Is Afghanistan 'Medieval'?

Afghans shouldn't be insulted when Westerners say the country reminds them of the Middle Ages. The religious and political struggles of that era can offer some useful lessons.

BY THOMAS BARFIELD | JUNE 2, 2010

In July 1973, Afghanistan's King Mohammed Zahir Shah was overthrown by his cousin Daud, who then abolished the monarchy and declared himself the president of a republic. The New York Times sarcastically editorialized that Afghanistan had just "leaped into the sixteenth century." Radio reports soon brought news of this slight even to provincial northern Afghanistan, where I was working at the time. Daud's government in Kabul expressed its displeasure, but an Afghan friend familiar with the region's complex history saw it differently. "We may have acted hastily," he joked. "The 15th century was pretty good around here!" Indeed, the Timurid dynasty that had its capital in Herat during that period was internationally renowned for its fine arts, monumental architecture, classical poetry -- and effective governance.

I was reminded of this story last month when the Afghan government accused Britain's new defense minister, Liam Fox, of insulting Afghanistan by describing it as a "broken 13th-century country." One Afghan official told the London Times that Fox's comments "show a lack of trust" and prove that Britain is a "colonial, orientalist, and racist country."

But Fox was hardly the first Westerner to reach for the medieval analogy when attempting to get a handle on Afghanistan. Something about Afghanistan conjures up the medieval period in the Western mind in an unreflective way, if only to express the idea that "they are not like us." For some it is a simple insult. Former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince declared that the Taliban were "barbarians" who "crawled out of the sewer" with "a 1200 A.D. mentality." (Given Prince's own fixation on the medieval Christian crusaders of the same era, perhaps the Taliban aren't the only ones with that mentality.) Yet medieval Europe, where religion still played central role in culture and politics and state power was highly fragmented, isn't the worst analogy for understanding contemporary Afghanistan. And Europe's experience during this period might even provide some useful lessons for the country going forward.

Secular Westerners who spend any time in rural Afghanistan are struck by the continuing power of religion there. Islam still permeates all aspects of everyday social relations in rural society; nothing is separate from it. Its influence is ever present in people's ordinary conversations, business transactions, dispute resolutions, and moral judgments. There is no relationship, whether political, economic, or social, that is not validated by Islam. In such a society it is impossible to separate religion from politics. Rural Afghans cannot even conceive of the separation of religion and government because in their minds, the two are so intrinsically linked. The declaration of Afghanistan as an "Islamic Republic" upon the fall of the Taliban provoked neither domestic discussion nor concern. Any regime in Kabul that does not seize the Islamic banner for itself is vulnerable to being branded as illegitimate by its enemies, as the Soviet-backed communist government learned during the 1980s.

Christianity once played a similar all-encompassing role in medieval European life, and it took many centuries (and the emergence of rationalist secular ideologies beginning with the Enlightenment) for church and state to disentangle themselves. By the mid-20th century, Joseph Stalin could derisively ask how many divisions the pope had, but no medieval ruler could afford to be as cavalier when his legitimacy was challenged by the pontiff, even a venal one.

BANARAS KHAN/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: AFGHANISTAN, HISTORY
 

Thomas Barfield is a professor of anthropology at Boston University and author of Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History, released in April. 

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

OPSUDRANIA

8:43 AM ET

June 3, 2010

Afghanistan V Feudal system

Basically to sum up the whole crux of the situation, it is Islamisation in its medieval state that is responsible to keep the society in this state. They are in the grip of this hard boiled idelogy that will not allow them to revive so easily. Unfortunately the opposing forces of powers in these religious ideologues and the pakistani imperialistic ambitions are acting against the interests of Afghanis. It
is difficult to break this chain in a short time. History is not written or erased in a short span of a few years. Years pass like minutes in the archives of history. Obama wants to get out for a face saving measure. But those who are criticising him are due to their vested interests; which are not being served in their presence.
Dr. O. P. Sudrania

 

LITTLEMANTATE

11:49 AM ET

June 3, 2010

No enlightenment period, no rationality?

