HIA factions in talks on reunification

[randolph85]

HIA factions in talks on reunification | Pajhwok Afghan News

By Javid Hamim Kakar Apr 14, 2013 - 21:28
KABUL (PAN): The two factions of Hezb-i-Islami of Afghanistan (HIA) have been in talks to reach a consensus on fielding a joint candidate in next year's presidential elections and a possible reunification, sources have said.
Last week, a five-member delegation of the HIA faction led by Gulbadin Hekmatyar visited Kabul and held talks with members of the breakaway faction led by Abdul Hadi Arghandiwal.
Mudir Mohammad Rassoul who led the delegation met with Waheedullah Sabawon, Khalid Farooq and other members of Arghandiwal’s party to reach a consensus on a joint candidate, the sources said.
"The delegation is still in Kabul and is scheduled leave in near future", said Abdullah Kamawal, a spokesman for Arghandiwal party. He confirmed the Gulbadin delegation had meetings with their party representatives on a possible reunification of the two factions.
Dr. Ghairat Baheer, the HIA (Hekmatyar) political committee head has previously said their talks with political parties in Kabul on next year's polls had gone well. He said the visit was part of the group's ongoing talks with some political parties.
An executive board member of the HIA faction led by Arghandiwal, Eng. Mohammad Khan, said they had detailed discussions with the delegation. Both sides conferred on several issues, he added.
Khan said the visiting delegation had presented some conditions for the elections. They discussed those conditions, in addition to other issues, he said.
In 1979, Mulavi Younas Khalis split with Hekmatyar and established his own Hezbi Islami, known as the Khalis faction, with its power base in Nangarhar.
Hekmatyar's faction is considered a terrorist organization by Coalition Forces in Afghanistan and is on the additional list called "Groups of Concern of the US State Department.
The non-violent faction of the Hezbi Islami is a registered political party led by Arghandiwal.

[Toramana]

HIA factions in talks on reunification | Pajhwok Afghan News

By Javid Hamim Kakar Apr 14, 2013 - 21:28
KABUL (PAN): The two factions of Hezb-i-Islami of Afghanistan (HIA) have been in talks to reach a consensus on fielding a joint candidate in next year's presidential elections and a possible reunification, sources have said.
Last week, a five-member delegation of the HIA faction led by Gulbadin Hekmatyar visited Kabul and held talks with members of the breakaway faction led by Abdul Hadi Arghandiwal.
Mudir Mohammad Rassoul who led the delegation met with Waheedullah Sabawon, Khalid Farooq and other members of Arghandiwal’s party to reach a consensus on a joint candidate, the sources said.
"The delegation is still in Kabul and is scheduled leave in near future", said Abdullah Kamawal, a spokesman for Arghandiwal party. He confirmed the Gulbadin delegation had meetings with their party representatives on a possible reunification of the two factions.
Dr. Ghairat Baheer, the HIA (Hekmatyar) political committee head has previously said their talks with political parties in Kabul on next year's polls had gone well. He said the visit was part of the group's ongoing talks with some political parties.
An executive board member of the HIA faction led by Arghandiwal, Eng. Mohammad Khan, said they had detailed discussions with the delegation. Both sides conferred on several issues, he added.
Khan said the visiting delegation had presented some conditions for the elections. They discussed those conditions, in addition to other issues, he said.
In 1979, Mulavi Younas Khalis split with Hekmatyar and established his own Hezbi Islami, known as the Khalis faction, with its power base in Nangarhar.
Hekmatyar's faction is considered a terrorist organization by Coalition Forces in Afghanistan and is on the additional list called "Groups of Concern of the US State Department.
The non-violent faction of the Hezbi Islami is a registered political party led by Arghandiwal.

This must make you happy as an Akhwanul Mulslimun---The other Akhwani that can be happy with this news is Barakzai Al-Akhwani but he is more on the Abdullah Aazam line.

[MostafaM]

Afghanistan´s sociaty doesn´t seem to be ready for political parties.

Political parties are bared from running in parliamentary elections because thats what the consitution says. The other thing is that there are thousands of parties right now who all have only a couple of thousand members at best so dont represent anyone but the small numbers of their voters.

Political parties make only sense if the represent large segments of a sociaty.

Afghanistans political landscape hasnt developed to that point where large segments of sociaty identify with the party guidelines of certain parties and feel represented by them.

The other point is:
how can parties who advocate "political Islam" (I hate the term Islamism because its a fake construction of pseudo-Orientalists) be in favour of democratic procedures like participating in election processes aka acknowledging political pluralism de facto and de iure but having the ultimate goal to abolish political pluralism?

Can anyone answer that?

[randolph85]

This must make you happy as an Akhwanul Mulslimun---The other Akhwani that can be happy with this news is Barakzai Al-Akhwani but he is more on the Abdullah Aazam line.

Yes, it does.

