AM
To Save Afghanistan, Look to Its Past
ANSAR RAHEL and JON KRAKAUER, NY Times, September 10, 2009

NO matter who is ultimately certified as the winner of Afghanistan’s presidential election, the vote was plagued by so much fraud and violence, and had such low turnout, that it is inconceivable the Afghan people will regard the victor as a legitimate leader. And if a majority of Afghans do not consider the president and his government to be legitimate, the military campaign now being waged by the United States and its allies is doomed to fail, regardless of the number of troops deployed.

Current discussions about cobbling together mistrustful factions into a new power-sharing government will produce neither enduring democracy nor short-term peace. The slate must be wiped clean. Afghans need to start again from scratch and choose their leader by a fresh process that restores legitimacy to the national government.

Fortunately, such a process already exists — one that is both highly respected by the Afghan people and recognized in the Afghan Constitution: the convening of an emergency loya jirga, or grand assembly. The loya jirga has been called in times of national crisis in Afghanistan for centuries. In 1747, such an assembly in Kandahar selected Ahmad Shah Durrani as the first king of Afghanistan, uniting a patchwork of contentious tribal entities into the modern Afghan state. The loya jirga, moreover, is not only deeply rooted in Pashtun tradition, but is also consistent with notions of Western representative democracy.

Afghan society remains predominantly illiterate, agrarian and tribal. Indeed, the last king of Afghanistan, Mohammad Zahir Shah, often referred to himself as the “chief of all tribes.” Local disputes are routinely resolved by tribal elders seated on the ground in a circle, a gathering known as a jirga (or a shura in non-Pashtun regions). A loya jirga is, essentially, the same process on a much grander scale: an immense assembly of esteemed tribal leaders designated to debate issues of utmost national importance. Unlike presidential elections, which strike most Afghans as alien and fundamentally suspect, jirgas of all sizes are trusted and utterly familiar institutions.

According to the Constitution (which was itself ratified by a loya jirga in 2004), such a council can be convened “to decide on issues related to independence, national sovereignty, territorial integrity as well as supreme national interests.” Doing so does not depend on the support of any particular individual or group, including the president. While historically it was the king who most often initiated the process, the House of People, one of the two houses of Parliament, can directly convene a loya jirga at any time.

The Constitution further states that neither the president nor his ministers nor members of the Supreme Court have voting rights in a loya jirga; those are reserved for members of both houses of the Parliament and the provincial and district leaders. While in session, it trumps all other bodies of government. As the Afghan Constitution unambiguously declares: “The loya jirga is the highest manifestation of the will of the people of Afghanistan.”
....


I hope that gets listened to, fast.

And by the way, does Congress have a public web forum?

zibber
09-12-2009, 08:40 AM
Let's first make sure every single American involved in international crimes gets tried before the International Court (in The Hague). This would be more than fair; it is necessary in order for the IC to remain a serious, meaningful institution.

(By the way: Jon Krakauer, nice. I was just talking about Into the Wild the other day.)

RBM
09-12-2009, 09:14 AM
I hope that gets listened to, fast.

Since that has achieved status of being reported, I feel pretty sure it's in the US information pipeline. The problem of legitimacy solved by a loya jirga is waaaaaay down the list of problems to be solved. It is so far down the political/military problems of US/Afghan policy, it's inconsequential.

Paul Siraisi
09-25-2009, 05:29 AM
Let's first make sure every single American involved in international crimes gets tried before the International Court (in The Hague). This would be more than fair; it is necessary in order for the IC to remain a serious, meaningful institution.



Huh?





Paul Siraisi added to this post, 3 minutes and 39 seconds later...

Since that has achieved status of being reported, I feel pretty sure it's in the US information pipeline. The problem of legitimacy solved by a loya jirga is waaaaaay down the list of problems to be solved. It is so far down the political/military problems of US/Afghan policy, it's inconsequential.

My point exactly. So it's not being listened to.

