Dear friends!
The developments in Afghanistan are entering a new stage now; obviously under the pressure of certain realities and devices, which are undoubtedly misleading and inaccurate. The idea, that Afghanistan is good only for a conservative system has been withdrawn. Instead, now, under the support of international community, the idea of establishing a civil-state in Afghanistan, is taken for consideration. The “Bonn conference for Afghanistan” opens a way towards this very motive. The situation encourages growth of new forces in the Afghan Society, the major inclination of which is a move from dispersion towards centrality.
Amongst this, could we serve our efforts to cross the bridge progress from dispersion towards a common political platform?
What is our position?
Do we have answers for the newly emerged issues of our country, which invalidates our earlier thoughts? Or we have had only a single recipe and without learning from life experiences and the undeniable realities, we still recommend the same worn-out recipe?
Should we convert our threads back to cotton and weave a new fabric or should we only put a patch on holes and spots?
Have we ever paid the slightest attention that each patch, made by this old botcher, and puts a more disheveled burden on our shoulders?
1. The scuffles which are to be addressed now and, if we are really heading towards the future, then, we need to clarify them. One is the question of ”National Reconciliation”. Whom does it belong to?
Surprisingly, those who, both in idea and practice, paid every bit of, planned and unplanned, hostility against National Reconciliation, are claiming (that the idea of) the National Reconciliation belongs to them.
“National Reconciliation” is not an individual idea. It is rather the most significant product of the Afghan modern political thought, to which, we should, consciously and conscientiously, remain grateful. Also, to perceive the relation of its essence with the question of emancipating the present Afghan dilemma, we ought to perform new and serious works. In Afghanistan, from the historical view, the NR has its roots in the era of “Constitutional Movement”, where the solutions for the problems of the country were sought out through reconciliation and peaceful methods and not through bloodshed and fatality. NR, as a political concept, was addressed through the 16th plenum of the Central Committee of PDPA. At that time the permission of using and the “credibility” of this concept was counseled (dictated) from the external sources as well. The suggestion of this concept and the “Ten Theses”, in which this concept was framed at that of time, were, more than anything, given the fact that PDPA has faced fundamental and methodical difficulties in ratiocinating the idea and practice of what was named “Sour Revolution”. Though as usual, efforts were made to change the matter and connect it to the Soviet leadership. This fundamental fact was constantly hidden away that the ideological and practical crisis and troubles of the PDPA were deeply domestic by nature. At this point of time, the NR was set-forth on the basis, and the the purpose of “developing a social platform for the rule of the people”. The intention from the Reconciliation, at this period of time was to preserve and continue the present system. The system itself, its theoretical and political principles, the sources providing legitimacy to it and its elicitation from the posture of the country, reasons and sources of the warfare in Afghanistan remained untouched. That is to say that, the National Reconciliation, in spite of being supported by the “theses”, was limited within the methodical measures. The Reconciliation was defined within the framework of Leninist method of “compromise” and in that particular style the “Methodical Reconciliation” was talked out. The yield of the National Reconciliation, at this period of time, was the assimilation of a number of “agreeable non-Party figures” to the machinery of the State. In political term, what was tried to be done at this time, in its best form, was the gathering of samples from a “socialist pluralism” model, in which the govt. Was attaching the opposition forces to itself, without changing the basic foundation of political sovereignty.
The next stage, in the creation of the idea of National Reconciliation, is linked to the life and efforts of Dr. Najibullah. The claim is correct that Dr. Najibullah also got “replaced” according to the “Party mode” and got to the leadership. But the personal background of Dr. Najibullah did not pledge his historical figure. He set-forth the idea of the “rescue of homeland” and for its fulfillment; he took extensive actions in history.
At this period of time, the National Reconciliation got removed from the methodical dead-end and got promoted to the level of an independent political idea, which ought to open a substitute way for the “rescue of homeland”. The arrangement for the matter of “rescue of homeland”, on the basis of NR, got joined with reconsideration in all theoretical and political foundations of the system.
The concept of “Saur Revolution” (April Revolution of 1978) and subject to that “the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist function of the National Democratic Revolution” got rejected and this conclusion was highlighted that, that event was merely a coup. The transmission from the concept of “Coup-d-etat” to the concept of “Revolution”, in spite of forming theoretic basis, consist of rude mentality which resulted harsh transgression of the realities of the country. Therefore the terms like “the Change and the Event of Sour” got verbalized. The fundamental essence of the “Saur Revolution’s” groundwork was questioned and rejections rose up. “It was promised that this revolution will provide clothes, shelter and food to the people. But what, in practice, happened? Instead of food –bullet in stomach, instead of cloths –grave-clothes and instead of shelter –grave is given to people...”
