I came across an article in al-Jazeera that discusses a case of traditional justice where over a dozen girls were handed from one tribal group to its rival to help settle a blood feud. It sounded like any number of traditional dispute resolution cases I’d heard about in Afghanistan, but this article was about Pakistan. Aside from just being a human rights concern and an illegal practice in Pakistan, this case came under some scrutiny because reportedly one of the tribal leaders who lead the Jirga or council of elders convened to settle the problem was actually a local politician.
A local politician breaking the state law to uphold a traditional system of justice. The article suggests that the problem is no small one, but is symptomatic of a region where there is no state governance—in other words, if the state is not present to uphold its own laws, people will rely on the systems of justice and self-rule that have served them for centuries. If the Pakistani state fails to behave like a government in little civil systems, it is hardly surprising that they cannot provide security or border control in these areas. What you ultimately get are the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), home to violence and human rights abuse and a safe haven for a number of terrorist and insurgent groups.
The politician’s people denied his involvement, but whether he was or no, I have to wonder at the kind of pressure put on him. He has a formal position, but knows there is little or no way to enforce any state-friendly rulings. The feud needs to end or there will be continued violence, leaving few if any options. Will not the best solution to strengthen the state apparatus, it would be reasonable for a person to choose the practical option over no option.
This article caught my eye because I recently put out one of my own where I described a very similar situation in Afghanistan. I came to similar conclusions, namely that there are significant implications for this kind of tension between formal and informal justice systems, beyond the immediate victims it creates. A local politician was dealing with a similar issue there, but did not want to back the traditional system because he saw it as an ideological issue that could set dangerous precedents. I argue there that for Afghanistan to be a state, it needs to act like one at all levels, and foreign parties invested in the future of Afghanistan need to support the growth of official institutions rather than hybrid solutions.
The article on Pakistan reaches a similar sort of conclusion, though there is more hope because the deputy speaker of the National Assembly has taken an interest in this particular case, bringing more attention to it and what it implies. It ends with a quote from a rural leader who calls solutions like this a “crime.” So for those of us interested in finding practical paths in how to create a stronger state in Afghanistan from the ground up, how the neighboring Pakistani government handles cases like this one may provide some concrete example of steps we can take. Or, should it fail, of what to avoid. Because to continue to allow traditional justice to fly in the face of official justice in parts of Afghanistan could well be the initial steps down the road of creating another low-security, high-threat, FATA-like region right across the border from the one next door.
For more thoughts on justice and governance in Afghanistan, see Ty Mayfield’s article here.
Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.