The phrase “Institution Building” means to organize, monitor, evaluate and guide in a professional and structured way the growth of institutions, adapting them to the specific needs of a country and to the social and cultural environment around them. Many international organizations, mostly the UN, frequently use it to describe a well-thought-out project with the goal to guide developing countries towards creating democratic institutions.
Institution Building is a fundamental component of a greater process, called “Capacity Development”, which has as ultimate goal the country’s full autonomy. It is based on one essential principle: the capacities of a country have to be developed, yet not imported from the outside. There is no universal model to be applied in every situation, so this process, and consequentially the Institution Building itself, must be tailored to the necessities and peculiarities of the subject to whom it is addressed. Furthermore, this process cannot mean a complete revolution of the current order: the goal must be the change and improvement of the system, but mostly a change that is sustainable for the society in the long term.
Even if completely implementing a foreign model is impossible, the 2030 UN Agenda underlines the importance of transmitting the ideals of a peaceful, just and inclusive society, founded on the respect of human rights, on an effective law system and government, and on valid and transparent institutions.
The attempt of Institution Building in Afghanistan stands out: because the conflict has never actually ended, the international operation to create a stable peace has taken place simultaneously with the ongoing war. Moreover, these strong tensions were aggrandized by the same international forces that were attempting to reestablish the order. The same “faction” was upholding two contradictory goals: to obtain a temporary stability, or to be committed day by day to reach a durable peace through Institution Building and a new governance system.
For a long time, the insurgent problems have not led to a proper action plan for the country: only short-term solutions have been adopted, but only by demanding more weapons, more funds, more meetings and alliances without an actual purpose. Despite the involvement of 62 countries and institutions, moved by different interests (political, economic, ethical), they never reached a real common action plan, and each has tried to export their own model without taking any interest in Afghanistan’s own necessities. The western model based on free market economy was strongly in contrast with the models adopted by the Afghan regime (enlightened dictatorship mixed with remains from the communist social welfare).
To conclude, the international intervention has been too little too late, but mostly wrong in its ways and systems. At the same time, some say that the country was not ready, or that it was simply destined to fail. Looking at the future, the need of smaller initiatives, but targeted towards the welfare of the country, led by the leaders aware of the citizens’ necessities, is becoming clearer. To allow a real Institution Building process to begin in Afghanistan, then, it is fundamental that it begins in harmony with the country’s cultural traditions, mindful of the people’s needs, and projected towards a durable peace.
