Written by: Ahmad Fahimi
A few days ago, some of the fugitive figures held a ceremony in the city of Mashhad, Iran, to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the death of one of their commanders named “Hussain Anwari”.
Some political figures who could not attend the ceremony delivered speeches online and once again revealed their will and plans for the future of Afghanistan.
Ahmad Massoud, the leader of the so-called Resistance Front, in his speech, praised the infamous Afghan general, “Abdul Rashid Dostum,” and referring to his popularity and public standing, stated that if elections are held, Dostum would win against the current government.
Aside from the fact that the issue of elections holds no place or value in the Islamic culture and political tradition of the Afghan people, and was imposed on the country as an imported model during the occupation, which practically disappeared with the end of the occupation, it should be noted that comparing Dostum’s popularity and grassroots support with the current government is a clear and unrealistic miscalculation.
If Dostum had supporters in the past, a significant portion of them stemmed from military power, political influence, financial resources, and ethnic networks; not from a position rooted in the thoughts, beliefs, and heartfelt trust of the people. The best evidence for this claim is that whenever he was removed from power, many of his closest associates and commanders distanced themselves from him and even stood against him. This shows that the bond of many of his associates was based on interests, not belief and loyalty.
In contrast, the Islamic Emirate, lacking extensive financial resources and a governmental structure, was able to stand against the previous regime and its foreign supporters by relying on human resources, organizational cohesion, and its social and popular base, and eventually took control of the country with the unwavering support of the same people. This reality shows that comparing the social influence of the Islamic Emirate with the political position of Dostum is not a fair and equivalent comparison.
But the more important part of Ahmad Massoud’s speech is the message it conveys about his vision for the future of Afghanistan. When he introduces Abdul Rashid Dostum as a suitable figure for leadership and victory in the future, he is, in fact, showing that he still considers the same tested and failed figures of the past as his political capital and wants to build the future of Afghanistan with the very people who led the country to destruction.
Dostum is one of the infamous figures whose name is intertwined with internal wars, bloody power struggles, heavy crimes, and horrific massacres in the historical memory of Afghanistan. Whenever a political group’s hope is tied to such an individual, who is utterly despised and rejected by the people, it clearly shows that they have nothing better and brighter for Afghanistan’s future in their plans except for repeating the same dark twenty-year scenario.
Therefore, Ahmad Massoud’s words, rather than reflecting an objective reality and showcasing his good intentions for the future of Afghanistan, are an unintended confession of the intellectual and political deadlock of his faction; a faction that has no other plan for Afghanistan’s future than to bring back dark and treacherous figures—figures whose records are known to the people of Afghanistan for betrayal, looting and plundering public assets, dependency and servitude to foreign powers, internal bloodshed, and disgraceful deals with outsiders.
Note: The articles, essays, and comments published by the Voice of Hindukush only reflect the views of the authors & writers and do not necessarily represent the agreement of the Voice of Hindukush.