Leviath The Hobbesian Perfect Government In Afghanistan

With a majority of Afghanistan’s population being rural and divided ethnically , rule by government in Kabul has proved to be challenging. Lack of a national unity and an ambition to remain autonomous has caused resistance by rural groups against Kabul. Issues of landmines, bombings, and insurgent groups have brought a “decline in security” . Moreover, Afghanistan ranked 215th in the world in terms of GDP/Capita in 2013 . Stability requires “security, economic development, [and] rule of law” .

Hobbes believed that a Leviathan was necessary to bring stability and prosperity. The Leviathan, a large, strong and intimidating Biblical creature, is a metaphor for the Hobbesian perfect government. It would bring society “to Denmark” , a country

The monarchy was overturned by socialist revolutionaries. The Soviet occupation attempted to suppress uprisings, devastating many villages and causing the displacement of 4.5 million refugees . Their systematic destruction of irrigation systems severed Afghanistan’s agricultural industry, and crushed any possibility for prosperity. But faced with the growing resistance, the USSR pulled out. Civil war followed, destroying Kabul and bringing the Taliban to power. Under their authority, many human rights violations occurred . The US invasion drove them out and Presidential elections were commenced in 2004. However, even with this government, Afghanistan faces much instability especially from Taliban resurgence. So far, a monarchy, Soviet socialism, Taliban Islamic rule and Presidential Republic have not brought stability or prosperity to

Barfield and Nojumi outline a bottom-up approach to governance that would be much more effective, and would deter resistance by rural Afghans . They claim that it has been mistakenly assumed that a “strong centralized government with formal institutions is the key to stability” . They distinguish between governance, how local communities organize themselves to maintain order and security, and government, which is a force exercising authority over its population . They argue that in Afghanistan’s case, governance is the key, as the government stirs up resistance by the population.

A government capable of bringing stability and prosperity would therefore need to allow the local informal decision-making process to continue with minimal government interference . This would allow the locals to maintain a degree of their autonomy and maintain stability. The government could then focus on building better infrastructure and communication systems to connect Kabul to the rest of the country and “encourage a constructive relationship between centre and periphery” . Over time, trust between locals and Kabul would grow, resulting in stability so the government could focus on bringing