I sometimes think that in the rush to consider all humans everywhere the same, a blank tabla raza that culture is written on, brought about by some misguided cultural relativism and a too Pollyanna-esque idea of human nature, we ignore how fundamental the Enlightenment period was for the West.

The Enlightenment era spawned monsters, no doubt about it, but it still was fundamental to many of the freedoms and scientific advances that we take for granted.

Hence the problem with Afghanistan. We go into the country with ideas based on enlightenment principles, but without asking the objects of our "enlightened" largess to radically change. Sure, bring in girl's schools, but we will still back the patriarchal, gerontocratic system that is rural Afghanistan. So you basically end up backing one set of reactionaries against another. Do I think we should force change on Afghanistan? Certainly no, unlike the Soviets, I don't believe the ends justify the means. But let's be honest about it. We can't decry the Taliban's backwardness, and then turn around and praise our tribal allies in the fight on the other without being hypocrites.

Until Afghanistan experiences it its own reformation and enlightenment era, if it ever does, it will remain what it is, and all Western efforts will continue to be a boondoggle.

 

GRANT

3:46 AM ET

June 5, 2010

In my opinion it's the height

In my opinion it's the height of idiocy to declare any nation 'medieval', especially given the 'evidence' mentioned. Religion plays a major factor in the lives of the everyday people and the state isn't purely secular. Wow, are we describing Afghanistan or any one out of dozens of recognized nations across the planet? Furthermore, apparently if a state doesn't precisely follow the Western model it is old fashioned and antiquated. Lastly the author doesn't mention at all the circumstances in the West that led to centralization of power, such as the wars of that time, the nobles repressed by the monarchs (if they could manage it) or the weakening of the Church in the aftermath.

 

CEOUNICOM

7:33 PM ET

June 6, 2010

Your point would make sense if...

...virtually every nation-state on the planet 'follows the 'western' model to a degree.

The point is that afghanistan, like a few other highly-screwed-up countries on earth, has never developed National civic institutions, and is based on pre-enlightenment fuedalism (despite making some attempts in the past at moving beyond this).

Yes, the formation of nation-states based on rule of law included a lot of violence getting there. But the key point is that most countries DID get there eventually...Afghanistan, not so much. For all the violence, its mostly been backward progress in the latter half of the 20th century.

 

GRANT

8:15 AM ET

June 7, 2010

Didn't follow the

Didn't follow the nation-state model and never developed rule of law. Wow, exactly where were you prior to 1979? Happily ignoring the fact that a fairly developed civil society did in fact exist in Afghanistan? People apparently like to combine two incredibly stupid ways of looking at the history of struggling states. The first is to assume that if a nation does not act like a more powerful nation it means that the former is somehow backwards or less historically advanced, ignoring the fact that states are artificial constructs that all have the exact same inherent value*. The second is to presume that if a nation is struggling at this time it must be true for all of that nation's history**.

*That is to say, effectively none.
**If I even had a penny for every time I've heard or read something describing all of Afghanistan as xenophobic and naturally inclined to warfare I could probably buy all of the U.S debt by now.

 

CEOUNICOM

4:48 PM ET

June 7, 2010

re: Afghanistan

I am aware of the most stable period in of the early 20th century in Afghanistan, under Mohammed Zahir Shah; but I would not characterize that as anything but one family managing to not get murdered in a coup for a while.
My case would be that during the 20th century Afghanistan never developed any lasting civil institutions, and it was essentially a fiefdom for a self-appointed Kings and - sometimes - their offspring or family members. If they lived long enough. For the majority of the 20th century (and proir), the most common way change of power occurred was by murdering the current leader. No one has ever exerted complete authority over the entire country, and the only periods of significant reform (such as under Mahmud Tarzi in the early part of the century) quickly resulted in tribal opposition, and never stuck outside of a few enclaves. The "republic of Afghanistan", which did try and jump start the country into the future, was a failure.