The concept of the class struggle and the concept authenticated by it that the on-going war is a just and righteous one, because apparently it is justly struggle of people, got rejected. The conclusion came under consideration that the “process of separating the forces and the inhabitants”, under whatever excuse they might be, is an anti-Afghan process. The on going war is not that of the Afghans and they gain nothing from either of the war sides. The passage for rescue of Afghans and Afghanistan “does not pass through keeping the forces out-of-way but passes through giving-up a part of the claim by the forces.”
The concept of “internationalis” was rejected. Instead of that references were made to the “heritage of the Constitutional Movement” and “the Afghan nationalism and patriotism” got adopted as base for encounter. The autocratic conclusion of the Party, that whosoever is with the Party is with us, had been rejected and was replaced by the idea that whosoever is with the homeland (Afghanistan) is with us too;
At this time the nature of the political system got reconsidered: The concept of the single Party system got rejected. The monopoly (of power) had been considered as the main source of the war and instead of a single Party State, the establishing of the sovereignty of national harmony of all the Afghans, became the target. Instead of single Party dictatorship, political pluralism and democracy became habitual. The expression of “Democratic” got removed from the Stale-Title of Afghanistan. In political terms, the “socialist pluralism” got rejected and “democratic pluralism” was adopted as a base for political practice, which is based on division of power. The Constitution of the National Reconciliation got prepared. The Constitution got enshrined as a guarantor for the new system and democratic pluralism.
The National Reconciliation returned “us”, our two lost rings. Firstly, it marked an end to a confrontation, caused by Marxist tendencies, among the “Revulutionists” and Islamic believers, which have turned the nation to a cafeteria. National Reconciliation set the political thoughts of the Afghan Revolutionist on Islamic basis. Secondly, it put the last hand to that self-alienation, which came into being among the Afghan political forces –both, of Party or Factional-, because of the “internationalist” relations and the social realities. The National Reconciliation settled Afghan political thought on the National basis;
The unilateral, international attachment of the Government of Afghanistan had been abolished. Reciprocated international relations have been developed on the basis of “UN Peace Process”. The Government of the Republic of Afghanistan remained, till the end, loyal to the “UN Peace Process” and paved the way for establishment of a neutral government. It signifies that the National Reconciliation, at this point of time, was made a theoretic basis for establishing a political system, which should be essentially new and, in the light of the UN Peace Process, it should accomplish the establishment of a neutral government in Afghanistan. At this period, within the political authority of the PDPA, reconsideration took place in the political set-up of Afghanistan. Since the Constitution of 1987 (1366 H) till the Constitution on 1990 (1369 H), progressive political movement took place in this course and in the Constitution of 1990 the monopolistic position of the PDPA got removed and was replaced by leadership of the Afghan Society.
Moreover, the political nature of the PDPA got reconsidered. “The Watan Party: is the continuator of the historical experience of the PDPA, mainly, or perhaps merely, because of this fact that it got established on the basis of successive criticism of the idea and practice of the PDPA. There is nothing such as a synonymy between Watan Party and the PDPA. Those people, both, the supporters and the adherents of Watan Party, who write as- PDPA, later Watan Party-, make immense political mistakes.
PDPA was an idealistic Party and according to its manifesto, that ideology was a Marxist – Leninist. The Watan Party rejected this “fundamental principle”. In Watan Party’s program, the “National Reconciliation” became the “introducer of the Party thought”. PDPA was considering itself the pioneer of the struggle of workers for setting up a society free from the exploitation of individual by individual. Watan Party rejected the concept of the “pioneer Party” and the concept of representing only one section of the society and also the concept that the Party’s aim must be the foundation of an society based on deductive reasoning. The name “Watan Party”, itself reflects this very methodical change, that it does no longer represent the interests of only one section of society but represents the interest of the whole “nation” (Watan). The Watan Party declared that the issues in the country are so much complicated that only a single force can not solve them out, all alone and basically a unilateral solution, for the problems of Afghanistan, is out of question. The issues, existing before the Afghans, are above the issues of class and ideology and they are general by nature and at the same time, they simply demand a common reply from all the Afghans and can be solved only through the contribution of all the Afghans. As such, for the termination of war, establishment of peace, founding the rule of the nation harmony, the Watan Party declared itself itself the Party of All Afghans. The PDPA was considering itself as the Party of National Democratic Revolution and the foundation of Revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat/worker and peasant/farmer. The Watan Party rejected the idea of National Democratic Revolution and set-forth the idea of the rule of the national harmony, democratic pluralism, elections, the representative government and “peacefull gradual revolution”.
