1818E A Study of Afghanistans Organization

A Study of Afghanistan’s Organization
and Structure of Public Administration

under the 2004 Constitution
Author
Mirwais Ayobi,
Co-author
Haroun Rahimi
December 2018
Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit
Issues Paper
A Study of Afghanistan’s Organization

and Structure of Public Administration
under the 2004 Constitution
Author
Mirwais Ayobi
Co-author
Haroun Rahimi
December 2018
Funded by and through partnership with USIP

The information and views set out in this publication are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official opinion of AREU.
Editor: Toby Miller
ISBN 978-9936-641-15-0
Publication Code 1818 E
© 2018 Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit. This publication may be quoted,
cited, or reproduced only for non-commercial purposes and provided that the source is
acknowledged. The opinions expessed in this publication are those of the contributors and
do not necessarily reflect those of the USIP or AREU. Where this publication is reproduced,
stored, or transmitted electronically, a link to AREU’s website (www.areu.org.af) should
be provided.
Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit 2018
About the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit

The Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU) is an independent research institute
based in Kabul that was established in 2002 by the assistance of the international community
in Afghanistan. AREU’s mission is to inform and influence policy and practice by conducting
high-quality, policy-relevant, evidence based research and actively disseminating the
results and promote a culture of research and learning. As the top think tank in Afghanistan
and number five in Central Asia according to the Global Go To Think Tank Index Report
at the University of Pennsylvania, AREU achieves its mission by engaging with policy
makers, civil society, researchers and academics to promote their use of AREU’s research-
based publications and its library, strengthening their research capacity and creating
opportunities for analysis, reflection and debate. AREU is governed by a Board of Directors
comprised of representatives of donor organisations, embassies, the United Nations and
other multilateral agencies, Afghan civil society and independent experts.
AREU’s core donor is the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).
Specific projects in 2018 are being funded by the European Union (EU), Global Challenges
Research Fund (GCRF), United States Institute of Peace (USIP), Norwegian Institute of
International Affairs (NUPI), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO), Overseas Development Institute (ODI-UK), Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
and Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), School of Oriental and African
Studies (SOAS) and British Council (BC).
AREU holds memberships in multiple international development consortiums including the

RESOLVE Network, Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), Secure Livelihoods Research
Consortium (SLRC), A Conflict Sensitive Unpacking of The EU Comprehensive Approach to
Conflict and Crisis Mechanism (EUNPACK), ADB- Asian Think Tanks Network (ATTN) and The
Regional Environmental Centre for Central Asia (CAREC). For more information visit www.
areu.org.af
In 2018, AREU was awarded Best International Social Think Tank by Prospect Magazine.
A Study of Afghanistan’s Organization and Structure of Public Administration under the 2004 Constitution i
2018 Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit
About the United States Institute of Peace

The U.S. Institute of Peace works with the Afghan government and civil society organizations
to address underlying causes of instability by strengthening the rule of law, countering
violent extremism, expanding peace education, and promoting better governance and
anti-corruption efforts. USIP also supports policy-relevant research on current causes of
conflict in Afghanistan.
ii AREU
About the Authors:

Mirwais Ayobi is a law lecturer at Herat University- Afghanistan and a PhD candidate in
Public Law from German University of Administrative Sciences at his final year. Mr. Ayobi
obtained his first master degree in Political Science from Punjab University-India and the
second one in Urban Analysis and Management from Florence University-Italy. Mr. Ayobi’s
extensive research for his PhD is focusing on Afghanistan’s Administrative structures as
well as judicial review of administrative action.
Haroun Rahimi is a law lecturer at Herat University, and adjunct instructor at American
University of Afghanistan. Dr Rahimi holds PhD in Law and obtained his LLM in Global
Business Law from University of Washington. Dr Rahimi’s research focuses on the process
of development of institutions and how governments can effectively intervene in the
process of creating effective formal institutions.
A Study of Afghanistan’s Organization and Structure of Public Administration under the 2004 Constitution iii
Acknowledgement
We would like to express our deepest gratitude for everyone who has helped us in the
process of producing this paper. Surely, this paper has been made possible with the help of
a group of people; while we accept all the responsibility for its shortcomings, they share
the credit for its success.
We owe a great debt of gratitude to our colleagues at Afghanistan Research and Evaluation
Unit (AREU). Their untiring support and constant help have made this research possible. We
would like to especially thank Dr Orzala Nemat, the head of AREU, Ms. Masiha Fayez, Mr.
Muhammad Hassan Wafaey, and Ms. Massouda. We also would like to express our gratitude
for the generous support we received from our colleagues at United States Institute for
Peace.
We would like to also thank each and every one of our esteemed interviewees who
graciously took time out of their busy schedules and provided us with thoughtful comments
and insightful answers; they have surely enriched this research. While they are not named
here, we aknowledge their insightful contribution to this study. We also would like to
thank our anonymous peer-reviewers who provided us with great comments and feedback.
We would like to also thank our friend and colleague, Mr. Abdul Sami Walizada, who assisted
us with interviews in Herat.
It is noteworthy that the responsibility for any shortcomings in the paper is ours.
Mirwais Ayobi and Haroun Rahimi
iv AREU
Foreword
The Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU) is pleased to present a paper from
the third phase of its work under the thematic area of Constitutional Law in partnership
with with United States Institute for Peace (USIP). We would like express our gratitude to
USIP for its generous financial support on the research conducted in this field.
In the first phase, the research on Constitutional Law focused on overall constitutional
reform topics, such as separation of power, electoral systems, citizen’s fundamental rights
and ten years of constitution. In the second phase, our authors expanded the research
into the 2004 Constitution, mainly studying the evolution of the Executive Branch and the
process of judicial review in Afghanistan.
In this phase, we are grateful to present one of the two papers focusing on chapter eight
of the Afghan Constitution on Administration. This paper is very timely because of the
growing and dire need for further clarity on the public administration in Afghanistan. This
is also the first attempt by AREU’s Afghan researchers to highlight the flaws and challenges
of the relevant constitutional articles in theory and in practice.
The authors, Mirwais Ayobi and Dr Haroun Rahimi, ask whether and to what extent the
constitutionally prescribed public administration offers a sufficient legal framework
and if it has been able to perform its function. The authors found that a majority of
the people they interviewed believe the constitution provides for a deconcentrated
centralized public administration. Meanwhile, a significant minority argue that a holistic
interpretation of the constitution demonstrates that it provides for a semi-centralized or
deconcentrated decentralized public administration. Ayobi and Rahimi’s paper includes
a set of recommendations on what the Afghan government can do in the short-term and
what changes should be brought to the constitution in the longer run.
The findings in this paper are critical to our understanding of public administration in
Afghanistan, particularly how it has been envisioned in the current constitution. I hope
this paper will serve not only as a resource that will help the Afghan government and all
stakeholders in the reform processes, but also open the space for a larger debate on what
mode of public administration suits our current and evolving systems of governance the
best.
Dr Orzala Nemat
AREU Director
A Study of Afghanistan’s Organization and Structure of Public Administration under the 2004 Constitution v
Table of Contents
About the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit .................................................... i
About the United States Institute of Peace.................................................................ii
About the Authors:............................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgement............................................................................................. iv
Foreword ........................................................................................................ v
List of Abbreviations.......................................................................................... vii
Glossary....................................................................................................... VIII
Executive Summary............................................................................................ ix
1. Introduction..............................................................................................1
1.1 The importance of this research ....................................................................... 2
1.2 Research Methodology.................................................................................... 2
1.3 Paradigms of Public Management....................................................................... 3
2. Historical Background of Public Administration in Afghanistan..................................7
2.1 Formation of the centralized administration system................................................ 7
2.2 Decentralization tendencies: administrative deconcentration.................................... 8
2.3 Decentralized Administration......................................................................... 10
3. Public Administration Under the Current Constitution.......................................... 12
3.1 Approach of the Current Constitution to the Organization of Public Administration......... 12
3.2 The existing administrative system.................................................................. 13
3.3 Central and local administrations.................................................................... 16
3.4 The conformity of administrative organization with the Constitution.......................... 26
3.5 From centralization to decentralizing............................................................... 30
3.6 Legal persons of public law............................................................................ 32
3.7 The need for reforms in organization of public administration.................................. 36
4. Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................. 39
4.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 39
4.2 Recommendations....................................................................................... 40
Bibliography ................................................................................................... 41
vi AREU
List of Abbreviations
ACC Afghanistan Civil Code
AOP Administrative Office of the President
CDCs Community Development Councils
CEO Chief Executive Office
IARCSC Independent Administrative Reform and Civil Service Commission
ICOIC Independent Commission for Overseeing the Implementation of Constitution
IDLG (Independent) Directorate of Local Governance
IEC Independent Election Commission
KII Key Informant Interview
MoFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MoJ Ministry of Justice
MP Member of Parliament
NC National Council
NGGPA National Good Government Policy for Afghanistan
NUG National Unity Government
A Study of Afghanistan’s Organization and Structure of Public Administration under the 2004 Constitution vii
Glossary
Centralization An administrative system which stresses the concentration of
authorities in the center and their exercise through a hierarchical
structure
Decentralization An administrative system which emphasizes the distribution of

authorities and their exercise through a horizontal structure
Deconcentrated Centralized It is a loose centralized administrative system in which some of

the decision-making powers are delegated to the decentralized
public bodies and authorities
Good Governance A very updated system of public sector management
Loya Jirga Grand Assembly/Council, the traditional Afghan assembly that

decides matters of national importance such as the adoption of
or amendment to the constitution.
Mujahideen Holy fighter who fought against the Russian invasion in Afghanistan
Nizamnama(s) Another name for the Laws, which were adopted by King
Amanullah Khan
Sharwali Municipality
Taliban Literally means student of religious knowledge. They ruled

Afghanistan after Mujahideen and their regime collapsed after
9/11 incident.
Tashkilat The organization and distribution of positions within a public

organization
Usulnama(s) Another name for the laws, which were adopted by King Nader
khan
VIII AREU
Executive Summary
System of public administration is one of the most important issues addressed under
Afghanistan’s Constitution. Seven articles of Chapter Eight of 2004 Constitution lay
down the basic structure and model of public administration in Afghanistan. However,
study of organization of public administration in Afghanistan reveals that some of the
constitutionally-mandated administrative institutions are not yet established, and the
current system of public administrations often diverge from the constitutional model
in significant ways. In addition to the gap between the constitutional model of public
administration and the de facto administrative system of Afghanistan, the experience of
the last decade and half also highlights a number of constitutional design flaws in area
of public administration. Until now, there are still unanswered questions about the basic
structure and model of public administration under the 2004 Constitution. The paradoxical
and ambiguous formulation of the formal constitutional framework of public administration
underscore the need for revising the constitutional provisions of public administration
system. The overwhelming majority of the stakeholders also concur on the need for the
revision of constitutional provisions of public administration.
While those who drafted the 2004 Constitution must have been aware of the treatment of
public administration under past constitutions, they failed to effectively incorporate the
historical lessons of public administration design into Afghanistan’s latest constitution.
Study of Afghanistan’s past constitutions reveals that different models of centralization,
decentralization, and deconcentrated centralization were tried by different regimes;
a historical understanding of these different models could inform better constitutional
design for public administration in Afghanistan. Lack of sufficient historical studies and
indigenous theories of public administration has contributed to poor constitutional design
of public administration system in Afghanistan. However, a more holistic view also shows
that during the last decade and a half, Afghanistan has been struggling with formidable
legal and extralegal challenges and lacked some of the necessary preconditions for a
good system of public administration. Given these challenges, which persist until today, a
decade and a half may not be a long enough timeframe for evaluating the effectiveness of
the basics of the 2004 Constitution’s model of public administration.
This study recommends that Afghanistan, drawing on historical lessons and a realistic
understanding of the challenges facing the country, undertakes a number of mid-term
and long-term legal reforms that would gradually create a more effective constitutional
framework for public administration in Afghanistan improving delivery of public services
and political stability of the country.
A Study of Afghanistan’s Organization and Structure of Public Administration under the 2004 Constitution ix
1. Introduction
Although we do not know exactly when organizations of public administration first
developed, the historical studies suggest that development of public administration has
been concomitant with development of state. In Afghanistan, however, the development
of public administration only dates back to a century and half ago. Organizations of public
administration has been an effective tool for rulers to exercise power and regulate their
relations with those under their rule. Thus, organization of public administration has
evolved along with the evolution of state. However, depending on the context, and the will
of rulers, states have utilized different models of public administration. In Afghanistan,
since the inception of modern organizations of public administration, towards the end of
nineteen century, states have utilized different models of public administration ranging
from centralization, to deconcentrated centralization, to decentralization. However, due
to a whole host of reasons, such as tribal and traditional structures, political instability,
rapid regime change, constant historical raptures, top-down and imported nature of
attempted administrative reforms, and xenophobic and centrifugal forces within Afghan
society, none of these models were successfully institutionalized. The current Constitution,
adopted in 2004, seeks to establish a deconcentrated form of centralized administration
albeit with some qualifications.
The experience of the last decade and half suggests that the current public administration
system has proven ineffective at performing its functions and achieving its stated goals;
it could be even argued that it has been a failure. Ambiguity and excessive deferral by
the Constitution in areas of public administration, shortcomings of the administrative
institutions prescribed by the Constitution, failure in implementation of the Constitution
in the areas of public administration, the failure to establish constitutionally-mandated
administrative institutions are offered as the reasons for the weakness of public
administration in Afghanistan. The question this assessment poses is that whether and
to what extent the constitutionally prescribed public administration offers a sufficient
legal framework and has been able to perform its functions. To answer this question and
other related subsidiary questions, we have employed a qualitative multimethod research
design. Under this research design, we reviewed the existing research on the administrative
system of Afghanistan. We also analyzed the laws, regulation, policies, and officials reports
on public administration in Afghanistan. The analysis of primary and secondary sources was
complimented with semi-structured interviews with key informants. We then conducted a
thematic analysis of the interview notes in order to highlight the important themes from
the interviews. The interview data was leveraged to deepen our understanding of de facto
structure and operation of administrative system in Afghanistan as well as different views
on the problems of and solutions to issues of public administration in Afghanistan.
This paper includes of four parts. Part one comprises of introduction, research methodology
and research questions, the need for this research, and the theoretical framework. Part
two focuses on the history and evolution of public administration in Afghanistan. Part
three describes the constitutional framework and legal structure of public administration
of Afghanistan, and the conformity of the de facto structure of public administration
with its constitutional model, and the need for reform. Part four offers conclusions, and
recommendation in light of analysis from this paper.
1 AREU
Introduction 2018
1.1 The importance of this research

Public administration is an important inquiry for understanding the reasons for the failure
of post-2001 order in Afghanistan. This is because public administration plays a critical
role in development, institutionalization of democracy, operationalization of national
sovereignty, implementation of participatory governance, and delivery of public services.
The ability of a political community to achieve these goals is closely related to the quality
and performance of public administration. A failing system of public administration surely
cannot take upon the demanding tasks of bringing about political, economic, and social
developments. Therefore, having a system of public administration based on a well-known
model and a good legal framework, and indigenous experiences is an important precondition
of a successful nation-state. Since creation of such a system of public administration
requires in-depth studies of the administrative system in its context, research like this is
of utmost important for creating the necessary conditions for achieving good governance
in Afghanistan.
1.2 Research Methodology
The authors have employed a qualitative multimethod research design; our research
design consists of analysis of secondary and primary sources as well as semi-structured
interviews with experts and discussions with policymakers. Authors have chosen to
include individuals in the sample who possess both theoretical knowledge as well as
practical experience. Therefore, among others, members of Independent Commission
for Overseeing the Implementation of Constitution (ICOIC), high ranking administrative
officials, and legal and administration scholars were interviewed. The interviews were
conducted in-person and face-to-face. A total of twenty-eight interviews were conducted
during the month of July of 2018. Of those interviews, six were occurred in Herat while
the remaining were conducted in Kabul. The interviews were conducted based on the
prepared questions, however, interviewees were encouraged to raise the issues that they
considered relevant and important; interviewers also probed further and asked follow-up
questions when necessary. In the study of primary and secondary sources, authors have
carefully studied Afghanistan’s constitutions, laws and regulations, legislative decrees,
administrative guidelines, official reports, as well as academic publications. In addition
to this, comments and feedback were also noted from an open dialogue at AREU where
authors have shared initial findings esteemed experts from the field. At the end, this paper
draws upon a theoretical study of public administration, a study of its historical evolution
in Afghanistan, and a critical assessment of its current state, functions, and goals. The
limits of this study include scarcity of empirical research on administrative organization in
Afghanistan, and limited access to top-ranking policymakers.
A Study of Afghanistan’s Organization and Structure of Public Administration under the 2004 Constitution 2
Research Questions
The main research question this study aims to look at is: Whether Afghanistan’s constitution
provides an adequate and appropriate legal framework for the organization of public
administration?
Secondary research questions are:
• Can history of public administration in Afghanistan offer us with useful insights

and models for understanding and improving public administration in Afghanistan?
• Whether and to what extent the existing structure of public administration is
consistent with its legal framework in Afghanistan?
• What are the weaknesses and strengths of public administration in Afghanistan?
• Whether and to what extent the attempts to reform the public administration in
Afghanistan have been successful?
• How we can reform the public administration in Afghanistan and improve its
legality?
1.3 Paradigms of Public Management

