._._._._._

Afghanistan is once again undergoing a profound political transition. Since 1973, the frequency of change in regimes and political systems have remained unusually high. Historically, this can be blamed on repeated foreign interference or direct military interventions in Afghanistan but apart from the role of foreign powers, internal dynamics of the country have also played a part in the mayhem that has scourged the country. The most important internal factor that has unmistakably contributed to the unrest, instability and chaos in the country is its ethnic divisions. How this factor played/contributed to the continued chaos and instability in the country requires critical enquiry.

The last census in Afghanistan was held in 1979 yet it remained incomplete primarily because it was conducted by a Soviet-backed government and the mujahedeen were fighting against the Soviet/Government forces, thus, the census teams could not go to the areas under mujahedeen control. According to recent estimates, the population of Afghanistan is around 40 million, which, in addition to multiple smaller groups, is divided into seven major ethnicities, i.e., Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Aimaq, Turkmen, and Balochis. The key historical factor that contributed towards this ethnic diversity in the country is repeated conquests by peripheral empires. These attackers, including Persians, Turks, Indians etc., conquered Afghanistan at different times and their descendants settled in various parts.

Amongst various ethnic groups, the Pashtuns are considered to be in majority, around 40 to 45 percent of the total population, yet each ethnic group also constitutes a majority in the region in which they reside. Pashtuns, being the largest ethnic group, consider it their right to govern Afghanistan, and historically they have done so. The other ethnic groups during Pashtun rule have remained marginalized. This has created a sense of alienation in these communities. During the US-sponsored post-Taliban era, the two Heads of State, Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani, were from the Pashtun community. People from other communities, like Abdullah Abdullah, Amrullah Saleh and General Abdur Rasheed Dostum, among others, were also part of the US-sponsored post-Taliban governments, but the sense of being marginalized remained.

Due to this unscrupulous marginalization of non-Pashtun communities in Afghanistan, voices are being raised in support of a decentralized Afghanistan arguing that the country should be divided into autonomous regions and governed by regional capitals. Historically, the central government used to control the provinces from Kabul. This trend continued during the Taliban regime and the US-sponsored post-Taliban era under the draft constitutions of 1998 and the 2004. Both proposed a centralized state with marginal administrative and political authority delegated to the provinces. Provincial governors were appointed by the central government and the provincial budgets were set by national ministries in Kabul. Advocates of centralized government argue that a confederate system can lead to further divisions in the country and allow warlords to create ethnic fiefdoms. Pashtuns support a centralized governance system as it allows them to effectively control the whole country.

In August 2021, when Taliban took over Kabul, they showed their willingness to form an inclusive interim government. However, the Western world and the Taliban had different interpretation of the word ‘inclusive.’ The international community wants a government that includes people from other ethnicities, who may be ideologically different from the Taliban, whereas the latter included people of other ethnicities, but only those who were part of their organization or who were ideologically aligned with them. Thus, the international community has abstained from recognizing the interim government.

Ethnicity, especially when beneficial to certain internal and external players, will continue to play a dominant role in the politics of Afghanistan. Therefore, the most likely and suitable political setup, though opposed by various quarters within the country, is a federal system with a parliamentary form of government, where all political parties are allowed to contest elections. Keeping in mind that no ethnic group is in absolute majority, under such a system, it is likely that a coalition government would be formed, thus, giving representation to other ethnicities in the corridors of power.

During the last two decades, the world has transformed. With advancement in technology and intensifying influence of social media, people around the world, including the people of Afghanistan, are more informed and take a stand for their rights. Those in power in Afghanistan need to realize that such an environment and its resultant stimulus has affected Afghanistan and its people as well. The tendency to rule the country with iron hands cannot be continued perpetually.

Zuhaib Anwar is a Researcher at  Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies, Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be reached at [email protected]

Image Source:   Witte Melissa de. “The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan has encouraged the Taliban to stake their future on the battlefield.” Stanford News, JULY 19, 2021. 


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »

Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status

On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power

Read More »

Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict

Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.

Read More »