It was exactly this way, that with a great theoretical and practical effort, the National Reconciliation was adopted to demolish the war generating circle and as so, the conclusion became possible that “the presence of the Soviet troops in Afghanistan was not in harmony with national interests of Afghanistan” and during the 5th Anniversary of the Declaration of the Path of National Reconciliation, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan could get declared as the “Rescue Day of Motherland” (Roz-e Nijat-e Watan). Such facts have been taken for consideration, when it is said that for Najibullah, the National Reconciliation changed to a political theory to replace the theory of the PDPA.
Now, Mir Enayatullah Sadaat, in defense of the PDPA writes that: “Najibullah, for the sake of a platform for a national bourgeoisie Party, changed the manifesto of the Party, step by step.” –Afghanistan: The land of epics and disasters- pg. 213. Liyakhofski, in his book, writes that as a new way to agree with the opposition, Najibullah started “dispersing the former concept of the Party.” –The storm in Afghanistan- pg. 138-. Azimi (Gen. Azimi) who writes in his book that Najibullah “set-forth the National Reconciliation from a point of weakness and compromise... and the program of the National Reconciliation was constituting the preamble for Dr. Najibullah’s compromise with the Mujahedeen leaders.” –Army and Politics... pg. 331-. With all such explanations, they veil the essence of these fundamental ideological and practical changes and neglect the substantial relation of this change with the issue and the basic morals that the Party was facing. That is to say, they ignore the question of war and the question of termination of this war. They simply can not admit this very basic reality that end of the war in Afghanistan was not only demanding –and still demands- the termination of hostile thoughts of all sides but it was also asking the answer for this question that how could the Party become capable and readies itself to participate in the peace process, essentially in the future?
Najibullah demonstrated that the Party, the original stature of which is made by “the scientific theory of class-struggle”, “has an indecent and figureless stature” for participation in the matters of peace. Such Party might be able to upraise a resurrection but can not be talented enough to rise for peace. Only through playing a role and fundamental reconsideration, in harmony with the idea of National Reconciliation, it was possible to find an essentially new political identity and those “progressive” forces that were confined within the deadlock of PDPA, could became capable of changing into the real participants in the peace process in Afghanistan, under such identity
2. In a document published in Holland the idea is nearly of such content that in Afghanistan “...the basic problem through the twentieth century, has not been the search for unity, but has been a search for the historical choice...”. The Afghan thinker, Abdullah Naebi also writes: “...here the difficulty is on the historical choice... and putting off the progress of history in another direction...”.
In this connection, in the light of the last word of the Afghan Marxism, two questions could be propounded: Firstly, what will happen to the kismet of those who did not and do not want to join the historical choice? This group (of people), who on the basis of whatsoever reason, do not wish to join and become a part of a historical choice, are they really people or they are not? Under those circumstances what is our ‘moral mission’ before this section of people and choices or lack of choices? Secondly and much basically the question that: what is situated beyond the historical choice? That is to say, how does that other side of the sketch of the matter look like? In case every other force is just in the matter of choosing the historical choice and escorting with it till the extreme ends, then why do we raise fingers on fundamentalism? Are fundamentalists, for instance Taliban, not after their historical choice? It is here that the “liberal movement” of every political force remains limited by a political field, which is relevant to all; and no political force, on basis of whatever program, is allowed for deviation from it. It is here that the search for unity, especially in a situation of dispersion caused by the war, gains preference to that of the historical choice. Because, in the absence of unity, a choice -whether historical or non-historical- is basically not assumable. It is here that the idea of national reconciliation, on the one hand, finds substantial attachment with the principle of liberty and on the other hand it provides the theoretical instruments of establishing a civil Afghan society. In response to it, the righteousness and necessity of nation reconciliation is in the establishment of the civil society in Afghanistan, where it will manifest itself.