Although some of the criteria of modern public management, such as managerial and
hierarchical management structures, existed in the rudimentary political orders as well,
the modern public management is only a century-and-half old. Since nineteen century,
three major paradigms have been dominant in most countries: classic public management,
new public management, and good governance.
Classic public management is mostly the product of works of Max Weber and Wilson
Woodrow.1 Weber advocated for legal and rational authority over charismatic and heredity
form of power, hence, he was a great proponent of administrative rules and regulations,
administrative hierarchy, written and legal documentation, division of labor, and
impersonalized public administration. In the 1970s, after the shortcomings of the classic
paradigm become clear, a new paradigm, new public management, emerged to replace
the classic paradigm of public management.
1 Woodrow Wilson, “The Study of Administration”, Political Science Quarterly, no. 2 (1887), http://www.iupui.
edu/~spea1/V502/Orosz/Units/Sections/u1s5/Woodrow_Wilson_Study_of_Administration_1887_jstor.pdf
3 AREU
Introduction 2018
The new paradigm favored market mechanisms over state institutions, hence, it favored
a smaller state, privatization of public service deliveries, and deregulation. This new
paradigm’s excessive reliance on market mechanisms and overlook of the role of public
oversight caused it to be replaced with a new paradigm in the 1990s. Perhaps, the most
important criticism of new public management was its neglect of social justice which
led to increasing inequality. To overcome new challenges and meet new demands, good
governance emerged as the new dominant paradigm.
Good governance paradigm highlighted the need to redefine the role of state in society.2 In
the contrast with the previous approaches, which respectively advocated for an increasing
and decreasing role for the state in the market, the good governance approach adopted
a middle position. The good governance approach emphasizes on an appropriate level
of regulation, cooperation, and partnership between government, civil society, and the
private sector. This paradigm proposes that creating cooperation and partnership among
these three sectors is the most effective way to overcome challenging problems of modern
times.3 The theoretical basis of the good governance is influenced by the ideas of democracy,
public participation, participatory governance, and accountability of public officials to
the citizens.4 To embed these values in the public administration, this approach moves
away from the closed model of public decision-making and advocates for the creation of
new public institutions that facilitate citizenry participation and public involvement in
decision-making.5
The current constitution of Afghanistan enshrines the basic values of civil society,
individual freedom and liberty, participatory governance, democracy, market economy,
and promotion of private sector.6 The constitution reflects a strong desire to actualize
these ethical goals. Therefore, the paradigm that underpins the current constitution is
good governance; as evidenced by the title of “National Good Governance Policy (draft)”7
which is currently under consideration within the government.
Public administration model in Good governance paradigm

In the past, generally prior to introduction of democratic governments, rulers used public
administration to exercise their personal power. However, as the nature, functions, and
role of state have changed over time, the functions and nature of public administration
too have changed. The change in the nature and functions of public administration has
been context-dependent and followed different paths in different countries.8 While, in
developed countries, public administration has become increasingly more effective and
democratic, in the less-developed countries like Afghanistan it has not had the same
success. Afghanistan has experienced different organizations of public administration and
public management; however, they all have fallen short of achieving their goals. Similarly,
study of public administration and public management over time reveals that a range
of administrative paradigms—traditional administration, new public management, and
good governance—have been employed by different regimes in the Afghanistan’s history.9
2 Mehdi Hadavand et al, Aeinhai Tasmimgiri Dar Hoqooq Adari [Administrative Procedures in Administrative Law],
(Tehran: Khursand, 1391: 2012), p. 27.
3 United Nation Development Program, “Governance for Sustainable Growth and Equity”, Report of International
Conference, (New York: United Nations Publication, 28-30 July 1999), p. 42.
4 Habibullah Salarzai and Habib Abrahim Poor, “Evaluation of Historical Evolution of Public Management Paradigms”,
Public Management Review 4, no. 9 (2012), p. 57.
5 Mehdi, Hadavand, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., p. 29.
6 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 1382 (2004), preamble, arts. 4, 6 and 10, and Chapter 2.
7 “National Good Governance Policy” (draft, unpublished, July 2018).
8 Manochehr Tabatabai-Motamini, Hoqoq Adari [Administrative Law] (Tehran: SAMT, 1383 [2004]) p.52.
9 This reality will be clarified by referring to the legal systems of different regimes thorough the body of the text.
However, in Afghanistan, the promise of these administrative models and paradigms,

which were imported and did not organically develop in the Afghan context, have
not materialized. This failure can be attributed to a number of causes including their
inadaptability to the Afghan context, short life of their implementing-regimes, inability of
the implementing-regimes to completely understand and implement these administrative
paradigms and models. At the current time, a convergence of external and internal
factors (such as a broad consensus on the need for administrative reform among different
political groups, improved access to Afghans with knowledge of modern paradigms of
public administration, and interest of Afghanistan government’s foreign partners to fund
administrative reforms) has afforded Afghanistan with a new chance at reforming its
system of public administration. Afghan reformists should be extremely careful about the
choices they make and the administrative models, and paradigms that they choose. Any
decision in this regard should be guided by lessons drawn from the past experiences,
and a complete assessment of the needs and wants of today. The 2004 Constitution has
adopted the good governance paradigm as it emphasizes on the rule of law, participatory
governance, market economy, and a vibrant civil society; however, it does not provide a
clear choice of the model of public administration. Given the constitutional ambiguity in
areas of public administration, it is important to discuss some basic concepts of public
administration here.
Administrative Systems
Countries use different models to structure their public administration. This is because
the method of public administration in each country is determined by its political, social,
economic, and geographical conditions. Centralized administrative systems may be
useful for the countries that have not achieved a high level of political development, are
concerned about local strongmen, and secession of parts of their territory. Conversely,
decentralized form of public administration may be appropriate for the countries that have
strong democratic traditions, have achieved a higher level of development, and enjoy a
more resilient national unity. The former group of countries tend to administer the public
affairs at the center and local level through a centralized system of administration. In
these countries, to perform different administrative and public functions, administrative
institutions are established in the capital, and if necessary, these centralized institutions
establish line department on the local level as well.10 This model was widely used in
the past; for example, France had a highly centralized administrative system under
the reign of Louis XIV. However, currently countries seldom adopt a highly centralized
administrative system. Afghanistan, on the other hand, still possess a de facto highly
centralized administration.
In some other countries such as England, France, and Belgium that follows this model, the
national affairs are administrated by the centralized institutions while the administration of
local affairs fall under the jurisdiction of local institutions. In these countries, centralized
institutions administer the national affairs while local elected institutions exercise
jurisdiction over local affairs under the general oversight of the national government.11
In countries where jurisdictions over administration of national issues such as legislation,
domestic policies, and judicial affairs are delegated to local institutions, a decentralized
political system like federalism starts to emerge.12 The study of decentralized form of
political systems belongs to the field of constitutional law. In a hybrid system, in some
countries, while the system of public administration is centralized, the authority and
jurisdictions over a range of issues are delegated to local institutions. The delegation of
10 Ibid.
11 Waliullah Ansari, Kuliyat-e Hoqoq Adari [Fundamentals of Administrative Law] (Tehran: Mizan, 1386 [2007]), p. 131.
12 Bezhan Abasi, Mabani Hoqoq Asasi [Fundamentals of Constitutional Law] (Tehran: Jungle, 1389 [2010]), p. 187.
5 AREU
Introduction 2018
authority in the hybrid systems is meant to reduce the concentration of administrative

power in the capital and remedy some of the drawbacks of a centralized administrative
system.
Administrative models are generally divided into centralized and decentralized each are
divided into subtypes. These systems represent two divergent views of public administration
with markedly different consequences for the quality of public administration and the
democratic nature of the administration.13 Centralized system stresses the concentration
of authorities in the center and their exercise through a hierarchical structure. The
decentralized system, on the other hand, emphasizes the distribution of authorities and
their exercise through a horizontal structure.14 In the centralized system the entirety of
administration organizations takes on the form of a single organization; they are under
a unified, centralized system of command. Thus, in a centralized system, the entirety
of organization of public administration has a unitary legal personality.15 Conversely, in
a decentralized system, authorities are dispersed through different organizations and
different administrative units enjoy a varying degree of autonomy. In a decentralize system
the entirety of administration organization is not under a unified command; however, it
is still under the general leadership of the government. Thus, in a decentralized system,
in addition to the legal personality of the government, a number of administrative bodies
have distinct legal personalities.16 The centralized system is divided into deconcentrated
and concentrated while decentralized system can be divided into local decentralization,
regional decentralization, and technical decentralization. As it was explained earlier, the
constitution seems to adopt a deconcentrated centralized system of public administration,
however, it also contains some features of decentralized systems.
Deconcentrated centralized system is a type of centralized system which is designed to

remedy some of the shortcomings of a centralized administration. This system, which
is sometimes referred to as delegation of extraordinary authorities, differs from a
decentralized system because in the former the authorities are delegated to the local
administration in the interest of central administration.17 Stated differently, the authorities
of local administration are delegatory not original. Both systems have their strengths and
weaknesses. The usefulness of a system depends on the historical, social, and political
contexts of its use; however, the followings are considered the weaknesses of centralized
administrative systems: undemocratic tendencies, the information gap between center
and localities, promotion of culture of blind obedience, loss of innovative initiatives from
below, and excessive bureaucracy.18 Deconcentrated centralized system is a way for the
states which for a number of reasons are not willing to adopt a decentralized system but
wish to remedy some of the weaknesses of the centralized system.
13 Waliullah Ansari, supra note 11, p. 130.

14 Id.
15 Manochehr Tabatabai-Motamini, supra note 8, p. 53.
16 Id. at p. 58.
17 Id. at p. 57.
18 Waliullah Ansari, supra note 11, p. 136
2. Historical Background of Public Administration in

Afghanistan
2.1 Formation of the centralized administration system
Most legal scholars believe that law and legal rules in a country develop base on that country’s
cultural and historical contexts;19 Afghanistan is no exception. Given the importance of
historical context in understanding a country’s legal system, Afghanistan’s administrative
law too cannot be fully understood without understanding the historical processes that have
led to the emergence of the existing administrative system. Although modern Afghanistan
as an independent state with recognizable boundaries was founded by Ahmad Shah
Abdalli (1747),20 Afghanistan did not have a centralized system of governance and a public
administration until the reign of Amir Abdul Rahman Khan (1880-1901).21 Until the reign of
Amir Abdul Rahman Khan, with the exception of few other failed attempts at reforms, only
Amir Shir Ali Khan’s not so successful administrative and governance reforms merit mention.
In addition to securing the country from internal unrest and conflict as well as foreign threat
and invasion, Amir Shir Ali Khan (1869-79) attempted a number of lasting administrative
innovations. Shir Ali Khan, for the first time in the country’s modern history, formed a
formal cabinet, (which consisted of seven ministers, prime minister, and a secretary), and
improved the organization of the armed forces, thus taking the first steps towards creation
of administrative organizations and an administrative system in Afghanistan.22
After Shir Ali Khan, Amir Abdul Rahman Khan (Amir) was the first Afghan ruler who was able
to create a centralized, countrywide system of administration. Amir used military force and
oppression to bring the “confederation of tribes”23 of Afghanistan under the control of a
centralized power. Amir believed that imposition of a highly centralized system was the only way
to restore security, order, and stability to Afghanistan and end the chaos that had resulted from
the second Anglo-Afghan war, and unchecked power of autonomous local strongmen, feudals,
tribal leaders, and religious elites. Therefore, he prioritized creating an absolute state, and
reforming the system of governance; he had significant, lasting achievements at both tasks.24
Amir had divided the country administratively to four major provinces (Welayat), namely
Turkistan, Herat, Kandahar, and Kabul, and seven sub-provincial districts (Wuliswali) which
were headed by an Amir’s representative, titled hakim (ruler) or nayeb al-hukuma (successor
of ruler). In this period, the division of the territory to administrative units was meant to
facilitate the execution of the centralized authority rather than delegation of authority or
decentralization.25 Public officials were prohibited from exercising any form of public authority
unless it was explicitly delegated to them by the provisions of the law. If there was need for
exercise of such authority, they were required to ask for instruction from the Amir himself.26
19 Genevieve Helleringer and Kai Purnhagen, Towards a European Legal Culture, (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2014),
preface and p. 12.
20 Gholam Mohammad, Ghobar, Afghanistan Dar Masir-e-Tarikh [Afghanistan in the Course of History], (Kabul: Maivand,
2009), p. 554.
21 Varan, Gregorian, The Emergence of Modern Afghanistan: Politics of Reforms and Modernization (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1969) pp. 171-175.
22 Id. at pp. 115-118.
23 Olivier Roy, L’Afghanistan et Modernite Politique (translated: Abulhassan), p. 29, www.afghandata.org:8080/xmlui/
handle/azu/254
24 Abdul Ali Mohammadi, Afghanistan wa Dawlat Modern [Afghanistan and Modern state], (Kabul: Amiri Press, 2015), p. 111.
25 Tarek Azizy, Rahnamud Max Planck baraye Huquq Idari Afghanistan [Max Planck Institute’s Manual for Administrative
Law in Afghanistan], (Kabul: Max Planck Institute, 1391 [2011]), p. 33.
26 Ahmad Jan Khan Alikozai, Katabchah-yi Hukumati [Government Booklet], in: Faiz Mohammad Kateb, Siraj al-
Tawarikh [Light of Histories] (Kabul: Afghanistan Digital Library, lunar 1331 [1913]), pp. 762-771.
7 AREU
Historical Background of Public Administration in Afghanistan 2018
There are striking similarities between the internal conflicts, disorder, and centrifugal
forces that characterized the early periods of Amir’s rule and the general conditions of
the country during the rule of Taliban regime, and even the contemporary Afghanistan.27
The dissimilarities of current Afghanistan state and Amir’s state in areas of public
administrations can be summarized as follow:
1. Amir came to power at the time when Afghanistan was not yet established as a state
as a unified state within recognized boundaries. After resuming power, Amir took
on the task of reestablishing Afghanistan as a unified state and surpassing internal
divisions. To accomplish this task, Amir utilized a highly centralized administrative
system.
2. When Amir resumed power in Afghanistan, absolute monarchy had been the only
political system tried in Afghanistan and was the only system that was known to
Afghans.
3. Despite the adoption of a number of laws and regulations which set forth the duties
and authorities of different public positions, it cannot be claimed that Afghanistan
possessed administrative law because of two main reasons. First, at that time
public administration was not distinguished from judiciary, legislation, politics, or
public policy. Second, Amir’s rudimentary legal system did not contain even limited
legal protections for individual rights and liberties.
4. Amir’s laws were enacted to facilitate direct rule of Amir over people and the
territory. Neither formal laws protected the individual rights and liberties of the
people nor Afghans saw themselves as right-bearing citizens. As a result, Afghan
state at the time did not feel the need to decentralize the administrative system
in order to meet the public demand for public services or protection.
5. Amir had proclaimed himself, the representative of the God charged with
implementation of Shari’ah; to him, the right to rule was granted to him by God.
Given this justification of authority, Amir was the ultimate source of the authority
and distribution of authorities or participation in public authority were out of
question.
Study of the performance of centralized system during the reign of Amir suggests that the
centralized system was successful. Amir used this type of system to establish a strong state
which lasted for forty years until the failure of Amani’s reforms ended the continuity of
the Amir-established state.
2.2 Decentralization tendencies: administrative deconcentration

King Amanullah Khan (1919-1929)28 attempted one of the most ambitious modernizing
reforms in Afghanistan. Adoption of the first formal constitution of Afghanistan, “Nezam
nama Asasi Dulat Ellie Afghanistan” in 1923, (“1923 Constitution”), and a number of
fundamental reforms were a critical junction in the modern history of Afghanistan. The
1923 Constitution created a new administrative system with distinct central and local
administrative levels, a dual judicial system which consisted of general and administrative
courts and included a number of individual rights and liberties that were inspired by
western constitutional systems.29
27 Abdul Ali Mohammadi, supra note 24, p. 144.

