menu_open Columnists
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close

Exclusion Of Minorities Is A Ticking Bomb For Taliban – OpEd

12 0
20.02.2026

For more than four decades, Afghanistan has endured repeated attempts to impose political stability from the center of power in Kabul. Monarchists, Marxists, rival mujahideen factions, republican technocrats and now the Taliban have each governed the same deeply diverse society, yet none has succeeded in building a political order that is both lasting and widely accepted across the country. This pattern suggests that Afghanistan’s instability is not simply the result of changing leaders or competing ideologies. Rather, it reflects a deeper structural problem: the continued concentration of authority within a narrow elite in a society defined by ethnic diversity, regional autonomy and historically negotiated forms of power.

Afghanistan’s political fragility is inseparable from its demographic composition and the distribution of power among its communities. Pashtuns are widely estimated to constitute roughly 40-45% of the population, Tajiks approximately one quarter to one third, Hazaras close to a tenth, and Uzbeks and Turkmen together slightly more than a tenth, alongside smaller but historically significant minorities including Baloch, Nuristanis, Ismailis, Sikhs and Hindus. These communities are not only demographically distinct but geographically rooted and politically conscious. Governing arrangements that fail to accommodate this pluralism have historically struggled to command nationwide legitimacy, particularly beyond the capital and major urban corridors.

Post-2021 Power Consolidation

Since the Taliban’s return to power in 2021, representation within the governing structure has shifted markedly toward a predominantly Pashtun leadership. Senior decision-making bodies draw heavily from tribal and clerical networks associated with Kandahar and the southern belt, reinforcing authority patterns shaped by localized legitimacy rather than inclusive national representation. Although the movement frames its rule in religious rather than ethnic terms, the composition of leadership institutions has nonetheless generated widespread perceptions of imbalance among non-Pashtun........

© Eurasia Review