Articles

Whether we consider the root cause of war in human nature or in his life environment, a large part of human life has been spent in violent conflicts and war. The history of war is equal to the history of mankind and according to some estimates, only eight percent of human life is spent in peace and the rest in war. Parallel to this long period, war has been an important element shaping human social life, both in the physical and spiritual dimensions. From this point of view, war has engraved its requirements and effects on the forehead of civilization and culture in the long history. On the one hand, in primitive societies, human culture and civilization focused on sanctifying war, violence and legitimizing them. on the other hand, in terms of the structure and organization of social life, warriors were on the top of social hierarchy. Also, human culture and civilization, in the new era, has also been identified by focusing on war. The difference is that it has tried to organize and legalize violence and war through applying them in institutionalized ways. On the one hand the culture is structured based on the self/other, on the one hand, demarcations and drawing the map of the world clearly shows that human life is based on the principle of conflict and war, rather than cooperation, acceptance, agreements and peaceful approaches. In the recent past, we can mention the First and Second World Wars, which had an undeniable and somewhat decisive impact on the culture and formation of the new world. Meanwhile, it cannot be ignored that both the structures and formation of life as well as human culture and values ​​have influenced the way violence is used. Changing the forms of use of force and the emergence of phenomena such as soft war and structural violence show the important impact of human structures and culture on violence and war. This interaction shows the fact that war and violence have different layers and dimensions that have preserved and reproduced their presence in human life in different ways. It should be considered that conflict and competition are the basis of human development and progress throughout history. war should be understood in this context and one of the clear examples of this complex and competitive human condition. From this point of view, the emergence of the new world has become possible not by the elimination and eradication of violence and war, but by changing the nature and forms of the use of violence. In this sense, the new world is nothing but replacing naked violence and force with law and order, which, of course, carries within themselves the requirements of power and violence. That is to say that institutional frameworks and mechanisms of participation are used to maintain order and discipline. In this sense, human civilization and progress have not been achieved by eliminating war, but by changing its nature and applications.  The optimistic ideas of scientists in the 18th century that with the advancement of technology, mankind will eventually be able to eliminate war and violence from their lives remained like unfulfilled dreams. For this reason, instead of paying attention to the elimination of war, the efforts of the following centuries were focused on changing the nature of violence and creating institutional, rational and legitimate mechanisms for its use on the one hand and reducing the consequences of violence and war on the other hand. If, like Max Weber, we consider the modern world to be the product of a transition from naked and unbridled violence to an organized type based on its defined mechanisms (the modern state), the basic question is: how this historical and lasting transition become possible? Of course, The success and failure of countries in entering the modern world lies in the answer to this question. From any point of view, it seems that the transition of societies from unbridled and naked violence to structural, legal and organized violence was made possible in the first step not through dialogue and agreement, but through a realistic approach of the balance of power. We have seen countless examples of violent conflicts and straggles in history, which only lead to peace and calm when the parties involved have come to the conclusion that the other side cannot be eliminated through war, and therefore, a way must be found for living together. As in many other cases, again the fact (the impossibility of eliminating the other) imposes itself on the human will (the effort to eliminate the other). in cases, where social groups have found the possibility of eliminating, destroying and even marginalizing the others, they have not seen the need for peace and agreement and have set the course for victory through war. It is the logic of history that some groups gained power and resources, and many others were either removed from the circle of power relations or pushed to the margins of these relations. Theoretically, negative peace, which is the state of absence of war, is obtained when those involved the conflict are convinced of the impossibility of eliminating the others. Since negative peace is achieved through the balance of power, it is also called armed peace in international relations. With negative peace and balance of power societies shift from unbridled violence to order, in which people and social groups inevitably live together. In the second stage, with the expansion of communication and entanglement of interests, they are gradually pushed away from confrontation and conflict in the path of living together and cooperation. Only through this process a positive and stable peace based on mutual acceptance can be achieved. In this situation, securing the interests of people and social groups is achieved not through confrontation and exclusion, but through cooperation and interaction. Negative conflicts and confrontation gives way to positive competition. For this reason, positive peace is not only the absence of war, but it is a situation in which all root cause of naked and unbridled violence … Read more