28 Gholam Mohammad Ghobar, supra note 20, p. 751.
29 Nizamnama-e- Asasi Dawalt-e Alliyya-e Afghansitan [Constitution of Afghanistan] 1301 [1923].
The relevant Amanullah’s reform for this research is his reforms of the system and
organization of public administration. During Amanullah’s reign, 65 laws and regulation
were enacted, majority of which were administrative laws, aimed at expanding the public
administration and laying the foundations for a modern education system in the country.
The prevalence of administrative law legislation in this period is the reason why Amanullah’s
rule is considered the beginning of legal modernization, especially development of
administrative law, in Afghanistan.30
Article 63 of 1923 Constitution had stipulated three principles as the basis for local
administration, “expansion of delegation, separation of duties, and specification of
responsibilities”; this is a clear evidence for decentralizing tendencies of the Amanullah’s
formal system of governance. In addition to this constitutional principle, administration was
divided into central and local administrations. So much so that some local administrative
institutions were comprised of up to 50% elected officials, namely local majales mashvara
(local consultative councils).31 Under the 1923 Constitution, the affairs of the country were
conducted by the council of ministers collectively and individual ministers individually.32
However, most important authorities, such as appointment of high-ranking officials
were of the exclusive authority of the King. Therefore, the system of administration was
essentially centralized but deconcentrated. The 1923 Constitution envisioned the position
of the prime minister as the head of government, however, no one was ever appointed to
this position.
During Amanullah’s rule, Law of General Organization of State specified the organization
of public administration. Article 81 of this law specifies the types of local administrations
and their hierarchy. Under this law, local administration included walayat/hukumati a’ala
(province/supreme governance), hukumati a’ala (high governance), hukumati (governance),
alaqedari, (county), and qaraye (village).33All these administrative units were under the
jurisdiction of Ministry of Interiors.34 However, local units of other ministries were also
present on the local level, such as local units of education, finance, and agriculture. The
local institutions that illustrate the decentralizing tendencies of the Amanullah’s system
were local consultative councils and municipalities.
Although these councils were under jurisdiction of a centralized body, State Council,
having 50% elected members and their broad authorities made them very similar to
decentralized governance institutions. Another administrative institution that illustrate
the decentralizing tendencies of this period was municipality which was called “Baladiya”.
While the mayors were appointed by the central authority, the law established an elected
city council with numerous authorities.35 The important authorities of the city council
included appointing officials and setting their salaries, budget, approval of contracts, and
oversight of the conduct of the municipality.36
After reign of Nadir Khan, which did not witness major changes in the areas of public
administration and rights of citizens,37 King Zaher’s adaptation of 1964 Constitution another
critical juncture in the historical process of modernization of Afghanistan, however, his
30 Sarwar Danish, Hoqoq Adari Afghanistan [Administrative Law of Afghanistan] (Kabul: Ibn Sina, 1392 [2013]), p.63.
31 1923 Constitution of Afghanistan, supra note 29, arts. 39-49.
32 Id., arts. 6, 25 and 27.
33 Nizamnama-e Tashkilat Asasiya-e Afghanistan [The Law of Basic Organization of Afghanistan], 1301 [1923], art. p.81.
34 Id. art. 25.
35 Nizamnam-e Baladiya [Code of Municipality], 1303 [1924], art. 25.
36 Id. arts. 22, 25 and 32.
37 Muhammad Hamid Saboori, “The Progress of Constitutionalism in Afghanistan” in Shari’ah in the Constitution of
Afghanistan, Iran, and Egypt: Implications for Private Law, ed. Najma Yaseri (Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).
9 AREU
Historical Background of Public Administration in Afghanistan 2018
reformist agenda, like Amanullah’s, could not last more than a decade. By adopting 1964
Constitution, King Zaher in effect obtained the power from his uncles and opened a new
chapter in the history of modernization of Afghanistan.38
The 1964 Constitution did not fundamentally change the deconcentrated centralized model
of public administration system, it provided a more complete, modern, and effective legal
framework for the public administration system. Under the 1964 Constitution, ministries
were the units of central administration, and provinces were the units of local administration.
Provincial councils and municipalities were two other local administrative institutions; the
former was meant to consult and participate in the provincial administrations and the
latter was tasked with administration of affairs of the cities.39
The 1964 Constitution eliminated civil servant/administrative courts and the consultative
councils, which were considered for each of every administrative unit, even for the villages,
however, provincial councils were instituted instead, and the authority of municipalities
expanded. The members of provincial councils and city councils were elected by direct
and popular vote.40
Despite bearing the name of Republic, Daud’s regime was in essence a dictatorship with socialist
tendencies.41 Daud’s regime displaced similarities to the “Modernizing Oligarchies” as defined
by Edward Shils.42 Daud’s 1977 Constitution did not include a chapter on administration; it
merely contained one article which stated that the administration shall be centralized.43 The
government was the same as the council of ministers which was headed by the President, and
there was no prime minister.44
2.3 Decentralized Administration
The communist parties toppled Daud’s regime by a coup in 1977. During the communist rule,
Afghanistan experienced three different constitutions: one adopted during the Presidency
of Noor Muhammad Taraki, in 1980, the first communist president of Afghanistan, and
the other two adopted by President Najibullah, in 1987 and 1989, the last communist
president of Afghanistan. In light of commitment to the social values, all legislative,
judicial, and executive powers were vested in the Revolutionary Council.45 During this
period, in addition to local councils, local executive committees were also instituted. The
1980 Constitution clearly adopts a decentralizing approach to administration.46
Like 1980 Constitution, President Najibullah’s constitutions have clear decentralizing

approach. The 1987 Constitution institute the most obviously decentralized administrative
institutions in Afghanistan. Here we will point out two of the decentralized characteristics
of the Najibullah’s administrative system:
38 Mohammad Zahir lost his father, King Mohammad Nader, when he was only 19-year-old. Due to this reason, his uncles
held the real power for first three decades of his fourteen years reign. It was in 1964 when Mohammad Zahir resumed the
power. Following his rise to power, King Zahir introduced his reform agenda and adopted a new Constitution.
39 Constitution of Afghanistan 1342 [1964], Chapter 8.
40 Code of Basic Organization (Official Gazette no. 15), 1965 (1343), arts. 45 and 47.
41 Amin Tarzi, “Islam and Constitutionalism in Afghanistan” 5 Journal of Persianate Studies (2012), p. 223.
42 Almond Gabriel et al, The Politics of the Developing Area (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1970), p. 53.
43 Constitution of Afghanistan 1355 [1977], art. 26.
44 Id. art. 88.
45 Constitution of Afghanistan 1358 [1980], art. 37.
46 Id. Chapter 6.
1. Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution states that the sovereignty belongs to the people
which is exercised by “Loya Jirga, National Council, and Local Councils.” According
to this article, the people clearly participate in the exercise of sovereignty on the
local level through local councils; therefore, local councils enjoy original authority
which is a quintessential feature of decentralized administrative systems. This
stands in contrast with the 1964 which declares the King as the national sovereign;
which is indicative of the centralized administration under which the authority is
delegated by the central authority to the local administrations.
2. Under the 1987 Constitution, local councils, to which a separate constitutional
chapter is dedicated (Chapter 11), enjoy broad authorities. In essence, these
councils are charged with the local governance. Local councils had elected
executive committees which were headed by the local governors. In this system,
councils not only had oversight, consultative, and participatory roles but also
enjoyed real administrative and executive authorities; they directly exercised
state authorities on the local level. In this regard, article 129(2) states, “all
organizations, institutions, and respective local administrations must comply with
the decisions of local councils and their executive committees.”
The 1989 Constitution reversed this decentralized administrative system and returned
to the 1964 model of administrative system. After the Mujahedeen government rose to
power the country descended into chaos, civil war, and lawlessness. While not all the
laws were formally suspended, the country did not have a recognizable legal system.
Like other areas, no positive development occurred with respect to public administration.
Furthermore, the basic structure of public administration collapsed, and the country was
no longer a unified territory.
Prior to Amanullah’s reforms and decade of constitutional monarchy, highly centralized

administrative systems ensured the stability and continuance of the state. However, these
long periods of highly centralized administrative-political power limited the opportunities
for practicing participatory forms of governance which hindered the development of a
democratic political culture and ensured the continued dominance of conservative views.
The undemocratic, conservative political culture caused by a highly centralized system
of governance were also a reason why periods of social reforms were met with public
resistance.
A move towards decentralization has historical, political, and social causes.47 The influence
of historical trends highlighted above are observable in the current discourse around
administrative reforms. In the current debate on administrative reform in Afghanistan, on
the one hand, some argue, at a time when local strongmen who enjoy personalized power
and have centrifugal tendencies hold sway decentralization can pose serious challenges to
the central authorities. On the other hand, others argue that a highly centralized system
creates the conditions which makes it difficult to reform the system. They posit that there
exists a feedback loop. Centralized system ensures low level of local capacity, and low
level of political development in the provinces, thus, ensuring the need for a centralized
system.
11 AREU
Public Administration Under the Current Constitution 2018
3. Public Administration Under the Current

Constitution
3.1 Approach of the Current Constitution to the Organization of
Public Administration
Although the development of public law, particularly administrative law, in Afghanistan
has been slow, flawed, haphazard, and disconnected, Afghanistan has experienced
considerable legal development after the fall of Taliban regime. The 2004 Constitution,
which is the outcome of more than a century struggle in legal development, is the most
democratic and progressive constitution in Afghanistan yet. In this regard, the special
attention of the international community to the making of 2004 Constitution has played
a crucial role as well. The 2004 Constitution in areas of administrative laws is heavily
influenced by the 1964 Constitution, however, it is unique in that it puts especial emphasis
on the principles of democracy, rule of law, and individual rights and liberties.48 Despite
being a landmark achievement, the experience of the last decade and half reveals that the
2004 Constitution has a number of serious flaws as well.
It would be hard to argue that the 2004 Constitution provides a comprehensive and
complete system of public administration, like the ones prescribed by the constitutions
of developed countries. However, the 2004 Constitution has devoted significant attention
to public administration. In addition to the chapter eight, which is titled organization of
public administration, the 2004 Constitution contains a number of important rules and
principles which directly or indirectly touch upon the issues related to administrative law
or organization of public administration. One can name the basic principles enshrined
in the 2004 constitution (like popular sovereignty and participatory governance) or the
mechanism of circumscribing public authority (such as separation of power and judicial
review) or extensive protections that are afforded to individual rights and liberties. It
should be noted, however, that the effectiveness of these constitutional measures in the
context of Afghanistan are subject to debates.49
Chapter eight of 2004 Constitution which comprises of seven articles describes the
organization of public administration and prescribes its governing rules. This chapter
contains provisions on the type of administrative system, the relation between central and
local administration, administrative unites, and local institutions. Study of this chapter,
which is the main focus of this research, suggests that the 2004 Constitution, despite its
shortcomings, describes and clarifies the basic structure and basis of public administration
in Afghanistan. The Constitution, however, has not been fully implemented in areas of
public administration.
In addition to the chapter eight, administrative law and organization of public administration
is closely based on the fundamental principles of the 2004 Constitution. For example,
Ramin Moschtaghi, who is the author of some valuable work concerning Afghanistan
legal system, has argued that unified and centralized state, Islamic republic, rule of law,
expansive rights, and democracy make up the five fundamental principles of the 2004
Constitution. This is while all these five principles have direct bearing on administrative
law and organization of public administration in Afghanistan. Including the principle of
48 Moschtaghi, Ramin “Constitutionalism in an Islamic Republic: The Principles of the Afghan Constitution and the
Conflict Between Them,” in Constitution-Making in Islamic Countries: Between Upheaval and Continuity, ed. Rainer
Grote and Tilmann Roder 683-713 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p 685.
49 Rangin Dadfar Spanta, “An Overview of Citizens’ Fundamental Rights: Challenges and Opportunities” (Kabul:
Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, 2015), pp. 24-25.
“Islamic Republic”, which some may question its position as a basic principle of public
administration, all of these principles form the basis for development of a progressive,
democratic, and modern public administration system. The study of these principles as
the basis of a public administration system merits a separate research. In addition to
these principles, constitutional mechanisms which are meant to control public authority
and ensure the respect for civil liberties have direct bearing on the structures, processes,
institutions, relations, and operation of organization of public administration. Principle
of separation of power, the type of political system chosen in the constitution, the right
to sue the state and public administration, and the constitutional commitment to public
participation in public administration are inextricably linked with the constitutional
organization of public administration. In this research, however, we will focus on the
structure and organization of public administration in Afghanistan and their relationships,
the centers of administrative decision-making, and implementation of the administrative
decisions.
3.2 The existing administrative system

Article 137 Constitution provides the most relevant constitutional provision with regard
to the model of administrative system in Afghanistan. It states, “The government, in
preserving the principles of centralism, shall delegate necessary authorities, in accordance
with the law, to local administrations in order to accelerate and improve economic, social
as well as cultural matters, and foster peoples’ participation in developing national life.”
This article, on the one hand, stresses the “preserving the principle of centralism”, on the
other hand, it requires the delegation of “necessary authorities” to local administration.
Thus, this article reflects a dual constitutional preference for the centralized system as
well as decentralization. It, similarly, stresses the public participation in development of
the country. This institutional design has led the majority of scholars to conclude that the
constitution prescribes a “deconcentrated centralized” administrative system.50 However,
the constitution also envisions elected local councils and city councils, which are of the
features of decentralized administrative systems, in articles 140 and 141, thus raising doubt
about the constitutional adoption of the centralized administrative system. This seemingly
paradoxical institutional design by the constitution has led to a difference of opinions on
the issue of type of administrative system in Afghanistan. In other words, the paradoxical
administrative design in the constitution has prevented the formation of a consensus
amongst scholars and policymakers on the type and organization of administrative system
in Afghanistan. Constitution and administrative law experts hold widely divergent views
on the issue of constitutionally-mandated type of administrative system in Afghanistan.
While some believe the administrative system prescribed by the constitution to be a
“deconcentrated centralization”, others consider it to be a “decentralized” system, some
even go further and argue that the constitution adopts a “deconcentrated decentralization”
administrative system.
50 Sayed Ali Hosseini, Hoqoq Edari Afghanistan [Administrative Law of Afghanistan] (Kabul: Amiri Press, 2013), p. 154.
13 AREU
Views of the supporters of centralized administrative system

The views of those who believe that the Constitution has favored a centralized system of
public administration is informed by the historical trend of centralizing policies of past
regimes, strong pro-centralization views that were prevalent at the time of making of
2004 Constitution, and their holistic interpretation of the Constitution. The centralized
administrative system has a longer history compared to its alternatives. This historical
precedent could be attributed to the close affinity between centralized administrative
systems and absolutists regimes. As it was explained in section two, the formation of a unified
state in Afghanistan was accompanied by the development of a centralized administrative
system. While Amanullah’s reforms introduced decentralization to the Afghanistan legal
system, in practice, most regimes in Afghanistan have had strong centralizing tendencies.
Even during the communist regimes, which employed a decentralized administrative
system, the power to make administrative and political decisions was concentrated in the
center. As one interviewee states, 51
Basically, over the last two centuries, we have had a centralized administrative system with
the aim of controlling the territory in the favor of rulers. The fact that Afghanistan was
never colonized also caused Afghanistan not to converge with other common administrative
systems in the world. 2004 Constitution, while being successful in areas of fundamental rights
and liberties of the citizen and championing values of popular sovereignty, does not have
significant achievement in areas of structural reform which would ensure the implementation
of these values in practice. In other words, in the area of public administration, we have a
powerful institutional legacy of centralized and undemocratic public administration.
In addition to Afghanistan’s institutional legacy, general conditions of the country at

the time of making of 2004 constitution favored centralization. The general conditions
of Afghanistan after the fall of Taliban regime paralleled those of Amir Abdul Rahman
Khan’s in that the country was suffering from the lack of a countrywide sovereignty, and
prevalence of chaos, decohesion, and deep internal divides.52 As one interviewee stated, 53
During the making of 2004 Constitution, Afghanistan was de facto governed in a decentralized
way. Local strongmen controlled different parts of the country; public revenue was neither
collected nor spend by a centralized authority; a centralized authority with monopoly over
the political and military power in the country did not exist. These were the reasons why
the majority of the constitutional drafting committee favored a strong central state. The
surveyed that were conducted at the time showed that people were wary of the influence of
local strongmen and favored a strong central state.
Some even argue that international community favored a centralized system thinking that
it was easier to deal with a central authority power of a system of decentralized a power.54
However, others believe that the international community could have been persuaded to
support a decentralized system as they actually setup a decentralized system of support
in Afghanistan through Provincial Reconstruction Teams.55
The content of the Constitution also lends support to the interpretation that the
constitutional mandates a centralized administration system. The constitutional approach
to the basic structure of political power and structure of administrative law system supports
the view that the constitution favors a centralized administration system. Some believe
that the centralized administrative system was favored to ensure alignment with the
centralized political system. Article One of the Constitution prescribed the basic structure
of political system in Afghanistan. It states, “Afghanistan shall be an Islamic Republic,
51 KII, senior official, MoFA.