Yet being able to call the government a puppet regime has got to be one of the pillars of the increasingly successful Taliban counter-effort

We are sooo stupid.

jesse
09-25-2009, 05:51 AM
What if a Loya Jirga is convened and they decide by majority to adopt Taliban rule yet again? I doubt this will be honored, just look at what happened in Palestine when Hamas won the popular vote back in 2007. Everye significant political entity is boycotting them because they are so-called terrorists in their perception which means their democratic win is invalid. So much for listening to the will of the people eh? :D

Before anything happens, the foreign armed forces participating in Afghanistan need to stop wasting their time in fighting the abstract enemy and start enforcing peace while remaining in the background. No one will take democracy seriously because there is no stability and to be honest, democracy will not even work in an environment like this and it should not even be attempted before a functioning law enforcement framework is in place and everyon gets the impression their views may count for something.

It is my opinion that nothing sells better than leading by example. Exporting liberty and democracy via gunpoint is not going to be taken kindly and is doomed to fail because it is really nothing more than a glorified imposition of one's own values into a host culture.

Let's first make sure every single American involved in international crimes gets tried before the International Court (in The Hague). This would be more than fair; it is necessary in order for the IC to remain a serious, meaningful institution.

(By the way: Jon Krakauer, nice. I was just talking about Into the Wild the other day.)

How is this relevant to the OP?
Until the US, which is very unlikely to begin with, comes on board and signs up for the ICC in The Hague, no one will be prosecuted. Secondly, the ICC is an institution I find highly politilized and ineffective. The big fish have all died or committed suicide while having their cases heard.

larkin
09-25-2009, 06:23 AM
Yes, the government of Afghanistan lacks political legitimacy; editorials claiming the jirga (which already exists, and lacks authority) is the solution are naive.

*also, for better or worse, these editorials presume that political legitimacy is the overriding priority for the U.S. government/coalition forces regarding the government of Afghanistan.

Paul Siraisi
09-26-2009, 12:29 AM
What if a Loya Jirga is convened and they decide by majority to adopt Taliban rule yet again? I doubt this will be honored, just look at what happened in Palestine when Hamas won the popular vote back in 2007. Everye significant political entity is boycotting them because they are so-called terrorists in their perception which means their democratic win is invalid. So much for listening to the will of the people eh? :D


From what I've heard, and I believe it, the Taliban really aren't all that popular. They just threaten people with death if they don't cooperate. The one thing the US could do--still legitimately, I think--is ban Taliban sympathizers from any loya jirga.



Before anything happens, the foreign armed forces participating in Afghanistan need to stop wasting their time in fighting the abstract enemy and start enforcing peace while remaining in the background. No one will take democracy seriously because there is no stability and to be honest, democracy will not even work in an environment like this and it should not even be attempted before a functioning law enforcement framework is in place and everyon gets the impression their views may count for something.

Good point, and the military proposal on the table right now is for more troops to be able to do just that. There are definitely too few there right now to guarantee security.


It is my opinion that nothing sells better than leading by example. Exporting liberty and democracy via gunpoint is not going to be taken kindly and is doomed to fail because it is really nothing more than a glorified imposition of one's own values into a host culture.


Sure.


How is this relevant to the OP?
Until the US, which is very unlikely to begin with, comes on board and signs up for the ICC in The Hague, no one will be prosecuted.


I must be missing something. Who needs to get prosecuted in Afghanistan?


Secondly, the ICC is an institution I find highly politilized and ineffective. The big fish have all died or committed suicide while having their cases heard.

I kind of like the fact that it's there. It represents an opinion that there exists a global right and wrong. It's not all good.

No one is answering my question about a Congressional web forum.





Paul Siraisi added to this post, 5 minutes and 30 seconds later...

Yes, the government of Afghanistan lacks political legitimacy; editorials claiming the jirga (which already exists, and lacks authority) is the solution are naive.

As I understood it, the loya jirga is not a standing body. So no particular one exists right now. It's an ad hoc super-size jirga.

The current Afghan constitution was established by a loya jirga.

Why is it naive to think an election in that format would produce a legitimate government?



*also, for better or worse, these editorials presume that political legitimacy is the overriding priority for the U.S. government/coalition forces regarding the government of Afghanistan.

No they do not presume that. They are raising the issue because they think it is being overlooked, as it obviously is. Once again, I hope someone listens to them.