Human society has started from khanate and al-Tawaifi monarchies and has progressed to the system of liberal democracy. In the meantime, different types of political systems have been experienced. In the policy market, no property has been presented as a general and permanent version until now, sometimes if a claim is made, it remains as much as the claim; Such as the claims of Machiavelli and Huntington regarding the permanent superiority of the liberal democracy system as a discourse chapter of government types. Which type of government is appropriate and useful depends on the nature of the political system, the rate of economic growth, the level of public knowledge, per capita income, the collective political wisdom of a nation, and the like.
One of the types of systems that have been experienced and produced good results, even in developed or developing countries, is federalism.
Federalism in its nature has undeniable advantages and like other types of government, it originated from the inevitabilities and bottlenecks of human political history and was born as a result of experience; therefore, it has good maturity.
Political systems are a large category of first world and developed political units, federal. At the same time, it cannot be considered a good natured and inherently good system, it has disadvantages that are extremely worthy of consideration.
Federalism is good
Federalism in its nature is neither good nor bad, it has advantages and disadvantages, and the key to its advantages is the division of power between the central government and the state governments. One of the permanent and corrupting sources of governance is excessive concentration of power, because power is corrupting. According to the words of the Holy Qur'an: "Indeed, man starts to rebel because he sees himself without need". The more unbridled power becomes, the more corrupt it becomes. Looking at this and other advantages, the federal system is defensible, especially in political units with high cultural, ethnic diversity and the like; Like India and the United States, it has given positive results.
Due to its dual nature, federalism, like other contemporary phenomena, is a double-edged sword. If it is not used correctly, it may cure pain, but it creates pain. It depends on the context and context of its application. We have phenomena like this, the obvious example of which is the Internet, the Internet may have one meaning among Eastern people and a different meaning in the eyes of Western people, and this difference is due to the social background and not because of the nature of the Internet.
In other words, whether the federal system is good or not depends on the time frame, social structures and intellectual paradigm of a nation and a land. Those who say that federalism is good, or those who are in favor of the federalism system in Afghanistan, only consider it in terms of and the status of a category is also read in the heart of books and articles, so they find it very beautiful, attractive and effective. When we imagine it in the guise of a socio-political phenomenon that we are supposed to deal with on a daily basis, that too in a society like Afghanistan, the opinion of its supporters will probably change. At the end of the story, federalism is not inherently bad, nor is it inherently good.
Federalism is bad
Experience has shown that new phenomena, before they are presented in the society, if they are not established, contextualized, and cultured, not only the desired result is not achieved, but sometimes it gives the opposite result, for example, the phenomenon He pointed out tangible and tangible things such as urbanization, social networks, parts of technology that are directly related to people's lives, etc. In the mentioned cases, before the product is offered in the society, the culture of using it should be promoted and communicated, otherwise it will not fit the mood of the society like a food that is difficult to digest.
Federalism is of this category, in the absence of a suitable platform, not only is it not a solution but it acts as a deadly poison; Since the topic of our discussion is "federal system in Afghanistan", it is appropriate to make a decision with a little help.
A country with such a structure, with such an economic situation, with a unique and strange intellectual paradigm, can it still be immediately claimed that the federal system is the answer to the political problems of this country?
In recent years, among the many bitter experiences we had, one was the bitter experience of "Islands of Power". If we divide the wasted opportunities into 100 parts, 90 of them were due to the obstruction of the local powers of the provinces, there was someone in the north, someone in the south, and those in the east and west who did not determine their share of the development projects. They did not allow the implementation of the project.
Of course, the discussion of individuals is also of low importance, the main problem is the public spirit that governs the social structure of Afghanistan, if this case had proceeded according to the wishes of the Enlightenment movement, no harm would have come to their opponents, but the other side would have received a negative pint. And that was why the word of the illumination movement should sit on the chair. And we experienced hundreds of such cases in practice.
All this while we had a central government with relative authority, let's assume that it is a federal government, won't the south and the north clash over such interests at any moment?
Federalism is good when we have at least 50% of the conditions to become a nation, we are still pieces together and not attached to each other, we are separate nations with different demands, with slogans and discourses that may be contradictory and contradictory, separate from each other and side by side. We are too In such a situation, the medicine for our pain is a centralized, powerful, justice-based government It is social with a national approach.
The federal system in the current situation is deadly poison for Afghanistan and leads the country to disintegration. Those who make this proposal and follow it, either do not have a correct understanding of the current situation in Afghanistan, or their work is a project, or they do not want the good of Afghanistan.