52 Abdul Ali Mohammadi, supra note 24, pp. 143-144.
53 KII, member of draft commission of the constitution of 2004.
54 KII, ex-member of ICOIC.
55 KII, senior official, MoFA.
independent, unitary and indivisible state.” This article not only removes the possibility of
decentralized political systems (such as federal, confederal, local autonomy, etc.) it also
raises some doubts about the constitutionality of a decentralized administrative system. It
is clear that a unitary, centralized political system can have a decentralized administrative
system, as many unitary political systems do; however, prescribing a collective identity
of the Afghanistan’s state, locating the political center in the capital, and stressing
the indivisibility of the country can be used as evidence that the constitution reflects
a general fear of possible dangerous consequences of decentralization.56 Thus, strong
emphasize on a highly centralized political system has led the centralized administrative
system to be treated as a necessary condition for a centralized political system while
administrative decentralization would not pose a constitutional problem.57 It should
be noted that those who put forward a centralized interpretation of the constitution
acknowledge that the constitution clearly requires the delegation of necessary authority
to the local administration; they are merely describing the operating interpretation of the
2004 constitution during the last decade and half.
Views of the supporters of administrative deconcentration

Overwhelming majority of interviewees agreed with the view that the 2004 Constitution
mandates a “deconcentrated centralized” system of public administration citing the
constitutional requirement that the necessary authorities must be delegated to the local
administration. This is understandable since in the Afghanistan’s legal system generally
two competing principles co-exited: emphasize on a centralized administrative system
and local participation in governance and development.58 Commitment to these two
competing principles is understood to be the adaptation of “deconcentrated” model of
public administration.59
However, a small number of interviewees were satisfied with the current system.
Acknowledging the shortcoming of both centralized and decentralized administrative
systems, they considered a deconcentrated centralized administrative system the best
system in the current context of Afghanistan. The supporters of the current system offer
two specific arguments; first, they argue that the current system has not been actually
implemented, therefore, judging its effectiveness is premature; second, they believe,
replacing a formal model before it has been actually implemented is an economically
unwise decision which has been part of Afghanistan culture of reform.60

59 KII, member of draft commission of the constitution of 2004 and senior advisor of MoJ.
60 KIIs, advisor to the President and member of ICOIC.
15 AREU
Views of the supporters of decentralized administration

As it was explained above, the 2004 Constitution in addition to stressing preserving of
principle of centralization requires the establishment of a number of elected local councils,
which are the quintessential features of a decentralized system. This is because the election
of members of these councils by direct popular vote of local people grant them original
authority. In this way these local institutions are more dependent on the local constituents
for their legitimacy and power rather than central government. This local-dependence is
acknowledged by the constitution as well. This has led some to argue that the authority of
these locally elected institutions should not be driven from a central authority, which they
argue gives Afghanistan a constitutionally-mandated decentralized administrative system.61
The supporters of decentralization argue that a literal interpretation of constitutional
provisions on administration is not helpful and that the inclusion of “preserving the
principle of centralization” does not necessary mean that the Afghanistan must have a
centralized administrative system. They put more weight on the constitutional mandate of
delegation of necessary authorities, arguing that the constitution talks about delegation in
the context of a decentralized administrative system. As one interviewee stated, 62
If we consider the constitution as a whole and adopt democratic legitimacy and implementation
of ethical values as the basis of constitutional interpretation, it becomes clear that the
constitution favors a deconcentrated decentralized administrative system. It is under such a
decentralized system that the constitution mandates the creation of elected local councils,
elected city councils, and elected mayorship. The constitutional position of these elected
institutions suggests that not all the members of local governments are under the direct
control of central government, but some drive their authority and legitimacy directly from
people. The issue of delegation in the constitution refers to the principle of deconcentration
but from the authors point of view this deconcentration is supposed to be implemented in
the context of a decentralized administrative system.
Interview data reveals that the failure to adopt the constitutionally required laws on
basic structure of the state has also contributed to the continued disagreement on the
constitutional model of public administration in Afghanistan. If these laws (such as the
Law of Basic Structure of State, Law of Local Governance, Law of Local Councils, and
Law of Municipalities) are enacted and/or updated it would aid reduce some of the
ambiguities that currently surround the question of basic model of public administration in
Afghanistan. Enactment of these laws can also aid the process of administrative reform in
Afghanistan by providing and enhancing the basic legal framework of public administration
in Afghanistan.63
3.3 Central and local administrations

Article 136 of the 2004 Constitution states, “The administration of the Islamic Republic
of Afghanistan, based on the units of the central administration and local administration,
shall be regulated according to the law. The central administration shall be divided into
several administrative units, each headed by a Minister. The local administrative unit shall
be a province. The number, area, divisions and related provincial organizations as well
as number of provincial units shall be regulated on the basis of population, social and
economic conditions, as well as geographical location”.
According to this article, organization of public administration is divided into two levels of
central and local administrations. This two-level administrative system has a long history.
Under the current system, administrative power rests in the central administration and
according to the constitution it is delegated to the local administrations. However, the
61 KII, member of draft commission of the constitution of 2004 and senior advisor of MoJ.
63 KII, senior official of in the government.
existence of elected local institutions in the constitutional system of Afghanistan poses

the question: how and to what extent should authorities be delegated to the local
administration in order to achieve the overall goals of the constitution including its ethical
goals such as democracy, participatory governance, and good governance?
Administration at the Central level

Under the current Constitution, the central administration is equivalent to the government
which consists of ministers, and president.64 The units of central administration are ministries,
but the constitution also mandates the creation of a number of independent commissions
and independent directorate as exception to the principle. In practice, however, the de
facto structure of administrative system in Afghanistan significantly diverges from this
constitutional view; an issue which will return to later in this paper. In other word, there is
a wide gap between the constitutionally-mandated system of public administration and the
de facto system of public administration in Afghanistan which will be discussed in this paper.
President
By dedicating a whole chapter to the president, the Afghanistan’s Constitution affords an
especial position in terms of power and prestige to the president. The President under
the 2004 Constitution roughly holds the same amount of power as the prime minister and
king did under the 1964 Constitution. In addition to chapter three, the Constitution grants
special powers and authorities to the President in other places.65 In this way the political-
administrative system of Afghanistan is based on a strong presidential system. The president
which is elected by direct and popular vote heads both state and the government.66 The
position of the President as the head of state has led some to believe that the President
has special authority over all three branches of government undermining the separation
of power and independence of judiciary.67 This is while a correct interpretation which
could preserve two fundamental constitutional principles of judicial independence and
separation of power is that the position of the President as the head of states allows
him/her to represent the state of Afghanistan in relations with other countries not that
he/she holds authority over all three branches of the state.68 This later interpretation
is more consistent with the way that the Constitution structures the relation between
three branches of the state. For example, the Constitution renders the exercise of a
number of presidential power conditional to the approval of national assembly and the
national assembly can override a presidential legislative veto with a two-third majority.
These two examples, which are following up normally, show that the President does not
have authority over the National Assembly as the head of state. However, in practice the
president power is seemingly hard to be controlled. It is not to say, however, that President
does not have legislative and judicial authorities;69 rather it is to say that numerated and
specific legislative and judicial authorities of the President does not make the legislative
and judicial branches of the states subordinate to the President.
While we are not going to attempt a complete study of all types of authorities and powers of
the President here, the administrative powers of the President, which are the focus of this
study, cannot be understood in isolation from his/her other types of authorities, especially
64 2004 Constitution of Afghanistan, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., art. 60.
65 Id. arts. 65, 79, 94 and 117.
66 Id. arts. 60 and 71.
67 M. Qasim Hashimzai, “The Separation of Powers and the Problem of Constitutional Interpretation in Afghanistan” in
Constitution-Making in Islamic Countries: Between Upheaval and Continuity, ed. Rainer Grote and Tilmann Roder 665-681
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 668.
17 AREU
his political authorities. This means it is impossible to draw a clear line between the political
actions of the president from his/her administrative actions; administrative actions can and
often are undertaken with the aim of achieving a political goal. This is why administrative
actions usually follow a political action.70 In this way the expansive political authorities of
the president have afforded him/her a great latitude in exercise of his/her administrative
authorities as well. Additively, the unitary and centralized structure of administrative-
political system of Afghanistan, on the one hand, and weaken position of two other branches
of the state in areas of policymaking and exercise of sovereignty, on the other hand, have
placed the president on the top of political pyramid in Afghanistan. The political dominance
of the executive branch and concentration power at the hands of the president are the source
of concerns for most interviewees.71 During the tenure of the national unity government,
majority of independent Afghan scholars have become increasingly concerned about the rise
of authoritarianism and personal power in Afghanistan.72 To exemplify further, one can refer
to the political coalitions and alliances recently formed of different political parties and
leaders to challenge what they claim as authoritative behavior of the government as well as
monopolizing the power by the president.73
The redistribution of institutional power and restructuring the inter-branch relations

requires constitutional amendment, which in turn would require the Loya Jirga to be
convened. Amending the constitution was widely supported by those interviewed for this
research;74 one of the important terms of the Agreement of National Unity Government
required the constitution to be amended through Loya Jiga, however, this commitment has
not been fulfilled.75
The main administrative authority of the President, in addition to the enforcement of

the constitution and other laws (art. 63), is appointment of high ranking officials of the
government (sub-articles 10-14 of article 64). Sub-article 20 of article 64 empowers the
President to create new administrative offices and commissions. With regard to the change
in the administrative structure of the state, article 58 of the code of basic organization
of the state provides, “addition and reduction in the structure of ministers and public
administrations, according to the need, will be done by the proposal of the respective
administration and approval of the president according to procedure set forth in the law.”
President in Afghanistan holds extensive appointment authorities. The President appoints
ministers with approval of the national assembly and appoints other heads of administrative
bodies such as independent commissions and administration through his/her sole power.
While the 2004 Constitution provides for elected mayors, since no mayorship election has
been held yet, the president has been appointing all mayors as well. In addition, under
article 10 of Civil Servants Law, the President has the sole authority of appointing public
employees of ranks first and second based on the proposal of administrative reform and
civil service commission. The President has the authority to oversee and control almost
all administrative affairs throughout the Afghanistan’s public administration and holds the
hiring and firing authorities over all high ranking administrative officials.
70 Reza Musa Rezazadeh, Huquq Idari [Administrative Law] (Tehran: Mizan, 1388 [2009]), p. 40.
71 M. Qasim Hashimzai, supra note 67, p. 669.
72 KII, senior member of Asia Foundation.
73 For example, the Grand National Coalition of Afghanistan, which announced tis formations in July 2018.
74 As the overwhelming majority of interviewees in this study support amending the constitutions while having
disagreements on which amendments are necessary or desirable at what stage.
75 See the full text of the “Government of National Unity Deal” as emailed to the journalists by the US Embassy on
21 September 2014 at the Afghanistan Analyst Network’s website; articles of the Constitution cited in the agreement
were given after the text by the Afghanistan Analyst Network, https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/miscellaneous/aan-
resources/the-government-of-national-unity-deal-full-text/.
Cabinet
Chapter four of the Constitution is devoted to the government. First article of this chapter
states, “The Government shall be comprised of Ministers who work under the chairmanship
of the President. The number of Ministers as well as their duties shall be regulated by law.”
Second sentence of this article refers to the law of basic structure of state which has
not yet been enacted. The first sentence of this article defines the government. Under
this article, the head of state is also the head of government. This is because under the
Afghanistan’s presidential system president is the only person with the authority to lead the
executive branch and also because the authorities saved for the prime minister under 1964
Constitution have transferred to the President by the 2004 Constitution. This arrangement
creates a number of problems for the organization of public administration in Afghanistan.
We will return to these problems later in this paper. In the past regimes, cabinet which was
headed by the prime minister stood as a distinct collective entity with legal personality
in relations to other branches of the government as it acted as an independent body
with clear decision-making authorities. However, under the 2004 Constitution, the legal
personality of the cabinet has become tantamount to the legal personality of the head of
state; the fact that the head of state also heads the cabinet has caused the position of
cabinet to raise considerably with relation two other branches of the state so much so that
often the legal personality of the cabinet is not clearly separated from the legal personality
of the state.76 In addition to the Cabinet, under the National Unity Government, Council of
Ministers have emerged as a distinct institution whose authorities and responsibilities fall
below of those of the Cabinet. The Council of Minister in the current government is headed
by the CEO Abdullah. The formal legal standing of the Council of Ministers, however, is
unclear.77
It is hoped that by passage of the law on basic structure of the state the current ambiguity
surrounding the structure of state would greatly decrease.
In addition to extensive list of authorities of the head of state, the 2004 Constitution
provides the government with expansive administrative-political authorities most important
of which are reflected in articles 75-76 of the Constitution. Enforcement of provisions of
the constitution and other laws, enforcement of court decisions, preservice of security
and public order, making the budget, planning and implementation of development
projects, and promulgation of regulations make up the bulk of the responsibilities and
authorities of the government. Also, drafting of the legislative decrees to be signed by
the President falls within the authority of the government.78 Another important issue with
regard to the authority of the government is the hierarchy that appears to exist between
ministry, council of ministers, cabinet, and presidency. While they are all part of the
government, each have a distinct institutional position as well. For example, the President
and ministers have certain authorities and responsibilities independent of cabinet.79 When
discussing the structure of the government, the constitution does not include the Vice
Presidents.80 However, according to the code of Basic Structure of the State (1965), and
76 For example, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Minister Mujtaba Patang on the ground that the
government can only refer a case to the Supreme Court not the individual ministry. This decision, on the one hand,
implies that the government has a legal personality which is distinct from its members (i.e. ministers), on the other hand,
it suggests that without the agreement of the president, the government cannot make a decision even all individual
ministers agree on a decision. Now the question is: what is meant by the government? Or, what does the legal personality
of the cabinet, independent of the president, entail?
77 The Agreement of National Unity Government, supra note 75.
79 Id. Chapters 3 and 4.
80 Id. art. 60.
19 AREU
also in practice, the Vice Presidents are members of the cabinet. In addition to assisting
the President in leading the executive branch, the VPs also head the cabinet in president’s
absence. It should be noted that the President has a large number of advisors, however,
there has been no legislation yet that would regulate their numbers, responsibilities,
appointment, or performance of these advisors. This has created a legal vacuum which
has caused a number of challenges in areas of rule of law81 and accountability.
According to the 2004 Constitution, the units of central administration are ministries that
are each led by a minister.82 Authorities and responsibilities of each ministry or unit of
central administration is set forth in its respective legislation.83 Minister as the head of
ministry, is the highest administrative authority of that ministry. In addition to exercising
ultimate administrative authority over their respective ministries, the ministers also have
a political role; as the position of minister, its appointment procedure, and parts of their
responsibilities highlight the political nature of the position of ministers.84 The minister
is the ultimate administrative authority with regard to his/her respective ministry with
exception of the administrative decisions that requires the approval of the cabinet or
the president. The ministers hold administrative authorities in areas of budgeting, hiring,
administrative organization (tashkilat), legislation, decision-making, and oversight.
Although the budget is determined by the Ministry of Finance, Cabinet, and National
Assembly, the ministers still has authorities with respect to the budget. The financial
authorities of the minister include making the ministerial budget and overseeing its
implementation, making and signing contracts on behalf the ministry, and authorities with
regard to raising revenue and expenditure the ministerial sector. The ministers also hold
a number of hiring authorities. According to the Civil Servants Law hiring of “employees
in the ranks of three, four, and five in the center and provinces, as well as employees in
the rank of six in the center, in accordance with the determination and proposal of the
hiring committee of the ministry or independent administrative directorate”85 are of the
authority of minister or director of independent directorate. The authority of minister over
the organizational structure of the ministry includes decisions regarding the minor changes
to the organization of the ministry. In case of major changes, either the National Assembly
or the Council of Ministers must approve the change. The legislative authority of the
minister includes promulgation of directive, procedures, and guideline, as well issuance
of common instruction. In areas of designing and adaptation of policies, the ministers
enjoy significant authorities. The ministers are ultimate authorities with regard to design
and adaption of policies in their ministerial sectors. The ministers are also required and
have the authority to oversee the performance of the subordinate administrative units. It
should be noted that ministerial authorities are set forth in their respective laws.
81 Sayed Ali Hosseini, supra note 50, p. 114.

