Abstract
Building the capacity of and reforming Afghan governance is widely viewed as the key to success in Afghanistan. Assessing progress, however, is hampered by limited data outside the Afghan security ministries – the Ministries of Defense and Interior – and by the lack of a common definition of governance. Available reporting suggests building governance capacity is far from complete. Varying definitions of governance, coupled with the use of the term by numerous organizations without defining it, results in addressing too broad a range of issues. It would be more useful to concentrate on the core of governance – providing the services the Afghan government has committed to provide to its citizens. This, in turn, requires that Afghan ministries have the functional capacity to carry out their responsibilities, including financial management, budget formulation and execution, policy and strategic planning, and service delivery. However, time is growing short. The Afghan experience provides some important lessons that could guide future endeavors for the international community. First, this paper discusses progress in building ministerial capacity. Second, it discusses recent efforts to link continued financial assistance to Afghanistan with improved governance. Third, it describes how the lack of a commonly accepted definition of governance complicates assessing progress. Finally, it offers conclusions and observations about the failure to establish an autonomous Afghan governance capacity. For more than a decade, improving governance has been recognized as the most difficult and critical challenge involving Afghan reconstruction. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reports that U.S. policymakers have consistently identified building the capacity of and reforming Afghan governance as the key to success in Afghanistan (SIGAR 2012, 22).
Highlights
Building the capacity of and reforming Afghan governance is widely viewed as the key to success in Afghanistan
In April 2009, Department of Defense (DoD) predicted that based on current missions and ministerial development plans, the Ministry of Defense (MOD) would be capable of conducting primary operational missions by mid-2011 (the highest level of capability, an organization, unit, agency, staff function, or installation that is capable of conducting primary operational missions, rated as Capability Milestone (CM) 1 (DoD 2009: 9, 17)
DoD’s failure to project when the MOD and Ministry of Interior (MOI) will be capable of autonomous operations is troubling
Summary
Progress has lagged in achieving governance capability in the security ministries Among U.S departments and agencies, the source of most governance assessments, the US Department of Defense (DoD) provides the most extensive reporting on governance. In its December 2012 report, covering the period April 1, 2012 through September 30, 2012, DoD was only predicting when the MOD and MOI would be capable of executing functions with coalition oversight only or CM1B status, with no mention of achieving CM1A or autonomous operations status.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Stability: International Journal of Security & Development
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.