Good Governance in Afghanistan and Tajikistan: Institution-Building After War and Conflict

Abstract

This study explores the initial processes of post-war democratic institution-building by measuring the quality of democracy in Afghanistan (2001-2014) and Tajikistan (1997- 2009). It also scrutinizes the role of different internal and external actors on the outcomes and challenges of their democratization and governance after conflict. Both countries experienced a prolonged war and faced similar post-conflict challenges, such as weak state structures, internal divides, and socioeconomic instability. Nonetheless, their different paths toward democratization raise some critical questions about the role of internal and external factors that shaped the outcomes of their democracy and governance. By employing the MSSD (Most Similar System Design) framework, this research examines the impact of domestic governance structures, including elections, civil society organizations, and judicial independence, alongside the nature and extent of international intervention. Notwithstanding, both countries’ story was different. On the one hand, Afghanistan's democratization process was supported by a large-scale, multidimensional, and military engagement that was primarily led by the United States and NATO, with a strong focus on rapid state-building and democratization. On the other hand, Tajikistan experienced a regional type of intervention that was predominantly pushed by Russia and prioritized security and stability over democratic reform. The findings suggest that the degree of international involvement tremendously influenced the quality of democracy. While extensive international engagement initially promoted political pluralism and institutional building in Afghanistan, it was gradually undermined due to internal resistance such as the Taliban insurgency and different perceptions of democracy besides a lack of understanding of the local context that ultimately turned it into a shaky nascent democracy and later a fragile state. Conversely, limited focus on democratization and greater emphasis on regime stability in Tajikistan’s case, resulted in gradual authoritarian consolidation. This study concludes that the interaction of internal governance factors and international interventions can significantly determine the trajectory of post-conflict democratization. What is essential is a balanced approach that adopts context-sensitive support and takes domestic dynamics such as people into account to foster sustainable democratic institutions in fragile states. These insights are helpful for a broader debate and deeper exploration into democratization, good governance, and peacebuilding in post-conflict contexts.