82 2004 Constitution of Afghanistan, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., arts. 77 and 136.
83 Sayed Ali Hosseini, supra note 50, p. 106
85 Law of Civil Servants, (Official Gazette no. 25) 1970 (1348), art. 10.
Other central administrative organs

Although the 2004 Constitution explicitly states that the government shall comprise of the
President and ministers and considers the ministers to be the units of central administration,
there are other units of central administration that are neither a ministry nor fall under
jurisdiction of a ministry. These administrative units, which exist under different titles
such as commission, high office, council, committee, are under direct control of the
President. A number of these administrative units are created by the constitution;86 others
are created by a law or a presidential decree such as IARCSC and IDLG. The number of these
administrative units which do not necessarily part of the cabinet is high and is increasing.
There is no consensus on the legal basis of these non-ministerial administrative units.
Most interviewees considered these non-ministerial administrative legally and practically
problematic. However, there is a group of interviewees who justify these non-ministerial
administrative units. We will discuss the reasoning of both camps later.
Local administration
By dividing the administration to central and local, the Constitution has created a number
of institutions on the local level as well. Provinces, districts, village, provincial council,
district councils, village council, and municipality are local administrative institutions that
have constitutional standing under chapter eight of the constitution.87 In addition to these
local administrative units, a number of line department of ministries and other central
administrative units are also created on the local level. We will discuss the legal standing
of these line departments later. It seems that local administrative units can be put into
four categories:
1. Provinces and districts

2. Line departments of central administrative units on the local level
3. Local councils
4. Municipalities and city councils
Of these four categories, the first and second are the extension of the central administration.
These two categories are in effect the representative of central government and act
as implementors of national policies and politics on the local level. The members of
these two categories, in principle, do not have independent legal personality as they
are structurally subordinates of the central administration and exist to implement their
decisions and policies on the local level. That being said, the deconcentrating preferences
may lead to the creation of a system where they enjoy some level of autonomy. If that
happens the administrative system would move closer to a deconcentrated centralized
administration. In other words, the organizations that fall in the first two categories are
created to deconcentrate the public administration while preserving the principle of
centralized administration.88 This is a controversial topic amongst scholars of administrate
law in Afghanistan.
86 For example, Independent Election Commission and Independent Commission of Human Rights.
87 2004 Constitution of Afghanistan, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., arts. 136-a42.
21 AREU
Two other categories, three and four, are constitutionally-mandated institutions which
are meant to operationalize the public participation in the governance and national
development. These institutions, as part of local administration, are elected by the people,
who are deemed to be the true holder of sovereignty, through open, general, secretive,
and direct elections.89 These types of institutions are most often found in decentralized
administrative systems. Therefore, a subordinate hierarchical relationship between
these institutions and central administration is against the nature of these institutions.90
In Afghanistan, there are a number of slippages between formal legal order, structural
order, and performative order of the pubic administrations, therefore, the differences
between the institutional positions of the last two categories and the first two categories
are unclear and ambiguous. In this article, by relying in the formal legal order, we will
highlight the slippages that exist between the formal laws and the de facto structure and
operation of public administration in Afghanistan. For this purpose, and for the sake of
convenience, the authors believe that these administrative institutions can be put into two
broad categories of local units of central administration and elected local administration.
Local units of central administration

The local units of central administration, for the purpose of this article, includes provinces
and their geographically subordinate administrative units i.e. districts and villages, as
well as line departments of central administration within the geographical boundaries of
a province. These administrative units, in accordance with administrative hierarchy, are
subordinate to ministers and other central administrative units and operate under direct
control of their central administrative superiors. Therefore, they can be considered local
units of central administration. Some interviewees have argued that since the Constitution
defines the central administration as ministries and local administration as provinces,
the existence of line department of ministers on the local level is inconsistent with the
constitutionally-mandated administrative structure. These interviews have advocated for
the subordination of these line departments under the jurisdiction of province; a view
that is reflected in the draft National Policy of Good Governance for Afghanistan. Under
this draft policy, the ministers will retain policymaking authorities, but the majority of
executive authorities are transferred to the provinces.91
The 2004 Constitution designates the province as the local administration;92 province is a
geographical concept which covers a particular geographical territory. Each province is headed
by a provincial governor who is the highest administrative authority in the system of local
administration. Provincial governors have historically been very prestigious positions as they
have historically enjoyed extensive administrative-political authorities within a province.
In addition to being, de jure, the highest administrative authority within a province, the
provincial governor is also a political position representing the central government on the
local level. The provincial governor oversees the operation of all administrative units within
a province and chairs the administrative sessions of the province where all administrative
officials of the province attend. By creation of Directorate of Local Governance (IDLG),93 the
province has come to occupy a distinct position with relation to other local units of central
administration. Before the creation of IDLG, province and district were part of ministry of
interior affairs but now they are considered part of IDLG. IDLG which has been created through
a presidential decree, and is directly answers to the President, is responsible “to lead the
affairs of local governance, implement the laws and regulations, and coordinate the official
89 2004 Constitution of Afghanistan, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., arts. 138, 140 and 141.
90 KII, ex-legal advisor of the president.
91 NGGPA(Draft), supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., p. 5.
93 President Decree (Official Gazette no. 1047) 2007 (1386).
works of 34 provinces, 387 districts, including 364 formal and 23 informal districts/temporary
districts,94 and 157 municipalities.”95 Since the IDLG has been put in charge of coordinating the
affairs of provinces as well local councils and municipalities, it seems there was no intention to
distinguish between elected local institutions, in terms of independence, legal personality, and
autonomy, and their non-elected local counterparts. In any case, the elected nature of these
councils makes them unique with relation to their non-elected local counterparts.
The authorities of the provincial governors, which is numerated in the Law of Local
Governance, which is valid till now, enacted by the Taliban regime, are very broad. These
broad authorities neither conform to the principles of the current Constitution nor de facto
working of public administration. Article 14 of this law enumerates the authorities of the
provincial governors under 60 paragraphs which cover a wide range of areas. However, in
practice, most of these authorities are transferred to other administrative bodies. To avoid
violating the constitution, IDLG has drafted the descriptions of responsibilities of provincial
and district governors based on the Law of Civil Service, Law of Civil Servants, and the Law
of Local Administration as far as it is consistent with the current constitution.96 Basically,
the current authorities of the provincial governors, as reflected in the new directives and
guidelines, focus on oversight over and coordination of the working of public administration
within the province. For example, the provincial governor has broad authorities with
relation to provincial budgeting and affairs of provincial employees. All spending documents
are processed through the office of provincial governor and send to Kabul after they have
obtained his signature.97 In practice, however, the relation between the provincial governor
and other local administrative bodies is not free of tension. In absence of current laws in
areas of administration, the division of authority and relations between provincial governor
and police, local councils, municipalities are rife with challenges and ambiguities.
According to the outdated Law of Local Administration, (some parts of which are
inconsistent with the current constitution), the district governors have the same authorities
as the provincial governors with respect to the district except for the authorities that are
especially saved for the provincial governors.98 This means district governors occupy the
same position as the provincial governor with respect to his/her respective district. This
parallel is observable with respect to hiring authority as well. Article 10(3) Law on Civil
Servants provides that employees in the rank of six in a province will be appointed by the
governor based on determination and proposal of the provincial hiring committee. The
same article goes on to state that, 99
[h]iring of contract-based employees in the ranks of seven and eight in the center are going to
be appointed by the ministers or the general director of the independent general directorate
based on determination and proposal of ministerial or directorate hiring committee, and in
provinces and districts are going to be appointed by the provincial or district governor based
on determination and proposal of provincial or district hiring committee.
Despite this apparent legal parallel between province and districts, in practice, due to
prevalence of a centralizing tendencies, the provinces have received a lot more attention
than districts, this has had negative consequences on development projects and the
relation between state and the citizens.100 This is because the governor of the provinces
are closer to the central authorities.
94 Interview with a senior official of IDLG, Oct 24, 2018.

95 IDLG website, http://idlg.gov.af/fa/history-idlg/ (last visited, Sep 17, 2018 11:07 p.m.).
96 KII, Senior Local Government Employee in Herat.
97 9, p. 17.
98 Law of Local Administration, (Official Gazette no. 793) 2000 (Lunar 1421) art. 5.
99 Law of Civil Servants, supra note 85, art. 10.
100 KII, senior officials, MoFA and IDLG.
23 AREU
Elected local administration

Afghanistan’s 2004 Constitution has mandated the creation of a number of elected
institutions (elected local councils, elected mayorship, and elected city councils) as a part
of local administration. All members of local councils and city councils as well as mayors
must be elected through open, general, secretive, and direct elections, according to the
constitution.101 The elected nature of these institutions afford them a real local identity.
The constitution explicitly states that these institutions are made elected so to achieve
popular participation in governance and national development.102 In practice, however,
with exception of provincial councils, the rest of these local institutions have either
not being formed or have not been made elective yet. District councils, city councils,
village councils have not yet been formed, city councils have neither formed nor made
elected, and mayors are appointed by the President based on the proposal of the IDLG.
It is worth mentioning that there is some semi-elected bodies such as municipal advisory
boards in the urban settings and Community Development Councils (CDCs) at the villages
level. However, these newly established institutions, which their legality has been highly
contested, could not compensate the councils considered by the constitution. In order to
determine the authorities, responsibilities, and institutional position of the elected local
institutions within the structure of public administration of Afghanistan there is a pressing
need for promulgation of laws that are developed based on the current Constitution. In
this regard, with exception of Law of Provincial Councils (which has experienced several
controversial amendments), no legislation has yet been enacted. Municipalities are still
regulated under the Law of Municipalities enacted during the Taliban regime.
With respect to the authorities of provincial councils, article 139 of the Constitution states:
The provincial council shall participate in the attainment of the development objectives of
the state and improvement of the affairs of the province in the manner prescribe by laws and
shall advise the provincial administrations on related issues. The provincial assembly council
shall perform its duties with the cooperation of the provincial administration.
The scope of authority of provincial councils have been the subject of an on-going debate
in Afghanistan. While the apparent meaning of this article limits the authority of these
councils to “participate and advise”, the question is whether this limitation is consistent
with the raison d’être of these institutions and the general principles of the Constitution.
The Constitution states that the raison d’être for provincial councils, and other elected
local institutions, is to institutionalize democracy and attain participatory governance.
Perhaps to facilitate the attainment of these stated goals, the 2007 amendment to the
law of provincial councils should have afforded these councils with “oversight” authorities
as well;103 the authority which has been delegated and removed a number of times so
far. While, currently, provincial councils have been delegated with oversight authority by
presidential decree, it is not clear what this oversight authority entails and what are its
limits.
Article 4 of Law of Provincial Councils numerates the responsibilities and authorities of

these councils;104however, a close examination of this article reveals that these councils
do not have executive authorities or responsibilities. Under this law, provincial councils do
not promulgate policies, nor hold executive authority, nor possess necessary mechanism to
exercise effective oversight. The tension between the administrative reality of provincial
councils and their democratic ideals stem from the fact that they are inherently political
101 2004 Constitution of Afghanistan, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., Chapter 8.
102 Id.
103 Law of Provincial Councils (Official Gazette no. 920) 2007 (1386), arts. 2 and 4.
104 Id. art. 9.
institutions that are imposed upon a centralized administrative system. Members of these
councils are elected by popular vote, therefore, are under political pressure from their
constituents. Also, historically, these councils were meant to ensure political participation
for the local elites as evidenced by the fact that these councils are a conduit for joining
the upper house of national assembly as well. Contrary to their historical logic which
has been preserved in the current system as well, these councils have been treated as
administrative institutions; a contradiction which has increasingly caused problems and
tensions as the system of public administration was repurposed for delivery of public
services (as opposed to its historical function of exercising control in favor central ruler).
Another important local institution which is provided by the Constitution is municipality

(sharwali). This vital local administrative institution which is in charge of “administrating
the affairs of the city” is an elected local institution under the constitution.105 According
to the provisions of the Constitution, mayors and members of city councils must be elected
by the residents of the respective city. Municipalities enjoy independent legal personalities
under public law, possess separate budget and revenue sources.106 Organizations, operation,
authorities, and responsibilities of municipalities are governed by a number of different
legislation, most of which, especially the Law of Municipalities107, were enacted prior to
the current Constitution.108 These laws, on the hand, are not consistent with the provisions
of the current Constitution, on the other hand, they cannot meet the needs of modern
cities. A review of the law of municipalities, which was amended by the Taliban regime,
reveals that this law is not consistent with the spirit of the current constitution: market
economy, and democratic values. Article 16 of this law numerates the authorities of the
municipalities within 44 paragraphs which can be divided to four categories of service,
regulation, coordination, and administrative. These authorities which are deemed very
important for “the delivery of public services, meeting the public needs of city residents,
and preserving of public order”,109 must be clarified and operationalized through
regulations, directives, and guidelines. Municipalities as elected local institutions with
broad authorities are the perfect example of a decentralized administrative institution in
the 2004 Constitution.110
Municipality councils are not yet formed in Afghanistan. However, recently, IDLG has
established consultative councils within municipalities through a directive. These
newly established consultative councils comprise of members who on a voluntary basis
participate in and closely observe the affairs of municipalities based on a regular meeting
schedule. These members are elected informally from neighborhood representatives,
local elites, and members of social organizations.111 These councils, which are often tilted
Consultative Councils of Municipalities, are meant to create the necessary conditions for
the establishment of constitutionally-mandated city councils.
106 Law of Municipalities, (Official Gazette no 794) 2000 (Lunar 1421) arts. 2 and 12.
107 Id.
108 See Municipalities Law, Law of Fees of Public City Services, Anti-Trust Law, Regulation on Cleaning and Gardening
of the Cities, Regulation on the Cleaning Fees, Regulation on the Setting of Rents and Properties of the Municipalities.
109 Sawar Danish, supra note 30, p. 183.
110 KII, senior official in the government.
111 IDLG, The Guide for Establishment of Advisory Councils of Municipalities (Kabul: IDLG).
25 AREU
3.4 The conformity of administrative organization with the

Constitution
One of the fundamental questions with regard to the organization of administrative system
in Afghanistan is the extent to which it conforms with the prescriptions of the Constitution.
In the previous sections, we discussed the organization of administrative system under the
Constitution using the commonly agreed upon interpretations of the administrative rules
of the Constitution. Here, we will compare those agreed up Constitutional mandates with
the de facto organization of the administrative system in Afghanistan. Such comparison
reveals that the de facto organization of public administration in Afghanistan widely
diverges from its de jure constitutional model. On the one hand, parts of the de jure
administrative structure of the Afghanistan’s state, as well as a number of constitutionally-
mandated administrative institutions are not yet established; nor their constitutive
laws are yet enacted. On the other hand, a number of administrative organizations
exist extraconstitutionally. And the legal basis of some administrative organizations in
existence are still being debated. A number of constitutionally-mandated administrative
organizations that in existence are subject to extensive debates.
As it was alluded to in the previous discussions, a number of constitutionally-mandated

administrative organizations are not yet established due to a variety of reasons. For
example, none of the local councils, with exception of provincial councils, are yet
established. Although the elections of district councils were scheduled, and postponed
later on, security and technical problems raises doubts as to whether the election will
actually take place. Similarly, the Constitution requires mayors to be elected by the
direct vote of the city residents, however, no mayoral election has taken place yet. The
Constitution also provides for elected city councils; however, these constitutionally-
mandated councils are not yet formed. The sustained failure to establish a number of
important constitutionally-mandated institutions not only leaves the basic structure of
Afghanistan’s state incomplete but also renders the attainment of some of basic goals
of the Constitution impossible. While a limited textual interpretation of the constitution
might suggest that these absentee institutions only provide advice and participate in
attainment of development goals,112 but a more holistic interpretation of the Constitution,
which draws upon the spirit of the Constitution and its ethical goals, better highlights the
significance of these absentee institutions in the constitutional system of Afghanistan.113 It
is only through these institutions that participatory governance and good governance can
actualize in practice.114
For the purpose of improving the legality of public administration in Afghanistan and closing
the gap between the de facto structure of public administration and its constitutional
model, enactment of the basic administrative laws is crucial. These laws which include
the Law of Basic Structure of State, Law of Local Governance, Law of Local Councils,
and Law of Municipalities are vital for operationalizing the constitutional model of public
administration in Afghanistan. These laws can be called organic laws; in the sense that they
expand the basic rulings of the constitution transforming broad constitutional mandate to
a workable legal framework. Therefore, implementation of the constitution, in absence
of these organic laws, is impossible. These laws should have been enacted soon after the
adaption of the constitution (as the constitution requires the Law of Basic Structure of State
to be enacted within one year); however, this has not happened.115 A number of reasons
have been given as to why these laws are not yet enacted. The National Unity Government
112 2004 Constitution of Afghanistan, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., Chapter 8.
114 2004 Constitution of Afghanistan, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., preamble and arts. 6 and 137.
(NUG) claims that the existence of the extraconstitutional entity of Reyasat Ijraee (CEO)
renders the enactment of the basic structure of the state politically impractical.116 While
the position of CEO may explain the failure to adopt organic laws by the NUG, the question
is what reason could explain the failure to adopt this law in more than a decade during
which the extraconstitutional position of CEO did not exist?
In addition to the failure to create the constitutionally-required administrative