So if I say, I dont think Afghanistan has ever adopted any of the characteristics of modern states, a la: Rule of Law, basic individual rights, a monopoly of the use of force by government, some sort of infrastructure for unification of the entire geography of the country under some either republican or federal structures... I dont think thats a controversial point. The fact that they were comparatively *better* before, or at different times in history *tried* to establish some of these things, is nice, but in essence the country has never been anything but a collection of tribes, and regional power brokers working with a small group of elites who may nominally call themselves rules, but do not rule anything you could call a country.

 

CEOUNICOM

5:03 PM ET

June 7, 2010

re: follow up point

Some of the points above also, not so ironically, also apply to Pakistan, which includes the NWFP & FATA, but which they only have nominal influence over. The law that governs in Islamabad doesnt exist in many of these places and never has. They are "Pakistan" in name only.

 

MEREDITH STALEY

12:35 AM ET

July 2, 2010

Afghanistan

You can argue against inaccurate labelling without going for wholesale cultural relativism. Afghanistan isn't simply a mess because we think it is a mess. Medieval thinkers would also have complained about a central government that couldn't defend people within its own territory or maintain justice internally. idaho local flower shops A large part of the ideology of the modern state (since the French Revolution) has also been about the equal treatment of all before the law. I'd argue that countries that legally discriminate against large sections of the population (like women) are not modern and that that is something to be deplored. I agree with you that medieval history can't provide a simple template of how to create a centralised state. But what I have usefully learned from study of the early Middle Ages is that an effective state is not a natural occurrance or a common phenomenon. As the Carolingians found, it is hard to create and maintain a state with even minimal forms of justice and peacefulness, given the forces pulling against this. send flowers in florida 'Failed states' are not an exceptional phenomenon. If more people take from medieval history how difficult and slow it is to form an effective state and how fragile such a state can be, maybe they would be less hubristic and impatient in trying to create such states violently.

 

FOAD

4:37 AM ET

June 6, 2010

Afghanistan is more than medieval

we should accept the reality, he has compared Afghanistan with western contries.

but not all part of Afghanistan, when you see the south region of Afghanistan you may think of medieval, not north and west parts of Afgahnistan.

 

ARJUNA

7:30 PM ET

June 6, 2010

I suppose Afghanistan is 'Medieval'

That's true. Basically to sum up the whole crux of the situation, it is Islamisation in its medieval state that is responsible to keep the society in this state. They are in the grip of this hard boiled idelogy that will not allow them to revive so easily. current political news Unfortunately the opposing forces of powers in these religious ideologues and the pakistani imperialistic ambitions are acting against the interests of Afghanis.

 

ELEVEN

1:04 AM ET

June 8, 2010

re: Afghanistan

Article is very interesting,thanks for your sharing. I will necessarily add it in the selected works and I will visit this site.welcome to my site:www.weddingdressesonline.us
wedding dresses 2010

 

ELEVEN

1:07 AM ET

June 8, 2010

I suppose Afghanistan

I will necessarily add it in the selected works and I will visit this site.welcome to my site:bridal gownwedding dresses discountWedding Dress Accessories

 

MEDA

8:17 AM ET

June 26, 2010

very nice articel good

very nice articel good work

visits free-send.de

 

QPZMGR

10:15 PM ET

June 29, 2010

Everything is so

Is America "West" once you drive 50 miles away from any major city; ever listen to the crap on their radio stations, or read crap in all their useless newspapers?

Everything is so idiotic that its best to keep the radio turned off and the newspapers, well they are not even suitable for wrapping a fish.

West and West's self proclaimed self-aggrandisements; more village idiots than anthing else.

The real facts are that the middle class is about the same all over the world, my friends in replica IWC England, Ireland, South Africa, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Australia are all reading the same books.

Regarding the poor and the unwashed, well, they are eeking out a living at $2 per day or less, why use them as a reference point. We should be ashamed to even bring them in a conversation just to make fun of entire countries.