Before explaining the title, we must first answer a question: Why do coalitions form? Before addressing the issue of coalition dissolution, it’s important to explore the reason for coalition creation.
When several individuals are unable to achieve a goal on their own, they join forces with others; either due to a weakness in their power or against a common enemy or threat. Many coalitions are formed on the basis of opposition, not shared ideology. To establish political legitimacy, groups want to appear organized, representative, and serious. Or, after the failure of old structures; when old frameworks fail, a new name and a new coalition are formed. Or, for the conquest and propaganda of the media, some coalitions are created not for practical purposes but for show. In short, a coalition is formed when loneliness reaches its peak of dissolution.
Considering the reasons why a group, groups, or individual efforts are at risk of weakness and dissolution, they then attempt to unite as a last resort, remembering the saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” They then see their enemy in the enemies of their enemy and choose as an ally someone who is hostile to their enemy, forming a common coalition with them. This common coalition is at risk of disintegration every moment after its formation because each side has its own agenda, leading to rapid conflicts. The leadership of such coalitions is shared and weak, and the shared leadership is often unable to make decisions. Coalitions based on expediency rather than principles do not last and can not be an alternative, just as a clash of ideas behind the structure destroys everything.
Coalitions become a credible alternative when they are born from the needs of the people, the fabric of society, and a clear program; however, most of the coalitions of the last four years, including the final coalition for coordination, are emotional reactions to the feeling of losing power, not the product of nation-building thought. This is also why there is no common goal, no unified stance, and no cohesive leadership among them; when a foundation is built on a sense of reaction, the result is naturally fragmentation.
Another fundamental reason for the conflicts between coalitions is the leadership crisis. These coalitions largely revolve around figures who either have a history of internal conflicts, lack popular legitimacy, or carry the burden of past failures. These structures are tainted by the accusation of foreign support. Some think they can bring about change with the help of foreign players, while international politics no longer buys spent figures.
These coalitions are not alternative but rather new evils of a fallen republic. Instead, the nation calls alternative to those who offer new ideas, a new language, and practical solutions to problems, rather than repeating old slogans under the guise of a new form. Therefore, addresses and similar structures under the names of Resistance and others still can not attract public attention.
The Afghan government is getting stronger day by day against the opposition coalitions because it has a single center, unified decision-making, security dominance, and administrative continuity. I prefer stability over ambiguous alliances. Until coalitions overcome personality-driven politics, power-seeking, and foreign dependence, they will neither endure nor serve as an alternative.
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.