institutions, a number of institutions have been created whose constitutionality is either
suspect or rejected by the majority of constitutional scholars interviewed here. Of these
administrative institutions with dubious constitutional basis, one can name increasing
number of “independent” general directorates (the word independent is recently being
removed from the name of these institutions following an advisory ruling from the
Constitutional Oversight Commission), increasing number of executive councils, and of
course the position of CEO created under the Agreement of NUG. These constitutionally
dubious administrative organizations are most often created through presidential decrees
without the approval of National Assembly and lack legislations that would regulate their
structure or operation. Under article 90 of the Constitution, the National Assembly has the
duty to create, modify and/or abrogate administrative units. Additionally, article 142 of
the Constitution empowers the state to create necessary administrative offices in order
to “implement the provisions” and “attain the values” enshrined in the Constitution.
State, in the later article, encompasses the legislative branch as well. Article 64(20) is
the sole constitutional basis that is often invoked to justify the presidential power to
create these constitutionally dubious administrative organization through presidential
decrees. However, on the one hand, under this provision the presidential power is
limited by ordinary legislations, and on the other hand, this provision seems to provide
for an exception to a well-established constitutional rule (articles 90 and 142).117 Thus,
establishment of, by one count more than twenty-five “independent” commission and
directorate through presidential decree, is believed to be unconstitutional.118 The possible
efficiency or effectiveness of these unconstitutional entities cannot override the provisions
of the Constitution. If the implementation of the de jure administrative structure required
by the Constitution is impractical the solution should be to either bring the de facto
administrative structure closer to its de jure model or to revise the de jure model to
render it more practical. The solution cannot be to increasingly diverge from the de jure
administrative structure and commit to a pattern of violation of constitution.
The most controversial of extraconstitutional institution in Afghanistan currently is the position

of CEO of NUG. In order to find a way out of severe electoral crisis, this extraconstitutional
institution was created based on the agreement of the NUG and was implemented by the
presidential decree. Under the agreement of NUG, it was agreed to that the position CEO
is going to morph into the position of prime minister through constitutional amendment
and changing the political system of Afghanistan; however, this agreement has not been yet
implemented. While some constitutional scholars have argued that the position of CEO was
constitutional during its first two years (employing an expansive notion of constitutional
law which incorporates the broad public consensus as the basis of constitutional law), the
continued exitance of the CEO position after these two years is considered unconstitutional
by virtually all interviewees. Those who justify the short-term constitutionality of this
institution, invoke two arguments. First, article 64 of the Constitution empowers the
president to create independent offices.119 Second, this institution helped avoid an electoral
116 Ibid
117 KII, senior member of Asia F.
27 AREU
crisis, ensured the creation of a more ethnically inclusive government, and helped attain
paramount public utilities. In this regards, a senior official says, “although this position does
not have a place in the constitution, but, since it ensured political participation, and helped
the realization of ethical goals of the political system, in my opinion, it has legal legitimacy.
In my opinion, avoidance of severe crisis and avoidance of war are of the primary goals of
constitutional. The agreement of NUG attained these goals, therefore, I think, it is legally
legitimate”, one interviewee said.120
While the position of CEO is given constitutionality albeit temporary on the ground
that it helped avoid a national crisis, other reasons are given to justify other councils
and “independent” offices. It is argued that the government has created more than 25
“independent” offices and more than 10 councils (such as national security council, national
council of rule of law, and national economic council). The formers (“independent” offices)
are created outside the constitutional ministry-based administrative structure while the
latter (national councils) stand above the ministries at least in areas of policymaking.
Before addressing the motives behind creation of these institutions, it should be noted
that some argue that these institutions are both legal and necessary.
The supports of extra-ministerial institutions argue that they are created using the
presidential power enshrined in article 64(20) of the Constitution. They argue that these
institutions are constitutional. Since the President has the authority to issue legislative
decrees that have created these extra-ministerial institutions they enjoy constitutional
standing. According to article 79(2) of the Constitution, “Legislative decrees, after
endorsement by the President, shall acquire the force of law. Legislative decrees shall be
presented to the National Assembly within thirty days of convening its first session, and if
rejected by the National Assembly, they become void.” The last sentence of this provision,
they argue, only considers legislative decrees void if the National Assembly rejects them.
However, they argue, if the legislative decree is presented to the National Assembly but for
any reason the National Assembly does not render a decision with regard to the legislative
decree, the decree continues to be legal until such a time that the National Assembly
rejects it. This is because, they argue, that the Constitution does not say that unverified
but unrejected legislative decrees become void after expiration of 30 days period. This
legal justification is considered a way for the government to bypass the administrative and
legislative power of the National Assembly.
In addition to this procedural argument, the supporters of extra-ministerial institutions

argue that they are very effective and serve necessary functions. They argue that public
administration in Afghanistan has not been able to break free of negative political
influences which they believe most often are exerted through the National Assembly. They
argue these negative political influences are the main challenge against administrative
reform in Afghanistan.121 According to this view, politically influential actors, who are most
often members of National Assembly, use the institutional powers of the National Assembly
(such as the power to approve the nomination of a minister, or remove a minister through
vote of no-confidence) to interfere in the process of hiring and distribution of contracts
by the ministers creating formidable challenges against administrative reforms. Proponent
of extra-ministerial institutions opine that creation of extra-ministerial institutions can
ameliorate the negative effects of politics over public administration because members of
National Assembly cannot exert the same influence over these non-ministerial administrative
institutions.122 Since these non-ministerial administrative are created as expert organization
they can function free of negative political influences. The proponents of non-ministerial

121 KII, Senior official, IARCSC.
122 Id.
administrative institutions refute the argument that these institutions add to parallel
administrative structures and administrative redundancies increasing inefficiency and
undermining accountability by claiming that these non-ministerial administrative bodies
are only policymaking bodies and do not interfere with policy-implementation authorities
of the ministries. In other words, “commissions and independent directorates function as
technical policy advisors for leaders of the government in the policy areas.”123 Similarly,
the supporters of non-ministerial administrative bodies argue that it is easier to transfer
authorities to these bodies than reform ministries which have vast administrative structure
and represent a lot of vested interest.124 Furthermore, with regard to the councils, their
supporters argue that these councils promote necessary inter-ministerial coordination
and cooperation.125Despite these legal and practical justifications, the current trend of
creating non-ministerial administrative bodies has caused widespread concerns among
the majority of the interviewees. The critics argue that to solution to depoliticizing the
public administration and protecting it against negative influence of ethnic politics cannot
be bypassing them. The critics argue that the non-ministerial-approach adds to parallel
structure and creates increasing administrative redundancies while running against the
prescriptions of the Constitution. The current approach also undermines the principle
of accountability by creating overlapping jurisdictions.126 For example, the creation of
National Economic Council in addition to the Council of Ministers, or High Council of Affairs
of Immigrants and Refugees in addition to the Ministry of Refugees and Returnees are not
justifiable.127 The critics claim that the current approach is motived by the “exclusionary
politics”.128 The dual structure of the NUG has made the matters worse creating the
conditions that led to the side stepping of the ministries. It should be noted, however, that
the ministries and constitutionally-mandated independent directorates also suffer from
overlapping jurisdictions and administrative redundancies. For example, by one count,
there are more than six administrative bodies tasked with fighting corruption in addition
to the general attorney’s office.129 Or creation of the Office of Inspector in addition to the
High Office of Oversight, or creation of Governmental Ministry for Tourism in addition to
the Deputy Ministry of Tourism within the Ministry of Information and Culture.130
Criticism of parallel structure is not limited to central administration but encompasses the
entirety of public administration system. As one interviewee opined,131
Instead of strengthening the administrative institutions, parallel structures are created. For
example, eight development economic zones are recently created which in effect bypass
the local province-based administration. Similarly, instead of strengthening or creating the
village councils, district councils, or other local administrative bodies, the ten-year program
of Citizen Charter is implemented. In the past too, instead of creating [constitutionally-
mandated] local councils, village development project was implemented. Creation of
project-based institutions undermines local administrative institutions.
123 KII, senior official, MoJ

125 KII, senior official, IARCSC.
126 KII, commissioner of IEC and ex-commissioner of IDLG.
127 KII, senior official, council of ministers secretariat.
129 KII, senior advisor, MoI
130 KII, advisor, Herat, USAID.
131 KII, senior official, IDLG.
29 AREU
3.5 From centralization to decentralizing

As it was discussed above, there is no consensus on the constitutionally-mandated level
of administrative centralization and decentralization in Afghanistan. However, virtually
all interviewees agreed that the existing level of administrative centralization and
concentration is inconsistent with the constitutional model.132 The centralizing tendency
has been a constant of history of Afghanistan’s administrative law. This deeply imbedded
centralizing tendency, on the one hand, shows a wide diverge between the de jure and de
facto structure of public administration, and on the other hand, reflects a widening divide
between the state and society. The divergence between de jure rules and de facto reality
of Afghan society is due several factors: state-society relations in Afghanistan have not
been institutionalized under a formal system; and Afghanistan has a tradition of top-down
policymaking. This structural rapture has been partly responsible for the fragility of the
Afghan states and backwardness of Afghan society.133
In the current climate, while a number of justifications have been put forward in favor of
preservation of centralized administration in Afghanistan, the criticisms of the centralized
system are also stronger than ever. Before turning to the opinions of the proponents
and opponents of administrative centralization in Afghanistan, it should be noted that
public administration suffers from a number of systemic problems which cannot be either
explained or remedied through centralization-decentralization discussion. These systemic
problems include scarcity of useful administrative knowledge, divided and unorganized
administrations, ambiguity of the broad goals of public administration, to name a few.
One can easily observe the low level of administrative knowledge inside and outside
Afghanistan’s academic institutions. Public administration needs to make and implement
policies and generate innovative solutions; these functions all require expert knowledge
and understanding of the Afghan context.134 The need for administrative knowledge is even
more pronounced in countries that experiencing high level of conflicts while rebuilding their
administrative system. Ambiguity in broad goals of public administration in Afghanistan
also overshadows all administrative policies, actions, and processes. As one interviewee
explained, 135
“Afghanistan’s Constitution does not specify the goals of public administration. Therefore,
it is not clear whether the general goal of public administration in Afghanistan is delivery
of public services or economic development? Or do we have a liberal public administration
or a bureaucratic-authoritarian public administration? From a historical perspective, public
administration in Afghanistan during the communist and Taliban regimes was in the service of
those regimes’ ideologies; during the Mujahedeen regime it did not serve a specific purpose;
post-2001, while the constitution has clarified the basic structure and organization of public
administration in a more complete way, it does not specify its general direction or general
goals.”136
Despite lack of clear constitutional prescription on the purpose of public administration,

the Constitution does enshrine the principles of democracy, public participation, popular
sovereignty, social justice, and good governance. These principles collectively make up
the basic goals of the Constitution and its ethical underpinnings; therefore, they must
serve as a guide when determining the structure of public administration and structuring
the state-society relationships.

133 Yaqob Ebrahimi, Shekaf Miyan Dawlat Markaz Gara wa Jama Markaz Gouriz dar Afghanistan [The Gap
Between Centralizing State and a Decentralized Society in Afghanistan] (Kabul: 8am, 1395 [2016]), https://8am.af/
x8am/1395/11/06/political-afghanistan-policy
134 KII, commissioner of IEC and ex-commissioner of IDLG.
While acknowledging that the current level of administrative concentration is inconsistent

with ethical goals of the constitution, some still believe it is justifiable out of necessity.
They argue that organization of public administration and its legal framework in Afghanistan
cannot support an effective local administration. From the sociopolitical perspective,
they argue, Afghanistan has not yet developed a participatory and citizen-based political
culture, and the existing traditional political culture is not conducive for an effective
decentralized public administration.137 “The existing traditional political culture does not
have the necessary capacity to sustain effective public participation in governance; as the
experience of provincial councils has shown that these institutions are unable to exercise
oversight authority, which requires some level of expertise.”138 Administration also cannot
effectively preform its function under the existing traditional political culture. As one
interviewee opined, 139
In Afghanistan, public administration is a tool in the service of exercising personal power

and whims; not a tool in the service of exercising collective sovereignty. This is why
administrative actions are taken based on personal preferences of those in power rather than
the provisions of the law. Afghanistan’s political culture is a traditional-ethnical one, and
therefore, exhibits strong authoritarian tendencies. This culture fosters personal dominance
not dominance of an institution or the law.
In addition to these sociopolitical conditions whose changes requires long-term efforts

and strategies, some interviewees believed that local administrations lack the necessary
capacity to effectively exercise administrative authority. This has led local officials to
avoid exercising the authorities they currently possess without consultation and guidance
from the center. This orientation toward center is likely due to the historical legacies of
public administrative and the fear of accepting responsibility.140 In addition to low capacity
of local administration, the continued influence of local strongmen has deterred the
allocation of more authorities to the local administration. The argument is that increasing
the authority and power of local administration under the conditions where local strongmen
enjoy significant power will exacerbate corruption, and illegal behaviors.141
The majority of interviewees, 75%, on the other hand, do not find these justifications
convincing. They are not convinced that these problems are severe enough that would
justify the suspension of clear constitutional mandates. On the capacity argument, they
believe that limited local capacity is the result of centralization not its cause. In order to
build the local capacity, it is imperative that authorities and resources transfer to the local
administration. Currently, financial, hiring, policymaking, planning, executive, and oversight
authorities are highly concentrated in the center, they argue.142 Local administrations
have very limited authorities.143 This situation, about half of the interviewees argue,
has created distance between people and the government, has made people indifferent
towards their responsibilities as citizens, and slowed down development projects. For
example, given the mountainous nature of Afghanistan, some provinces of Afghanistan
only receive resources after long delays. Afghanistan not only is a mountainous country
but also lacks well-developed roads and good security; in such environment concentration
of authorities and resources in the center can seriously reduce the responsiveness of the
government to the local needs.144
137 KII, MP and Uni Prof.

138 KII, senior official, Herat province.
143 KII, advisor, Herat, USAID.
31 AREU
3.6 Legal persons of public law

Nowadays, an important topic of debate in administrative law is the theory of legal
personhood of public law. On this issue, based on the existing needs, there are a number
of insufficient, sporadic provisions in the Constitution and other laws of Afghanistan. The
issue of legal personhood of administrative bodies is a very important issue and should not
have been left unaddressed. Under the 2004 Constitution, state, in a sense that includes
all three branches of state, possess a legal personality and public administration can be
made party to a legal dispute.145 Furthermore, the Constitution provides for central and
local units of public administration, and creates a number of commission, independent
directorate, and elected local councils.146However, the Constitution is silent on the issue
of legal personhood of these institutions. For example, it is not clear whether the Cabinet,
Council of Ministers, and High Councils established within the Presidential Palace possess
a public legal personality or note. If they do, the question is should they be subject
to parliamentary oversight? if they do not, the question is can they exercise authority
independent from their constitutive ministries?
The law that has addressed this issue in Afghanistan the most is the Afghanistan Civil Code
(ACC). However, this ACC, on the one hand, takes a private law approach to the issue,
and on the other hand, is more than thirty-years-old and is in great need of revision.147
However, using ACC and a number of other legislation, one can find some legal provisions
on the types of public legal personhood, its criteria, the people who can legally represent
them, rules of their mergers, and finally rules that govern their dissolution.148 Afghanistan
has to go a long way until achieving a sufficient and modern legal framework for legal
personhood under public law that could meet the administrative needs of the time.
ACC defines the legal personhood. It then divides legal persons into public and private legal
persons. Under ACC, “Legal person is a virtual personality that has legal capacity and is
established, for certain objectives, in the form of organization, company or association.”149
ACC also defines public and private legal personhood and provides some of their examples.
Under ACC, public legal persons include state, its branches, public administrations and
institutions and their subordinate administrative units.150 ACC contains a number of provisions
on the effects and features of public legal persons by defers the issue of determining whether
an entity possess public legal personhood to the governing law.151 The features of public legal
persons under ACC are independent financial rights and responsibilities, legal capacity, the
right to sue and being sued, and residency.152 It is clear that these rules are very insufficient for
determining the issues related to public legal persons. They cannot provide a sufficient legal
framework for the regulation of public personhood under modern administrative laws. ACC
does not provide a sufficient legal framework which would clearly define the types of public
legal persons, and the nature of its interactions with other legal persons and individuals.
The reason for this legal gap is likely the continued enforcement of pre-2004-constitution
laws. These pre-2004-constitution most often do not conform to the text and spirit of the
current Constitution. It is self-evident that administrative organizations, their functions, and
their relations with the public, civil society, and private sector has undergone fundamental
146 Id. arts. 58 and 64.
147 Civil Code of Afghanistan (Official Gazette no. 353) 1355 (1975).
148 For example, Id. arts. 337 and 338, and the Law of Municipality, supra note 106, art. 2.
149 Civil Code of Afghanistan, supra note 147, art. 337.
150 Id. art. 338.
151 Id. art. 339.
152 Id. art.342.
changes over the last century. Contemporary administrative law which is characterized by
the prevalence of market economy and paradigm of good government has experienced a
complete transformation. The signs of this transformation can be clearly observed in the text
of the 2004 Constitution as well as the post-2004-constitution laws and policies. However,
the continued enforcement of pre-2004-constituion laws has caused a legal limbo where
some important legal issues are either left unaddressed or are governed by potentially
unconstitutional laws; the issue of legal personhood under public law is one those issues.
Granting legal personhood to administrative organizations and institutions Not only will
determine the scope of their rights and responsibilities but it also clarifies their position in
the general structure of the state. This way the state power is going to be structured by the
legal system and exercised through the administrative apparatus.153 Administrative actions
are going to be taken through legal persons. These legal persons sometimes have widespread
jurisdictions over national issues, sometimes they have limited jurisdiction within a portion
of the country’s territory over local issues, and sometimes they enjoy specialized jurisdiction
over a specialized issue within the entire or part of the country’ territory.154 This is the reason
why that administrative systems provide for local and specialized administrative institutions
on the central and local levels. The level of independence, the type of legal personhood,
and their relations to larger administrative-political structures in a country depend on the
level of centralization and decentralization of that country’s public administration system.
In Afghanistan, organization of public administration consists of central administration, local

councils, non-governmental independent agencies, professional organizations, and other
non-governmental associations. Administrative law of Afghanistan, for a variety of reasons,
has failed to provide a comprehensive legal framework. For example, it is still not clear which
of these administrative institutions possess legal personhood, how the relations between
these institutions should be structured, whether the control of the central administration
over local councils is a hierarchical control or mere guardianship. More particularly, what
kind of relationships exist between municipalities and IDLG, Ministry of Urban Development,
province, or high office of oversight? Answering these questions require a more in-dept study
of the types of public legal personhood that are part of administrative law in Afghanistan.
A common categorization of public legal persons is: geographical legal persons and public
affairs legal persons; the latter is also referred to as independent agencies or professional
institutions which can be divided into subcategories as well.155
Geographical legal persons