Bakhtar Institute is incredibly proud to share that our co-founder and board member, Sakhi Bayramli, has officially launched his latest book, Which Afghanistan? Exploring Paths Toward a Better Future. Published in January 2026 by Khayam Publishing, the book was unveiled this week in Geneva, Swiss, offering a timely and deeply researched perspective on the country’s path forward. Moving Beyond the Crisis Narrative For too long, the global conversation around Afghanistan has been stuck in a cycle of describing chronic crisis. While Mr. Bayramli doesn’t shy away from the harsh realities of governance collapse and the erasure of girls’ education, his work refuses to stop there. Instead, he challenges us—the citizens, the scholars, and the diaspora—to look at Afghanistan as a society with great potential for reconstruction. The book is structured around eleven core inquiries. These aren’t just academic exercises; they are the fundamental questions that will determine our future: How do we distribute power fairly? What does legitimate leadership look like today? And how do we build a national dialogue that actually includes the voices of women, youth, and the marginalized? Real Development Requires Real Institutions One of the most compelling arguments Mr. Bayramli makes is his critique of what he calls the “illusion of natural wealth.” By drawing parallels between global models like Singapore and Nigeria, he warns that Afghanistan’s mineral riches could easily become a curse of corruption rather than a blessing of prosperity—unless we prioritize building transparent, meritocratic institutions first. Perhaps most importantly, the book frames the education and leadership of women not just as a moral obligation, but as a practical necessity for survival. The author argues that excluding half the population is effectively a “generational suicide” for the country’s health and economic systems. Bridging Tradition and Modernity What makes this work uniquely “Afghan” is its refusal to choose between Western theory and local tradition. Mr. Bayramli explores how indigenous consultative practices, like the Loya Jirga, can be thoughtfully integrated with modern democratic principles to create a governance model that actually resonates with our people. Which Afghanistan? is not a final roadmap or a set of rigid instructions. As the author himself puts it, it is a “formal invitation” for us to start talking to one another again. About Sakhi Bayramli At the Bakhtar Institute, we know Mr. Bayramli as a dedicated researcher with a deep focus on public health, diplomacy, and sustainable development. His career has been defined by a commitment to evidence-based policy and a belief that Afghanistan’s transformation must come from within, supported by smart, selective engagement with the world. This book is the culmination of years of that rigorous thought and passion. The collection of articles of Bakhtar Institute expresses the opinion of its authors. Bakhtar Institute tries to provide a diverse and balanced perspective of views by publishing materials from different spectrum and scholars. The ideas presented in these articles do not represent the position of this organization in any way, and the author is responsible for the content and analysis.

By: Mohammad Razi Ahmadi – Texas, US Author / Writer To have a better image of the Afghan conflict/violence I would like to apply Johan Galtung typology. He believes in three forms of conflict/violence: direct, constructive and cultural. In order to eradicate the conflict, the peace culture shall be applied in these three forms as well. He adds that the conflict still will exist if the peace culture would not be applied in these forms. Galtung explains the direct conflict/violence as murdering, harassment; and the constructive conflict/violence as restriction over a certain group of people and creating limitation on equal access to the national resources; and the cultural conflict/violent as destroying the historic sings and values of a certain group. Considering these typology, all the three forms of conflict/violence are present in Taliban administration. The studies show that such conflict/violence can be resolved by reciting and reinterpreting the religion principals as per the requirements of the development and civilization; and developing the coexistence and cooperation principles; thus, to provide the ground for peace culture to be institutionalized. The major factors are establishing the reconciliation/mediation centers, discourses, conferences, workshops and training centers as well as the bilateral and multilateral meetings to create the space for understanding and trust through the dialogue, not deal. Further, the “Hermeneutics of Citizenship” acts as a major challenge ahead of peacebuilding. For instance, the Taliban identify themselves as the original citizens and legitimize their ownership over the territory, economic, cultural and social affairs. The scholars recommend to achieve peace by passing the “hermeneutics citizens” and to reach/accept the “civil religion”. To be successful in this matter, the ruling party should provide the ground for “peace journalism”, conferences, forums, inclusive training centers and educational institutes. The circumstances in Afghanistan are not fair for “civil religion” and “peace journalism”, if we have a look at different occasions and religious events/ceremonies. Considering the current situation of Afghanistan, I would conclude my points as below: Since all the conflict/violence forms are present, the “hermeneutics citizenship” are preserved, the “war journalism” are active, and there is no single movement and intention toward eradicating them, the peace culture cannot be institutionalized; thus, the Afghan people would suffer another conflict era in new forms and definitions. The collection of articles of Bakhtar Institute expresses the opinion of its authors. Bakhtar Institute tries to provide a diverse and balanced perspective of views by publishing materials from different spectrums and scholars. The ideas presented in these articles do not represent the position of this organization in any way, and the author is responsible for the content and analysis.

