Search

Post-conflict scenarios are ridden with unique challenges which confront peace-builders. These difficulties become pronounced in cases where external actors are primarily responsible for post-conflict reconstruction and democratization given lack of resources and institutions which charecterize post-conflict societies. Thus although local agency in post-conflict situations may be desirable, it is not always feasible. How far does the vision of external powers match that of the indigenous people who are most directly impacted by post-conflict planning? I highlight a disjuncture between external and local visions and priorities in the context of one of the most compelling cases of current post-conflict peace-building; Afghanistan. I discuss the challenges created by historical context and culture by pointing to key issues which are standard practice in Western models of post-conflict peace building but proved to be contentious in Afghanistan. I emphasize that peacemakers must be flexible about incorporating local understandings, institutions and concerns instead of trying to transplant Western models. Further, it is important to ask whether democratization should be a priority in all post-conflict situations. In the case of Afghanistan democratization may not represent the immediate concerns of the Afghan people; instead, as this paper argues establishing basic security and normalcy is a task of greater importance. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]