Geographical legal persons are those administrative organizations which are created by
the administrative law with rights and responsibilities and have geographical jurisdictions
and identities. These legal persons are commonly divided into two categories based
on having general or limited jurisdictions. If these legal persons have geographical
jurisdictions over the entire country they are considered national or central organizations
whereas if they only have geographical jurisdiction over a part of the country, they are
considered local organizations or administrations. In Afghanistan while organizations of
public administrations are divided to central and local administrations156, it is not clear
whether local administrations are part of the central administrations, as it is commonly
the case in the centralized system, and therefore lack independent legal personhood or
local administrations possess independent legal personhood, as it is commonly the case in
decentralized administrative systems.
153 Abulfazl Qazi, Bayestahai Huquq Assasi [Essentioals of Constituional Law] (Tehran: Mizan, 1384 [2005]), p. 8.
155 Sarwar Danish, supra note 30, p. 109.
33 AREU
In Afghanistan’s administrative system, central administration is equal to government or

executive branch but when we talk about legal personhood of organizations of public
administrations we are talking about all centralized administrations and government
authorities which have jurisdiction over the entire country. In this way, these public
organizations are headed by the state, in a sense that incorporates all its three branches.157
The state, in this sense, can sue and be sued and possess unique rights and responsibilities.
This is this independent legal personhood of the state that is recognized and operates on
the international level as well.158 What is important for this paper is the government; The
government in Afghanistan is broader than organization of public administration in that
organization of public administration is a part of the executive branch.
It should be noted that ministries do not have separate legal personhood because they are
part of the government. In this way no ministry has an independent legal personhood it is
part of government and cabinet and works under the chairmanship of the president. Thus,
ministries and their subordinate organizations are part of the public legal personhood of
the state. This analysis can be inferred from the constitution.159 What needs clarification
is the distinction between line departments of the ministries (which are their extension)
and local institutions that are elected directly by the people thus are not extension of
the miniseries. These local institutions which are directly dependent on the local people,
in decentralized administrative system, commonly enjoy independent legal personhood
and can act in their own name.160In the centralized administrative systems, on the other
hand, the existence of local institutions which would enjoy administrative autonomy and
freedom to act on their own does not seem justified;161 this issue is subject to debate in
the Afghanistan’s public administration system.
Independent Agency
In addition to organization of central administrations, such as cabinet and independent
commissions, and decentralized local institutions, such as municipalities, there are other
public legal persons which enjoy public law personhood and assist the government in
administration of public affairs.162 These institutions which are in generally called
“independent agency” can exist under different names. In different countries, these agencies
can be dependent of parliament, judicial branch, cabinet, ministries, municipalities, or
other institutions that have independent legal personhood.163 Since these agencies are
part of the state, in addition to having independent legal personality, participate in the
exercise of sovereignty and enjoy the benefits of public authority. These agencies initially
emerged to deliver public services such as hospitals, libraries, and universities but then
expanded their roles in areas of commerce, industry, and social services (for example as
state-owned enterprises) and can take upon for-profit and non-profit forms.164
In Afghanistan there is no clear definition of independent agencies, but a number of

institutions are created by the law that exhibit the characteristics and features of public
agencies. These agencies in Afghanistan include state-owned companies, and state banks,
for example. A review of the laws and charters of these agencies reveal that these agencies
do not follow a consistent model in Afghanistan. In other words, these agencies are not
157 Id. art. 136.

158 Sarwar Danish, supra note 30, p. 110.
160 Manochehr Tabatabai-Motamini, supra note 8, pp. 61-62.
164 Id.
subject to strict and unified forms, therefore, do not need to consistently possess the
traditional characteristic of public institutions. Given the flexibility that these agencies
afford, despite the centralized system of public administration in Afghanistan, these
agencies can theoretically be used to perform public functions in a decentralized way.
To preserve the principle of centralized administration under the current constitution,
the president and ministers can initiate the creation of these agencies. However, the
establishment of these agencies requires legislations that would define their structure,
jurisdictions, responsibilities, financial and hiring authorities, as well as their legal
personhood. Ultimately, since these agencies enjoy financial and organizational
independence from ministries and independent directorates, their creation requires the
approval of the legislator which has the ultimate authority over the allocation of the state’s
revenues and spending.165It should be noted, however, in case of state-owned companies,
although they possess independent legal personhood, the government has the authority
over their creation, change, dissolution, and transfer of their properties.166 In Afghanistan,
a large number of agencies exist that enjoy different level of independence from the
organizations of central administration, however, since no clear definition of public legal
personhood exist, it is hard to discern their exact legal status under administrative law of
Afghanistan. For example, although recently the Ministry of Higher Education has adopted
the Directive of Financial Independence of Public Universities, but they are still dependent
on this ministry from the organizational, hiring, procurement, and policymaking point of
views, therefore, financial independence of public universities cannot be taken to mean
that these universities enjoy complete legal personhood.
Professional and Union Systems

Professional and union system are those administrative systems which are created by the
state to regulate the affairs of members of a profession. Although these unions are private
law legal persons, regulation of their affairs fall under jurisdiction of organization and
unions that enjoy public law legal personhood and can avail themselves of privileges of
public authority. This hybrid nature of professional associations and unions is the reason
that they are governed under a hybrid system meaning that the exercise of public authority
by these unions are governed by the public law while their internal affairs (such as hiring,
contracting, and lawsuits) are governed by the private law.167
These systems, which are considered professional or union systems, have features that gives
them public identity.168 First, membership in these systems can be mandatory under the
law. Second, these systems have legal personality and exercise administrative authority,
although under auspices of the state. Third, the governing board of these systems or unions
are elected by their members without state intervention.169 Afghanistan Independent Bar
Association is an example of professional association in Afghanistan. Article 4 of Law of
Defense Attorneys states that “for the purpose of regulation and leadership of the affairs
of defense attorneys, Independent Bar Association shall be established as an independent
non-governmental entity.”170 Similarly, Unions of Craftsmen is another example of
professional associations which is established to regulate the affairs of craftsmen and
operates under to a charter, directive, and other legislative documents.
166 The decree of amending and adding some articles of Law on State Corporations, (Official Gazette no. 103) 1958
[1347], art. 66.
168 Mohammad Imami, Huquq Idari [Administrative Law] (Tehran: Mizan, 1388 [2009]), p. 136.
170 Law of Bar Association (Official Gazette no. 934) 2007 (1386).
35 AREU
3.7 The need for reforms in organization of public administration

Revision and reform are necessary and avoidable in most areas of human life. Development
and improvement are not possible without change and reform; reform is even more
important for the countries that are transitioning from traditionalism to modernism. Study
of public administration in Afghanistan reveals that it suffers from de jure and de facto
shortcomings and it needs revision and reform. It is this realization that has motivated a
number of policies for reform, which are currently being considered.171 Study of primary
and subsidiary sources, as well as interviews with administrative law experts conducted
for this paper also highlight the need for reform. While everyone agrees on the need for
reform, the type, extent, and method of reform is subject to disagreements. Some believe
that the roots of the problems of public administration are in the failure to implement
the constitution; they believe that if the constitution is fully implemented, it would solve
the problems of public administration in Afghanistan.172 Others believe that the problem
is not with implementation but the prescriptions of the constitution. They believe
implementation of the constitutional provision on public administration is not going to
solve the problem because the constitutional model of public administration cannot meet
the existing public administration needs of the country and is not adaptable to the current
conditions of Afghanistan; they advocate amending the constitution.173 Some interviews
advocate for limited, marginal reform, which they argue can be justified through a broad
interpretation of existing constitutional provisions; while others propose broad reforms,
which can only be justified through amending the constitution. Some interviews proposed
very limited reform, which would be justifiable with a more limited textual interpretation
of the constitution as well. Each of these positions has its own supporters and opposers.
Some found change in the administrative model premature because they believe the
effectiveness of the current model has not fully been tested due to non-implementation.
The supporters of this view argue, since the necessary political conditions for broad
administrative reform are not present, it is better to focus on better implementation
of existing constitutional model of public administration.174 This point of view prioritizes
strengthening of administrative bodies, institution-building, creating the necessary
legal and material infrastructure of public administration, creating and improving the
administrative capacity, and establishing the absentee administrative institutions, over
constitutional amendment or broad changes in the new-founded administrative structure.
They warn that attempting broad administrative reform without complete understanding
of its consequences can be disastrous.175
This camp argues that there are a lot that need to be done within the existing legal framework
of public administration. The current laws not only do not prevent the delegation of more
authorities to the local administration but also requires it, thus, policymaking, planning,
budget implementing, some hiring authorities can be delegated to the local administration
without the need for change in the laws. Delegation of administrative authorities,
under existing laws, will ameliorate the negative effects of centralization. In the same
vain, circumscribing the hiring authorities of the president, reduction of administrative
redundancies, integration of parallel structures, establishment of local councils with the
authority to exercise organization oversight, and creating the necessary conditions for
creation of elected city councils and mayors can be done within the limits of the current
171 Such as the NGGPA (Draft) which is under the processing.

constitution without constitutional amendment.176 With regard to local administration, this

interviewees argue that in order improve coordination and cooperation, there is a need
for a unifying local administration policy that would improve the coordination on the local
level. Currently, different units of local administration are not integrated into a unified
provincial vision rather each unit is independently linked to a central administration. “It
is argued that provincial governor and district governors are both representative of the
president; then what is each of their scope of work and how should their relationship be
defined?”177 Currently, the scope of authority of a provincial governor is often set by his
personal power not law; however, this would be applied to all 34 provinces. Lack of well-
specified scope of legal authority has created a condition where the personal power of
office holder determines the boundaries of that office’s authority.178
Those who locate the source of administrative problems in the Constitution not its
implementation are of the view that the constitutional gaps and shortcomings in
areas of public administration are so severe that real improvement in areas of public
administration without constitutional amendment is impossible. This was the dominant
view amongst interviewees. This camp advocates for a more decentralized constitutional
mode of public administration.179 This camp argues that cultural, ethnic, and geographical
diversity (and the fact that Afghanistan is a mountainous country) means that Afghanistan
needs a decentralized system of public administration.180 This camp discounts the fears
of centripetal forces and empowerment of local strongmen by arguing that the continued
exitance of a unified political system will greatly reduce those fears. This is while
realization of a democratic, participatory governance is only possible with a decentralized
administration. The attainment of good governance also requires the reduction in the
highly centralized system of administration so administrative institutions of different
levels across the country can form meaningful relations with the local civil societies and
private sectors.181
Within this camp, some believe that the decentralization efforts must begin with reforming
the local councils. The current structure of local councils (village, district, and provincial
councils) is the outcome of a historical process which aimed to create buy-in for the local
elites in the political system (this is why that these councils is a conduit for joining the
upper house of national assembly). Afghan rulers, throughout the history, including in the
current time, have removed the administrative authorities of these local institutions but
preserved their political functions. Currently, these local councils do not have administrative
authorities. The historical process of creation of these councils did not prioritize good
governance or participatory local governance. They are not designed to improve the local
administration. They have, in principle, been established and maintained to create buy-in
on the part of local elites. This is why, under the current highly centralized administrative
system, the members of these councils are in constant conflict with the representative of
central administrative authorities. The current political, non-administrative local councils
are a main challenge against effecting local administration reform. Currently, the members
of these councils are under political pressures from their constituents to represent them
politically while the highly centralized political system does not allow for such a local
political representation; as a result, provincial councils are in constant conflict with the
provincial governor (who is the political representative of central government.)

37 AREU
Given this analysis, some interviewees believed that in order to create a working decentralized
administrative system the current political structure of local councils must be removed. The
proponents of this plan propose that instead of these old, problematic structures, elected
city councils and mayors must be empowered. Traffic, police, and other local administrative
units within a city must be incorporated within the municipalities. Under this proposal,
municipalities assume the role of main local administrative institutions and provincial
governors only remain as political representative of the central government. The provincial
governor no longer will have administrative authorities. The supporters produce a number
of examples from other countries which use the metropolitan models for administrating the
affairs of the city and its neighboring areas (such as London and New York).
Under this model, elected city councils and mayors can best operationalize decentralized
administration in Afghanistan; the main function of local administration is delivery of
public services, and municipalities are the main institutions responsible for this delivery.
Municipalities in cooperation with elected city council can produce plans for improvement
of city life and implement them. Afghanistan needs to move towards improvement of
cities, they argue. Rural development should follow suit, they argue.
The current approach within the government on reform of provincial councils, reflected
in the draft National Policy for good Governance, aims to incorporate them in the
development of province. The draft policy provides that members of provincial councils
must be included in the high administrative and development councils in the province, so
they can share their plans and advise on the provincial budget, development projects, and
improvement of public service delivery. The policy also proposes that the law should require
provincial governors to consult with the provincial councils. Under this draft policy, city
councils and district councils will enjoy similar position with regard to the city and district,
respectively. Municipalities, according to this draft policy, will remain as autonomous
local administrative institutions tasked with raising and managing their revenues but are
incorporate within a unified local administration vision. Provincial governor will exercise
light oversight over municipalities.182
Under this draft policy, units of central administration (ministers and general directorates)
will morph into policymaking institutions with oversight over implementation of policies
while local administration, under the leadership of provincial governor, will be policy-
implementors. The draft policy proposes that the line departments should become
integrated into the provincial structure and lose their independent hierarchical connection
to the central administration. This way, the draft policy seems to push forward a unifying
view of province as the main institution of public service delivery. On the provincial
level, the administrative and development work will be leaded by inclusive bodies of
high administrative and development councils. On the district level, the district level
administrative units will work under direct control of the provincial leadership as
subordinates of provincial administrative bodies. The district level administration can share
their input through their membership in high administrative and development councils at
the province level. It seems that implementation of this draft policy does not necessarily
require constitutional amendment. The constitution defines central administration
which comprises of government and ministries; it also defines local administration which
comprises of provinces and districts. Therefore, line department of central administrations
do not have constitutional standing. The constitutional model of public administration is
closer to a unified province-based model of local administration compare to the current
disjointed system of local administration.183
182 NGGPA(Draft), July 2018.

