Published Paper Details:

This research is an attempt to explore the historical and philosophical complexities of state-building in Afghanistan, focusing on the enduring tension between centralising authority and the pluralistic tribal foundations of Afghan society. Rather than attributing state failure solely to weak institutions or foreign intervention, this study frames the Afghan state as a project historically constructed in friction with its societal foundations. From Ahmad Shah Abdali's confederative model, which balanced authority with tribal autonomy, to the more coercive centralisation efforts of Abdur Rahman Khan and Amanullah Khan, the Afghan state has persistently struggled to reconcile power with legitimacy. Successive regimes, whether the Marxist government's revolutionary reforms or the Taliban's rigid theocracy sought to overwrite local authority with ideologically driven state models. In doing so, they generated resistance not only because of their policies but because of their detachment from indigenous forms of governance, identity, and consent. These recurring failures raise a fundamental question at the heart of this research. The objective is to explore why centralised state-building in Afghanistan has remained historically unsustainable, arguing that durable political order cannot be forged in abstraction from the moral and social worlds of its people. By drawing on political theory and historical analysis, the research examines the broader assumptions behind modern statecraft, particularly the idea that sovereignty must be singular, top-down, and culturally neutral. It suggests, instead, that a more viable Afghan state could emerge from dialogical engagement with traditional structures and societal pluralism. In doing so, the research contributes to broader debates on postcolonial governance, legitimacy, and the ethics of political reconstruction in fractured societies.