3. Now, after a long suspension, finally we set forth the question of transmission from dispersion to political re-assembling. Right in this very situation, why are we insistently, returning to the political experience of Dr. Najibullah? Is our intention to pay homage to Najibullah as a “leader beyond the Party” (Ghorbandi, A glance to the history of PDPA, “Watan Party”, pg. 110)? Or we tend to refer the heroic memoir of Dr. Najibullah in the context that he alone faced the Pakistani invaders and under the dark shadows of the night where “every traveler stands on trembling feet” he defended the honors of the contemporary history of the motherland and marked his martyrdom like a dragger on the Durand line (Plaston, Afghanistan in the pressure of geo-politics, pg. 129 onwards). No, certainly it is not. Our emphasis on returning to the political heritage of Dr. Najibullah, does not look towards the past but the future. Dr. Najibullah was the only figure in the political leadership of Afghanistan, in whose framework of National Reconciliation theory, we can discover the foundation of a new political identity, which will open our way towards participating in the political future of Afghanistan.
The Watan Party was a new phenomenon in the political life of Afghanistan, the original essence of which, means “the policy of National Reconciliation”, remained unexplained in the fog of selfishness and motivations of a few persons and as a consequence of their joining of sick intentions in the absence of the will and knowledge of the party activists.
Dear friends!
The matter of the reorganizing our political activity raises two complicated questions before us, which we must talk of, with complete specificity:
Initially, what is the base and theoretical framework of our political activity in the future Afghanistan?
When we think within the framework of PDPA, then the scientific study of the world and the theory of “class-struggle” should be the guide of our actions; in this case we must be able to explain, as during the 12 years since the establishment of the Watan Party, what developments have taken place in Afghanistan have taken place on “class” basis; is the Bonn Conference a class phenomenon? Do we enter a class struggle by this conference and its result? What could be the motives of class-struggle in the conditions of establishment of peace and reconstruction in Afghanistan? What is the meaning and scope of our political activity in the future? For instance, could the dialogue and mutual understanding between Afghans be explained on the basis of “class struggle”? Could the expressions of refugees and the repatriation, and problems emanating from this process, be called a “class” process? Is the reconstruction a “class” process?
If not, then let us frankly say that the reasons in the past, which have been the basic causes for the abeyance of the Party activity, were the confused and unproductive affairs of some leaders and party activists, who have tried to address the “class” theories and ideas time and again to explain the sequence of events in Afghanistan with such devices which we have declared as incorrect and futile 12 years ago in the foundation Congress of the Watan Party. That is how, we should know that returning under the shelter of PDPA and the “scientific study” and the “theory of class struggle”, is a return to the past and an incurable theoretical and political dead-end which has no yield. And if we think within the framework of the Watan Party then the “National Reconciliation is the introducer of our thoughts”. Through this, we not only could explain the developments of the past years with accuracy; keeping in mind all the minute details; but we would also be able to properly explain the issue of mutual understanding between the Afghans, including the Bonn Conference and hold a position about it. We could also be able to correctly mark the most significant targets of the political activities in Afghanistan in the future and secure our participation in forthcoming episodes in Afghanistan. It is only through the concept of National Reconciliation that we could bring together and define the most important and fundamental targets of our future political activity in Afghanistan. The intention of our political activity is the establishment of an Afghan civil society. Moreover, with the renewal of thoughts about the “National Reconciliation” and its ups and downs, we can exactly promote the former from a political approach to the level of a political philosophy and look through the political movements in Afghanistan with a new philosophical and intellectual approach.
Secondly, for the same reason, the question of restoring the party activity is not propounded in the old fashion. It is still for the same reason that the methods of solutions that are taken for experience till now, in the form of rebuilding more flanks, fractions, movements, groups and gatherings have lead nowhere neither it has enough capacity. In such a condition, first of all the question of the role and position of the former leadership comes forth for consideration. Undoubtedly in connection with the present condition of the party, the former leadership has double guilt. On one hand some figures of the former leadership, without informing the party activists, join there hands with ill-intentions and on the other hand, since 1992, for the fear of being questioned, they not only did not present any explanations about the conditions of the party, but they also encouraged building flanks, fractions and groupings and drove the party to retrogression. Those who see the solution in deposing the former leadership have set their hearts for some sort of fraudulence because basically it is not possible any more to speak about the party as an organized unit in the previous pattern. After years of disunited unity, now, the time has drawn a line in betwee. Here is a time to say that the comrades of yesterday would not walk on the same path anymore. Those who follow PDPA have a separate way and those who follow the idea of “National Reconciliation”, under the name of Watan party or whatever, has their own separate rout from now on. Nothing except a common memory about a jeopardous past, join these two. Perhaps we can praise this common memory but yet, without hesitation we must bid a farewell to it. We have landed in such a situation where the door, opening to future has a single key, which is (fortunately) on our palm –and that is none other than ‘National Reconciliation’.