183 Id.
4. Conclusion and Recommendations

4.1 Conclusion
According to majority of interviewees, the constitution provides for a deconcentrated
centralized public administration. However, a significant minority rely on the values
enshrined in the constitution such as participatory governance to argue that a holistic
interpretation of the Constitution indicates that the Constitution provides for a semi-
centralized or deconcentrated decentralized public administration. While over the past
centuries different de jure model of public administration has been adopted in Afghanistan,
in practice, actual delegation of authorities seldom has happened. It appears that the
traditional Afghan society, and some often the state crafts, was not ready for a modern
and rule-based decentralized administration. However, in the current environment it
seems, on the one hand, the society is readier than ever for a rule-based decentralized
administrative system, and on the other hand, the government is more serious about
structural administrative reforms. Therefore, the conditions for structural reforms is now
more potent than ever, despite the persistence of a number of serious challenges such as
low capacity, local strongmen, and weak local administration.
What is undeniable about the de facto organization of public administration is that it widely
diverges from its de jure constitutional model. This has led some to consider structural
change premature and advocate for implementation of the existing constitutional model.
However, the centralizing tendencies of the current government and their continued
unwilling to delegate necessary authorities have created an environment of distrust of
the current centralized model. While there is a consensus on the need for reform, this
distrust has caused some stakeholders to only accept fundamental structural reforms. This
group argues that the context of adoption of the constitution justified the centralization
of public administration, however, the context has changed and there is pressing need for
adjusting the “transitional” administrative model and transitioning towards a decentralized
administrative system.
The policymakers inside the government do not share the same decentralizing views but
they too appreciate the need for deconcentrating reforms. This is why there are a number
of policies under work within the boundaries of the existing constitution while adopting
a broader interpretation of constitution. These policies can be effective short-term steps
since the necessary political conditions for constitutional amendments are not yet present.
39 AREU
4.2 Recommendations
In the short-run, the Afghan government should
• Enact or update organic laws of public administration, including Law of Basic

Structure of the State, Law of Local Councils, Law of Local Governance, and Law
of Municipalities;
• In order to close the gap between the de facto structure of public administration
and its de jure constitutional model, extra-ministerial institutions should be
integrated into the ministry-based model, so that they can act as technical policy
advisors under the leadership of ministers;
• Necessary authorities in the areas of participation in policymaking, budgeting,
planning, hiring, and procurements should be gradually delegated to the local
administration;
• Constitutionally-mandated local councils must be established not only with the
purpose of creating the necessary conditions for convening of the Loya Jirga but
also to attain the ethical goals of the Constitution.
• Create effective mechanisms that would allow for a better implementation of
consultative and supervisory role of local councils;
• Provincial and district governors must be empowered so they can lead, coordinate,
and oversee the local administration in an integrated manner.
In the long-run, the constitution should be incrementally amended to:
• While the constitutionally-prescribed Afghan government has most of the

features of a presidential system, the public administration is designed based on
parliamentary system. This contradiction needs to be addressed;
• Create a real decentralized administrative system with all its political and
institutional prerequisites;
• Currently, the de facto organization of public administration diverges from the
basic structure outlined in the 2004 Constitution. This divergence has emerged
due to a number of reasons: (1) persistence of institutional debris from the past
regimes; (2) political expediency or desire to achieve quick results have been
preferred over fundamental administrative reforms, which are neither politically
convenient nor produce quick results; and (3) there is low level of capacity
throughout administrative apparatus of the government. In order to ensure long-
term stability and create a responsive and democratic public administration system,
the Afghan government needs to bring the organization of central administration
under the constitutional order, which would require fundamental administrative
reform starting from central ministries;
• Promote an integrated approach to local administration by merging local
councils—namely provincial and district councils—and city councils or clarify their
relationships in a manner that elected local institutions can take charge of local
administrative decision-making;
• At present, there is no unanimity on the model of public administration prescribed
in the 2004 Constitution. His issue can be addressed through the passing of
legislation that envisages the model of public administration for the Afghan state.
Bibliography
Books
Abasi, Bezhan. Mabani Hoqoq Asasi [Fundamentals of Constitutional Law]. Tehran: Jungle,
1389 [2010].
Ansari, Waliullah. Kuliyat-e Hoqoq Adari [Fundamentals of Administrative Law]. Tehran:

Mizan, 1386 [2007].
Azizy, Tarek. Rahnamud Max Planck baraye Huquq Idari Afghanistan [Max Planck Institute’s
Manual for Administrative Law in Afghanistan]. Kabul: Max Planck Institute, 1391 [2011].
Danish, Sarwar. Hoqoq Adari Afghanistan [Administrative Law of Afghanistan]. Kabul: Ibn
Sina, 1392 [2013].
Gabriel, Almond, et al. The Politics of the Developing Area. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1970.
Ghobar, Gholam Mohammad. Afghanistan Dar Masir-e-Tarikh [Afghanistan in the Course of

History]. Kabul: Maivand, 2009.
Gregorian, Varan. The Emergence of Modern Afghanistan: Politics of Reforms and

Modernization. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969.
Hadavand, Mehdi, et al. Aeinhai Tasmimgiri Dar Hoqooq Adari [Administrative Procedures
in Administrative Law]. Tehran: Khursand, 1391 [2012].
Helleringer, Genevieve and Purnhagen, Kai. Towards a European Legal Culture. Baden-
Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2014.
Hosseini, Sayed Ali. Hoqoq Adari Afghanistan [Administrative Law of Afghanistan]. Kabul:
Amiri Press, 2013.
Imami, Mohammad. Huquq Idari [Administrative Law]. Tehran: Mizan, 1388 [2009].
Mohammadi, Abdul Ali. Afghanistan wa Dawlat Modern [Afghanistan and Modern state].
Kabul: Amiri Press, 2015.
Musa Rezazadeh, Reza. Huquq Idari [Administrative Law]. Tehran: Mizan, 1388 [2009].
Roy, Olivier. L’Afghanistan et Modernite Politique (translated: Abulhassan), www.

afghandata.org:8080/xmlui/handle/azu/254
Tabatabai-Motamini, Manochehr. Hoqoq Adari [Administrative Law]. Tehran: SAMT, 1383 [2004].
Articles, Reports, Chapters
Alikozai, Ahmad Jan Khan. “Katabchah-yi Hukumati [Government Booklet]”, in: Faiz
Mohammad Kateb, Siraj al-Tawarikh [Light of Histories]. Kabul: Afghanistan Digital Library,
lunar 1331 [1913].
Asia Foundation, “An Assessment of Sub-National Government in Afghanistan”. Kabul: Asia

Foundation, 2007.
41 AREU
Ebrahimi, Yaqob. Shekaf Miyan Dawlat Markaz Gara wa Jama Markaz Gouriz dar Afghanistan
[The Gap Between Centralizing State and a Decentralized Society in Afghanistan]. Kabul:
8am, 1395 [2016]. https://8am.af/x8am/1395/11/06/political-afghanistan-policy
Hashimzai, M. Qasim. “The Separation of Powers and the Problem of Constitutional

Interpretation in Afghanistan” in Constitution-Making in Islamic Countries: Between
Upheaval and Continuity, ed. Rainer Grote and Tilmann Roder 665-681. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2012.
Moschtaghi, Ramin. “Constitutionalism in an Islamic Republic: The Principles of the Afghan

Constitution and the Conflict Between Them,” in Constitution-Making in Islamic Countries:
Between Upheaval and Continuity, ed. Rainer Grote and Tilmann Roder 683-713. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2012.
Salarzai, Habibullah, and Abrahim Poor, Habib. “Evaluation of Historical Evolution of Public
Management Paradigms”, Public Management Review 4, no. 9 (2012).
Spanta, Rangin Dadfar. “An Overview of Citizens’ Fundamental Rights: Challenges and
Opportunities”. Kabul: Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, 2015.
Tarzi, Amin. “Islam and Constitutionalism in Afghanistan”, 5 Journal of Persianate Studies

(2012).
United Nation Development Program, “Governance for Sustainable Growth and Equity”,
Report of International Conference”. New York: United Nations Publication, 28-30 July
1999.
Wilson, Woodrow. “The Study of Administration”, Political Science Quarterly, no. 2 (1887),
http://www.iupui.edu/~spea1/V502/Orosz/Units/Sections/u1s5/Woodrow_Wilson_
Study_of_Administration_1887_jstor.pdf
Laws, Regulations and Policies

“National Good Governance Policy”. (draft), unpublished, July 2018.
Anti-Trust Law
Civil Code of Afghanistan (Official Gazette no. 353) 1355 (1975).
Code of Basic Organization (Official Gazette no. 15), 1965 (1343).
Constitution of Afghanistan 1342 [1964].
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 1382 (2004)
Law of Bar Association (Official Gazette no. 934) 2007 (1386).
Law of Civil Servants, (Official Gazette no. 25) 1970 (1348).
Law of Fees of Public City Services
Law of Local Administration, (Official Gazette no. 793) 2000 (Lunar 1421).
Law of Municipalities, (Official Gazette no 794) 2000 (Lunar 1421).
Municipalities Law
Nizamnam-e Baladiya [Code of Municipality], 1303 [1924].
Nizamnama-e Tashkilat Asasiya-e Afghanistan [The Law of Basic Organization of

Afghanistan], 1301 [1923].
Nizamnama-e- Asasi Dawalt-e Alliyya-e Afghansitan [Constitution of Afghanistan] 1301

[1923]
Regulation on Cleaning and Gardening of the Cities
Regulation on the Cleaning Fees
Regulation on the Setting of Rents and Properties of the Municipalities.
The full text of the “Government of National Unity Deal” as emailed to the journalists
by the US Embassy on 21 September 2014 at the Afghanistan Analyst Network’s website
https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/miscellaneous/aan-resources/the-government-of-
national-unity-deal-full-text/.
43 AREU
Request for Feedback

AREU is very interested to hear from its research users. Whether you are a regular reader
ofour publications, have attended an AREU lecture or workshop, use the library, or have
only just become familiar with the organisation, your opinions and feedback are valuable.
They can help us deliver on our mandate as best we can by informing our approach to
research and the way we communicate results. The easiest way to provide feedback is to
email areu@areu.org.af.
Alternatively, you can call +93 (0)799 608 548. You are free to tell us what you like, but
some potentially useful information is:
• How you engage with AREU (i.e., through publications, meetings, etc.)
• What you use AREU research for
• How you receive AREU publications
• Whether you use hard or soft copy versions
• How publications could better present information to you
• Your thoughts on our research processes or results
• Suggested areas of research
• Your favourite AREU publications or events
• What you believe we could do better
• Your field of interest, employment or study, as well as location
Recent Publications from AREU

All publications are available for download at www.areu.org.af, and most in hardcopy for
free from the AREU office in Kabul.
Available Available
Date Publication Name Author Research Theme Publication Type
in Dari in Pashto
High and Dry:

Poppy Cultivation
and the future of
Natural
November those that reside David
Resources Issues paper
2018 in the former Mansfield
Management
desert areas
of South west
Afghanistan
STIRRING UP
THE HORNET’S
NEST: How the
Natural
October Population of David
Resources Issues Paper
2018 Rural Helmand Mansfield
Management
view the current
Counterinsurgency
Campaign
Swinging Between Mohammad

Hope and Despair: Mahdi Zaki,
Governance
October Kabul Citizens’ Sediqa
and Political Briefing Paper
2018 Voting Behavior in Bakhtiari
Economy
the 2018 Wolesi and Hassan
Jirga Election Wafaey
Policy Research
Institutions and
Health Sustainable Said Ahmad
September
Development Maisam Social Protection Country Report
2018
Goals: Building Najafizada
Momentum in
South Asia
Gender-Based
Leah Wilfreda
Violence Among
September RE Pilongo,
IDP Children in Social Protection Policy Note
2018 Chona R.
Kabul: Measures
Echavez
to Take
Politics over
evidence:
Ashley
questioning the
Jackson and
August 2018 link between √ √ Social Protection Briefing Paper
Dr Orzala
service deliver and
Nemat
state legitimacy in
Afghanistan.
Radical and Active:

Radicalisation
Dr Weeda
July 2018 among University Social Protection Policy Note
Mehran
Students in Kabul
and Herat
Still Water Runs

Deep: Illicit
Poppy and the Natural
Dr David
May 2018 Transformation √ √ Resources Issues Paper
Mansfield
of the Deserts Management
of Southwest
Afghanistan
45 AREU
Assessing EUPOL
Impact on Afghan Qayoom
May 2018 Social Protection Working Paper
Police Reform Suroush
(2007-2016)
No more standard
programming:
Giulia Minoia,
April 2018 economic Social Protection Briefing Paper
Urs Schrade
development in
fragile settings
A Mapping Study:
Institutional
Mechanisms to Superva
March 2018 Social Protection Issues Paper
tackle Trafficking Narasimhaiah
in Persons in
Afghanistan
A Mapping Study:
Institutional
Wali
Mechanisms to
March 2018 Mohammad √ √ Social Protection Policy Note
Tackle Trafficking
Kandiwal
in Persons in
Afghanistan
Urban Safety: A
Review of the
January 2018 Afghanistan Urban Yama Turabi √ √ Social Protection Policy Note
Peacebuilding
Program
Typologies of
Natural
nomad-settler Antonio
January 2018 √ √ Resource Issues Paper
conflict in Giustozzi
Management
Afghanistan
Disease or
Symptom? Natural
November William A.
Afghanistan’s Resource Policy Note
2017 Byrd
Burgeoning Opium Management
Economy in 2017
Chona R.
The Assessment of
December Echavez,
EU Crisis Response Social Protection Policy Note
2017 Qayoom
in Afghanistan
Suroush
Truly
Unprecedented:
How the Helmand
Natural
October Food Zone David
√ √ Resource Issues Paper
2017 supported an Mansfield
Management
increase in the
province’s capacity
to produce opium
Judicial Review in Ghizaal Constitutional

August 2017 √ √ Issues Paper
Afghanistan Haress Law
Executive Review Constitutional

August 2017 Kawun Kakar √ √ Issues Paper
in Afghanistan Law
Women in
July 2017 Agriculture in Lena Ganesh Gender Issues Paper
Afghanistan
The Impacts of
July 2017 Water Sector Atal Ahmadzai Governance Issues Paper
Reform
Urban Governance Detlef

July 2017 Governance Issues Paper
in Afghanistan Kammeier

1818E A Study of Afghanistans Organization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1818E A Study of Afghanistans Organization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1818E A Study of Afghanistans Organization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study of Afghanistan’s Organization

and Structure of Public Administration

A Study of Afghanistan’s Organization

Funded by and through partnership with USIP

Editor: Toby Miller

Publication Code 1818 E

About the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit

AREU holds memberships in multiple international development consortiums including the

About the United States Institute of Peace

About the Authors:

Mirwais Ayobi and Haroun Rahimi

AOP Administrative Office of the President

CDCs Community Development Councils

CEO Chief Executive Office

IARCSC Independent Administrative Reform and Civil Service Commission

ICOIC Independent Commission for Overseeing the Implementation of Constitution

IDLG (Independent) Directorate of Local Governance

IEC Independent Election Commission

KII Key Informant Interview

MoFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs

MoJ Ministry of Justice

NGGPA National Good Government Policy for Afghanistan

NUG National Unity Government

Decentralization An administrative system which emphasizes the distribution of

Deconcentrated Centralized It is a loose centralized administrative system in which some of

Good Governance A very updated system of public sector management

Loya Jirga Grand Assembly/Council, the traditional Afghan assembly that

Taliban Literally means student of religious knowledge. They ruled

Tashkilat The organization and distribution of positions within a public

1.1 The importance of this research

Secondary research questions are:

• Can history of public administration in Afghanistan offer us with useful insights

1.3 Paradigms of Public Management

Public administration model in Good governance paradigm

However, in Afghanistan, the promise of these administrative models and paradigms,

authority in the hybrid systems is meant to reduce the concentration of administrative

Deconcentrated centralized system is a type of centralized system which is designed to

13 Waliullah Ansari, supra note 11, p. 130.

2. Historical Background of Public Administration in

2.2 Decentralization tendencies: administrative deconcentration

27 Abdul Ali Mohammadi, supra note 24, p. 144.

Like 1980 Constitution, President Najibullah’s constitutions have clear decentralizing

Prior to Amanullah’s reforms and decade of constitutional monarchy, highly centralized

47 Abdul Ali Mohammadi, supra note 24, p. 162.

3. Public Administration Under the Current

3.2 The existing administrative system

Views of the supporters of centralized administrative system

In addition to Afghanistan’s institutional legacy, general conditions of the country at

51 KII, senior official, MoFA.

Views of the supporters of administrative deconcentration

56 Abdul Ali Mohammadi, supra note 24, p. 156.

Views of the supporters of decentralized administration

3.3 Central and local administrations

existence of elected local institutions in the constitutional system of Afghanistan poses

Administration at the Central level

The redistribution of institutional power and restructuring the inter-branch relations

The main administrative authority of the President, in addition to the enforcement of

81 Sayed Ali Hosseini, supra note 50, p. 114.

Other central administrative organs