Open Dissent Amongst the Taliban

[Perknose]

Top Taliban Official's Public Criticism Reignites Internal Rift Speculations

"The war of words began last Saturday when the influential Taliban interior minister, Sirajuddin Haqqani, lashed out at his leadership for “monopolizing” power, though he did not name anyone.

“Our views and thoughts have dominated us to such an extent that power monopolization and defamation of the entire [ruling] system have become common,” Haqqani told a religious gathering in his native southeastern Khost region. “This situation can no more be tolerated.”

The minister added that the Taliban administration should desist from adopting policies that would drive a wedge between “the [ruling] system and the people, allowing others to exploit it to defame Islam.”

Haqqani’s remarks seemingly were directed at the Taliban supreme leader or emir, Hibatullah Akhundzada. The reclusive leader ordered the banning of Afghan women from most workplaces and all education since his hardline group seized power in August 2021. Akhundzada's edicts are supported by a handful of his close associates."

^^^ Wait a minute, Haqqani is the moderate here? Only in Afghanistan. 😵

 

[UNCjigga]

It was bound to happen. The ruling class needs a functioning civil bureaucracy for the country to function. They need to provide jobs—building infrastructure, facilitating markets, providing basic services etc. Unfortunately, they scared all those people away.

Now they’re pointing fingers at each other for failing to run a country.

 

[Jaskalas]

I am sure their second amendment rights will serve them well. I mean, they ARE armed right? That will obviously create a polite society... or something.

 

[Pohemi]

I think the schism has formed between the fundamentalists and the more moderate members who understand that if they want to remain in power, they need to actually run a functioning government and not be hated by the rest of the civilian population.

Whichever side an individual is on though...they are all part of a violent group that uses terror to accomplish their goals.

 

[hal2kilo]

I think the schism has formed between the fundamentalists and the more moderate members who understand that if they want to remain in power, they need to actually run a functioning government and not be hated by the rest of the civilian population.

Whichever side an individual is on though...they are all part of a violent group that uses terror to accomplish their goals.

Republicans could learn a thing or two then.

 

[pmv]

I think the schism has formed between the fundamentalists and the more moderate members who understand that if they want to remain in power, they need to actually run a functioning government and not be hated by the rest of the civilian population.

Whichever side an individual is on though...they are all part of a violent group that uses terror to accomplish their goals.

But why do some of them care about a functioning government (while others do not)? Surely what kept them together, and made them relatively-effective compared to the fractious and corrupt rival warlords they displaced, was that they were united in their absolutist and disciplined devotion to pure ideology?

I would have assumed that any split has to represent some sort of divergence of self-interest, between groups that find themselves in different roles, with different forms of self-interest. If one faction finds its more in their interest to run that 'functioning government' than to abide by pure ideology, that presumably must reflect some difference in their position in the regime or the society?
I can't believe it's just about some individuals being 'moderate', it has to reflect some difference in the material self-interest of different groups.