Written by Mojtaba Ghorban-Zadeh, exclusively for IRAF
A review of three strategic development documents for Afghanistan reveals a deep contradiction. The Afghanistan National Development Strategy (2008–2013) focused primarily on economic growth and institution-building, overlooking the country’s political and security complexities. The Afghanistan National Peace and Development Framework (2017–2021) marked a step forward by adopting a more human-centered and participatory approach, but in practice it encountered structural obstacles such as systemic corruption and warlordism. Finally, the Dialogue and Adaptive Development Plan (2021–2025) was drafted in the hope of peace, but was rendered irrelevant in the very year of its publication by the collapse of the political system.
When we update our mobile phones, we expect to encounter a newer, more efficient and more advanced version. This expectation is rooted in a linear notion of progress that assumes every change automatically represents improvement and advancement. Yet, just as the update is completed, we may suddenly realize that some familiar old applications have disappeared and unfamiliar ones have taken their place. This confusion is evident not only in the digital world, but also in societies embarking on paths of imported development.
We are talking about societies that, in their pursuit of development, suddenly find themselves confronted with ready-made models imported from the West without regard for their historical, cultural and social contexts. Development is not merely about building factories, highways and bridges; it also transforms the DNA of human relationships, turning bonds based on affection and friendship into financial and profit-driven transactions, and even tying human dignity to levels of production and profit. This is precisely where the confusion following an update occurs: old identities are removed and replaced by emerging values that are alien to the spirit of society.
Why Is This Imitative Development Model Imposed on Eastern Societies?
Despite profound cultural, political and geographical differences, why do developing countries continue to implement Western models without modification? The answer lies in the concept of linear development. Under this paradigm, development is viewed as a single, universal path through which all societies must pass, overlooking the fact that development resembles an octopus, with one tentacle rooted in the economy, another in culture, another in politics and another in geography. Offering a single model for every country is like taking a vehicle designed for tropical regions to the North Pole; it will ultimately stop working. Afghanistan after 2001 is a clear example of this mistake. With the arrival of Western forces, pre-designed models were imposed that had little compatibility with Afghanistan’s religious and historical structures.
Imitative Development Is Not Only Ineffective, but Dangerous
One of the hidden dimensions of this form of development is its impact on human dignity and social justice. In a modern, Westernized society, a housewife may be labeled “unemployed,” even though she serves as an emotional pillar and a source of stability for the family. By contrast, a woman who works for a company may be assigned greater value simply because she has entered the monetary economy. This transformation separates dignity from morality and ties it to the quantity of profit. In Afghanistan, with a population of approximately 40 million and considerable religious diversity, such imposed models have failed to produce development.
The Striking Contradiction in Afghanistan’s Development Plans
A review of three strategic development documents for Afghanistan reveals a deep contradiction. The Afghanistan National Development Strategy (2008–2013) focused primarily on economic growth and institution-building, overlooking the country’s political and security complexities. The Afghanistan National Peace and Development Framework (2017–2021) marked a step forward by adopting a more human-centered and participatory approach, but in practice it encountered structural obstacles such as systemic corruption and warlordism. Finally, the Dialogue and Adaptive Development Plan (2021–2025) was drafted in the hope of peace, but was rendered irrelevant in the very year of its publication by the collapse of the political system.
These failures were not necessarily the result of weaknesses in the design of the plans, but rather of the failure to recognize that development is not a technical and linear project. It is a deeply political, social and historical process.
From Imitative Development to Indigenous Development
Contrary to the linear view of development, Afghanistan’s experience shows that any program developed without genuine public participation, justice and attention to cultural diversity is destined to fail. This failure should serve as an opportunity to rethink the concept of development. Developing societies need to strengthen their intellectual and psychological capacity to redefine development according to their own local needs—a form of development that neither sacrifices human dignity for profit, nor abandons collective identity in favor of blind imitation, nor excludes half of the population from public life.
Strengthening Social Foundations in an Era of Imposed Development
In response to the question of how the failure of development programs can be prevented, the answer is that any development intervention must be accompanied by public participation, attention to local power structures, respect for religious and cultural diversity, and the strengthening of social cohesion.
Development that ignores these principles does not merely fail to produce progress; like an incompatible software update, it can disrupt the system from within. Afghanistan’s experience offers an important lesson for other developing countries: development without justice and progress without genuine public participation are not only impossible, but highly dangerous, potentially pushing a country toward destruction.
Conclusion
We can conclude that development is a complex system of human development, social networking and preparation for a future shaped by the internal capacities of each society. It is a sincere and indigenous process that challenges the rules of blind imitation and demonstrates how a society can rely on its identity, history and public participation to develop a roadmap for building a new civilization.
But the most important outcome of this rethinking is the presentation of a tangible response to the identity crisis facing developing societies. In a world where, despite the abundance of imported models, societies are increasingly distancing themselves from their authenticity, a formula for indigenous development—reliance on local knowledge, social justice, broad participation and respect for cultural diversity—can serve as a powerful antidote to this profound crisis.
Development is a form of social architecture, built not according to paper plans drawn by outsiders, but according to a map of love, identity and sacrifice engraved in the hearts of the people. This is its greatest lesson for the contemporary world. To fully realize this model, an approach combining indigenous knowledge and spirituality is needed so that this immense human capacity can be harnessed to build a civilization founded on justice and empathy.
