By Neelapu Shanti

“Democracy derives its power from the people — from their voices, choices and participation”-United Nations.

September 15 marks the International Day of Democracy — a day the world observes to reaffirm forward-looking democratic institutions that promote inclusivity through greater representation of women, youth, civil society, the business community, the media, and others.

This day is not only a time for critical reflection on the enormous challenges confronting the people of Afghanistan since the Taliban seized control in 2021, but also for retrospection on how the global response has fallen far behind in addressing the needs of Afghanistan’s more than 40 million people. In the Taliban-led Afghanistan, the foundations of democracy and the rule of law—essential for a peaceful, united, sovereign, and independent Afghanistan governed inclusively and broadly—have been eroded, leaving the population in a state of profound vulnerability. Women and girls are disproportionately marginalized, and the country has increasingly become a hub for terrorism.

Yet today, the shadow of the Taliban’s regression looms over the lives of innocent Afghans. They have returned to power only to brandish these measures as tools of coercion. In a recent decree, a Taliban official prohibited the use of fiber-optic internet in one Afghan province, justifying the restriction as a means to ‘prevent immorality.’ This decision is consistent with broader Taliban edicts, which include prohibiting chess and beauty salons, denying women access to education, and outlawing all publications authored by women are based on deception, coercion and exploitation. These causes seem a distant prospect for achieving democracy in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the world’s engagement with the Taliban has intensified, while peace, freedom of speech, equality and development rooted in human rights falter for Afghan people.

Could we have avoided the Afghan crisis? In a pluralistic and diverse international order, multilateral mechanisms remain either insufficient or altogether absent in addressing Afghanistan’s political collapse. The initial regional consensus on inclusivity as the foundation mentioned in the Doha Accord for legitimate governance has gradually eroded, as states prioritize geopolitical interests while Afghans continue to endure profound humanitarian and socio-political challenges.

Over the past four years, opportunities to advance Afghanistan’s inclusive political framework have been repeatedly squandered, reflecting a persistent absence of political will, strategic vision, and coherent policy direction by Russia, China, US, Pakistan, India, Central Asia among other regional players. Both political leadership and bureaucratic institutions, formally entrusted with promoting inclusive governance, appear ill-equipped in terms of vision, capacity, and practical acumen to respond to Afghanistan’s enduring crisis.

In the absence of legitimacy, the people have been forced to endure worsening conditions marked by extreme poverty, a collapsing education system, and widespread violations of human rights. Further exacerbating this humanitarian crisis are natural disasters and the mass and forced deportation of Afghan refugees from neighboring countries back into an environment that is both unstable and unsafe. These developments collectively contribute to a bleak sociopolitical landscape, leaving little hope for recovery or reform in the near future.

How Important Is the Role of the UN in Establishing Democratic Governance in Afghanistan?

The ineffectiveness of the United Nations in addressing the situation in Afghanistan has become increasingly evident, as its appeals have been disregarded while major powers such as Russia, China, Iran, India, Central Asia, West Asia among other countries have engaged directly with the Taliban. Such engagement has conferred upon the Taliban a degree of legitimacy, while the assurances provided by these states remain opaque. This ambiguity reinforces the Taliban’s sense of leverage, enabling them to act with impunity.

Most critically, the United Nation’s the Permanent Five members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, UK, and US) should have convened the P5 to establish clear conditions for recognition: (1) representation of women in decision-making positions, (2) equal participation of minorities and marginalized groups, and (3) the establishment of a democratic, people-centered government. These conditions were never formally articulated, and by engaging without prerequisites, the international community has conferred undue legitimacy upon a militant regime.

Furthermore, the Doha Agreement of 2020 exemplifies the shortcomings of international engagement. By sidelining the former republic Afghan government, the United States reduced the process to a withdrawal arrangement rather than a genuine peace accord. In its haste to exit Afghanistan, it failed to secure commitments to inclusivity, human rights, and democratic governance, thereby undermining long-term peace and stability for the Afghan people.

Afghanistan’s Stand at the Regional Cooperation Framework

Going by its past, the establishment of regional institutions such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) among other regional cooperation and formats proceeded without the development of coherent strategies, resulting in flawed institutional architectures and recurring controversy. Responsibility of the international community to respond the Afghan crisis has frequently been deflected onto geopolitical rivalries, thereby politicizing the discourse while neglecting structural deficiencies. As a consequence, Afghanistan has been reduced to a pawn, forced to endure the resulting challenges.