Dr. Mohammad Hossain Kholousi[1] One year has passed since the collapse of the republican system and the contribution of the Doha negotiations to this collapse is undeniable. While most of the scientific conferences, diplomatic efforts and press activities in the mass media and among the civil society were going on regarding the issue of peace, despite the expectation, not only was there no peace, but the entire political system collapsed. The Doha negotiations resulted completely contrary to the results of the Geneva negotiations. In the Geneva negotiations, it was believed that immediately after the withdrawal of the Soviet soldiers, their puppet political system would also disappear; However, in the Doha talks, it was thought that after the withdrawal of the American troops, the republican system would remain, and with diplomatic efforts and the continuation of negotiations at the national level, peace would be achieved between the Taliban and the republican government. Unfortunately, this did not happen and before the full withdrawal of the American soldiers, the republican system collapsed. This bitter experience of negotiation and compromise requires that the Doha negotiations be correctly analyzed in order to draw the path of peace correctly from the empirical data of this historical reality and the implications of its failure. Although today the geographical territory is under the control of the Taliban; But the government based on Taghlib lacks legitimacy, and of course the continuation of its rule faces serious challenges. Every government in Afghanistan is averse to compromise and negotiation, and no other option other than comprehensive peace can solve the problem of conflict in Afghanistan. It is based on the assumption that pathology gains importance from the Doha negotiations. This pathology is very important in drawing the perspective of policies and adopting appropriate strategies. The Doha negotiations included two parts; First, the end of the war between the US and the Taliban, which was the main issue of the Doha negotiations, and most of the diplomatic efforts were focused on this part. Second, reaching a national agreement between the Taliban and the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Although this level of negotiations was not important for the first issue, negotiations at this level continued until the last days of the fall of the republican system. The Doha negotiations only led to a treaty on the first axis; But it led to failure in the second axis. In this review, the factors of this failure are examined in order of importance: 1) I believe that the most important factor in the failure of the Doha negotiations was the success in its first stage. The acceptance of America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan strengthened the self-confidence of the Taliban group. The direct negotiation between the Taliban and the United States in the absence of the Afghan government in the first stage was a clear message for the Taliban that the only thing that matters to the Trump administration is the United States, not Afghanistan. Based on this, the Taliban participated in the second axis from the victorious position against America and NATO and did not show any flexibility.In this way, dividing the negotiation into foreign and domestic has been a strategic mistake. It was perhaps for the first time that in America, from within the discourse of conservative Republicans who are usually security-oriented and authoritarian, the priority of butter (welfare) over the cannon (security) was preferred in foreign policy. This precedence was derived from Trump’s economic and business-oriented approach, and in some cases its security consequences were ignored. In this way, under this strategy, negotiation engineering was done in haste. Trump was in a hurry to leave Afghanistan and reduce the US government’s spending in Afghanistan. He considered the principle and the secondary in the negotiations and put the issue of America’s withdrawal as the principle and the agreement on the next system in Afghanistan as a secondary. Instead of a comprehensive multilateral diplomacy, America’s foreign policy implemented two bilateral diplomacy, one of which was responsible for the negotiation between the US and the Taliban, and the other was dedicated to the negotiation between the Afghan government and the Taliban. If the negotiation was based on multilateral diplomacy and followed the approach of “agree on everything or no agreement” or the approach of prioritizing systemization in Afghanistan over the withdrawal of American soldiers from Afghanistan, the situation would not have ended here. Therefore, the first ring of unrealistic dualism is the separation of the subject of negotiations into two levels, America and Afghanistan. This strategy turned the main problem, which is system building, into a secondary problem, and this system sub-problem became a path for the collapse of the republican system. 2) Not paying attention to the consequences of ethnic infrastructure in Afghanistan is one of the important variables in the failure of peace negotiations and the collapse of the republican system. The fact that at the head of the negotiating delegations of the three parties, three actors belonging to a particular ethnicity were present and all three followed the logic of political exclusivism with historical evidence, played a role in the direction of the negotiation process towards the collapse of the system. This logic of political exclusivism is the same Pashtun governor who formulates politics based on Ibn Khaldun’s nervousness. This factor caused the second ring of dualism to arise, based on which the negotiations were divided into two main and apparent parts. The protection of the historical monopoly as a common point was placed in the position of the main goal of the negotiations. Khalilzad repeatedly supported the dominance of one party in the system and placed others under that dominant party. According to him, the dominant side was based on the idea of ​​Taliban ethnicity, not the Afghan government. Formulation of development, nation building, state building and this time negotiation and compromise were all done from the perspective of the elites of the ruling group through the channel of Afghanistan’s political history and without paying attention to the new ideas in politics, great efforts were made to develop within … Read more