[randolph85]

The other point is:
how can parties who advocate "political Islam" (I hate the term Islamism because its a fake construction of pseudo-Orientalists) be in favour of democratic procedures like participating in election processes aka acknowledging political pluralism de facto and de iure but having the ultimate goal to abolish political pluralism?

Can anyone answer that?

a means to an end.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Afghanistan´s sociaty doesn´t seem to be ready for political parties.

We could both agree that stable and prosperous societies have existed at various points throughout history irrespective of political systems. I am not sure if its fair or less orientalist (though its tempting I concede) to assume that one is more or less ready for democracy.

Political parties are bared from running in parliamentary elections because thats what the consitution says.

The other thing is that there are thousands of parties right now who all have only a couple of thousand members at best so dont represent anyone but the small numbers of their voters.

See but that is the thing. I think if we take the case of the US specifically, acting in today's world as the paragon of democracy (though it may not be so!) and capitalist sentiments (the latter may be the case) we realize that many finely tuned factors have come together to produce such resounding success.

Large Land Mass + Relatively small population + concurrent historical factors (the world wars and multiple super powers destroying each other) + a population that conquered the country anew with the root population of protestant and white ancestory from a strata of the home base population that was already setting out in a brand new world and incorporated successive immigrant waves for worker purposes in a relatively short 150 year time span.

In fact, the system within the US has changed many a times in the past 200 so years where Roosevelt and his new deal is accused of socializing the nation state in a way that its founders never intended.

Political parties make only sense if the represent large segments of a sociaty.

This is the fascinating thing about the political system known as democracy. Its genius, is in the words of Kaiser Soze "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." In this system, mass population swathes are led to believe that they actually have, in their votes and aspirations, a candidate that represents their best interests. On a local level this may pan out. On a national level we see farcical things going on where GW Bush can display himself as a man of the people, at one with the rural masses yet derived from the esteemed landed elite... having flew an obsolete air craft over Texas space while the urban and rural young men died in the droves in Vietnam. Yet the population was led to believe that they had, with the expression of their vote, someone who would express their will. The same goes for the 2008 Tarp fiasco etc.

So I would say that the only thing more developed and more stable about a democracy is that the elites of such nations have learned to camoflouge themselves behind a veneer of governance that creates the semblance of popular rule thereby pacifying the masses. Now, there is not so much a lightening rod figure such as a monarch, King, or small group of men whose names are well known. It becomes a football game of sorts... democrats versus republicans with generally the same outcomes in areas where it really matters.

Afghanistans political landscape hasnt developed to that point where large segments of sociaty identify with the party guidelines of certain parties and feel represented by them.

I hope that they forever retain this quality of understanding that what is being constructed is farcical. There are key elements that are missing in that and the surrounding nation states, by design, that ensure it cannot rise above the level of a nation state that will become indebted to the IMF one day.

The other point is:
how can parties who advocate "political Islam" (I hate the term Islamism because its a fake construction of pseudo-Orientalists) be in favour of democratic procedures like participating in election processes aka acknowledging political pluralism de facto and de iure but having the ultimate goal to abolish political pluralism?

A fair question. What I would say is that if we compare the personage of a Caliphate and the Presidency we can appreciate Dr. Andrew Bacevich's characterization of America's presidency as imperial in a way and nearly equivalent. The former was theoretically an office for life so that bad rule stagnated and the former supposedly is turnstyle algorithm for executive governance (i.e a theoretical meritocracy).

In reality take a look at the half way point in our history. James K Polk, an imperial president of sorts sent many to die in the Mexican American War to the consternation of the American people. Multiple subsequent presidents sent their people abroad to war with the congressional approval merely being a rubber stamp. My point is that this system has not necessarily bettered mankind in general as is sometimes claimed... in my honest opinion it has at best, lateralized progress and created a semblance of stability by deluding people into assuming they have self rule and autonomy. Despite the supposed turnstyle system attempting to remove stagnant decrepit rule, other interest dictate policy and the faces shown to the public make the public think they can elect new blood in to alter the trajectory when in fact, those that truly would do so will never make it to the final voting round. THat is why every few decades we engage in a new senseless war that neither benefits us nor the local people. The changing of presidencies did not ensure that senseless actions like Vietnam were not repeated... they merely delayed stupidity for a general allowing some recovery time.

Can anyone answer that?

Its true but the predecessor question should be that age old question: which is the chicken and which is the egg???

I would posit that the more absurd question is: why assume that a system that began in Runny Meade hundreds of years ago for a people with a completely different history and set of trials ought to be assumed to be implentable upon the masses of a completely different heritage? That is, irrespective of what Political or age old Islam would say about pluralist rule or democracy - what is the point of assuming imposed pluralist democracy is the right way for Afghans to prosper?

Rather, I think if algorithms could be run and simulations constructed, and the right set of variables were altered on the American continent (i.e. increased economic instability, ethnic diversity via injection of hispanic immigrants etc) and in Central Asia (wide spread unity and utilization of resources and spreading out of populations under some unified rule of any sort)... would we see the same outcomes as we do today if both competitors were autonomous?