The 2025 Tianjin Declaration again pressed for a “broad-based and inclusive” political order in Afghanistan that reflects all ethnic and political groups, framing inclusivity as a prerequisite for durable stability. That formula directly contradicts the Taliban leadership’s refusal to share power and shows consensus among SCO members to condition normalization on governance change rather than offer recognition first. Yet, Afghanistan remains absent from formal multilateral forums like the SCO. The lasting peace requires inclusive, participatory governance reflecting the voices of all Afghans — not just the Taliban. 

Although the ‘broad-based and inclusive political structure’ has been neglected, Russia, without pressuring the Taliban for inclusivity, recognised the Taliban government, while China and Pakistan have appointed Taliban ambassadors to their respective countries. India has intensified its engagements by inducting Taliban affiliates into the Afghan Embassy in New Delhi, resulting in the forced closure of the mission in 2023, which was widely regarded as unethical as per the 1950 Geneva Convention protocol.

India, China and Russia, for their part, have contended that the international community should provide economic and development assistance to Afghanistan without linking it to other issues, such as the rights of women and girls, and favour engagement and dialogue with the Taliban without increased pressure.

With regard to counterterrorism mechanisms, both the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) have developed methodologies for providing information to those engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan. These frameworks clearly assert that terrorism should not be permitted to exist in Afghanistan. Not only China but also India, Russia, the Central Asian states, and Iran oppose the emergence of terrorism from Afghanistan. However, the critical question remains whether this outcome is achievable? This raises the issue of whether the current government, whose Home Minister is himself the leader of the terrorist group headed by Sirajuddin Haqqani, can credibly commit to eliminating terrorism from Afghanistan’s soil?

Unfortunately, the approach to normalising the situation in Afghanistan is totally topsy-turvy. The need is to ascertain the legitimacy of the rulers before any interaction can take place with anyone calling themselves the rulers including the Taliban. As long as the present approach continues, there will be no peace in Afghanistan and the future will be filled with manoeuvring by big powers to exploit Afghanistan for their geopolitical ambitions. In the bargain, the security of the regional countries will be threatened and the Afghan people will continue to suffer.

But the larger question is, even if Taliban led Govt improves human rights conditions, ends discrimination against women and girls, repression of political dissent and free speech, agrees to have an inclusive Govt, and ongoing instances of extrajudicial killing, arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture and ill-treatment end, can the world and the world body consider the Taliban led Govt legitimate? Won’t this precedence then encourage militant groups operating in various countries, to overthrow the democratically elected Governments and seek recognition of militant group led Government? Is this the world order that we are seeking to establish? Doesn’t people’s will and their mandate matter?

The major powers—the United States, Russia, and China—together with other regional players such as India, Iran, and Pakistan actions, driven by perceived geopolitical interests, have neglected the adverse implications of their ambitions for the people of Afghanistan- another exercise in well-meaning rhetoric. It is therefore appropriate that the problems of Afghanistan and its people be discussed in a forum that includes all three major powers as well as other influential countries. It is also appropriate for the member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) to bring Afghanistan’s problems before this influential body, so that a solution and a way forward in resolving the Afghan imbroglio may be found. There can be no lasting security without strengthened democratic institutions – and there can be no strong democratic institutions without a drastic improvement in the security situation.

The Way Forward

It is time we define legitimacy and the process that needs to be gone through to claim legitimacy for Afghanistan.

The United Nations along with the countries of the world instead of legitimizing the Taliban need to convene Loya Jirga- a grand assembly rooted in Afghanistan’s democratic functionality for several decades. Convening a Loya Jirga is one possible approach because it may represent the will of the people.

Afghanistan’s long-standing challenges require people owned solutions that bring together the country’s diverse actors. Reviving the Loya Jirga, a historic institution of inclusive dialogue and consensus-building, offers a path to bridging the divide between the Taliban and Afghan society.

By supporting the founding spirit of a new Loya Jirga, regional players including India should take the lead as a ‘Viswa Guru’ in reaffirming its commitment to stability and inclusivity while strengthening its democratic legacy- a body could unite political leaders, civil society, women, and youth to craft a new social contract that addresses urgent national concerns and protects Afghan people. The United Nations could further assist by offering a framework for dialogue and monitoring compliance, ensuring that this Afghan-owned process promotes peace, counters extremism, and reinforces regional role as the responsible regional leaders.

Once again, let the world reaffirm democracy as a force for dignity, inclusion, and peace—and let the world unite to ensure it delivers democratic values for Afghanistan.

Choice is ours!

Neelapu Shanti is a New Delhi Based international affairs research analyst, writer, journalist and Indo-Afghan analyst. MA in International Relations Post-Graduate in Journalism.

Academicians and Officials interested to publish their academic pieces on this page, please approach us through: contact@aissonline.org.

The article does not reflect the official opinion of the AISS.