At the heart of Afghanistan’s conflict lies a deep-seated tension between traditionalist and modernist forces, which has often escalated into violence and armed confrontation between these two groups. A sustainable solution to the crisis in Afghanistan requires dialogue and understanding between traditionalists and modernists.
Historical background
This dichotomy emerged in the early 20th century and has intensified over time with the introduction of various ideologies. The first major clash between these two currents was the uprising of Mullah Lang in 1924 against King Amanullah’s government, which contributed to the fall of his regime. The most recent manifestation of this conflict was the war between the Taliban and the republican system, culminating in the fall of the republic in 2021. The relationship between traditionalist and modernist groups in Afghanistan has been more contentious than in most neighboring countries, characterized by deep distrust and suspicion. When combined with other fault lines such as ethnic, linguistic, and sectarian tensions, this conflict becomes more violent and the national crisis more intractable.
Perceptions of the ‘other’
Traditionalist forces view modern reforms as a threat to Afghanistan’s religious and cultural identity, often regarding modernity as part of a colonial agenda imposed by foreign powers. As such, they are primarily concerned with issues such as gender equality, civil liberties, modern lifestyles, visual arts, contemporary music, cinema, family law, secular education, political participation of citizens, recognition of cultural and religious diversity, limiting the influence of religious institutions in public life, the separation of private and public spheres, secular legislation, the role of Sharia—anything they perceive as Westernization of Afghan society. Their deep-seated suspicion translates to a general unwillingness to engage in dialogue or explore avenues for cooperation with modernist and reformist groups. In periods when traditionalists have gained political power, they have sought to eliminate their modernist rivals through suppression and violence.
On the other side, reformist and modernist groups have emerged over the past century that consider traditionalist and fundamentalist forces to be key obstacles to the country’s development and well-being. These modernists advocate for Afghanistan’s accession to international conventions on human rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, and minority rights. They view inclusive and sustainable development as essential to overcoming poverty and deprivation, and promote educational, legal, and administrative reforms alongside changes to the political system. From their perspective, traditional rationality is responsible for the nation’s ongoing suffering. Modernists are themselves diverse, consisting of leftists, liberals, and religious reformers. The leftist branch, which favored revolutionary confrontation, came to power in the 1980s through a military coup and resorted to violent suppression of traditionalist and fundamentalist groups, provoking widespread public revolt. Many modernist forces have limited understanding of the ideological foundations of traditionalist groups, which leads them to underestimate their influence and dismiss the importance of dialogue and cooperation, often not even recognizing them as legitimate counterparts in national discourse.
What can unblock dialogue
This acute antagonism—rooted in the denial of the other—has led to social stagnation and become a major source of conflict in Afghanistan. Both camps have significant social bases, making it impossible for either to completely eliminate the other. At best, they can achieve only temporary and unstable victories.
Each of these two movements—traditionalist and modernist—consists of a hard core and a broad circle of supporters. The clergy represent the hard core of the traditionalist current, leading its forces particularly in rural areas and smaller towns, though they also influence segments of urban populations. The Taliban form part of this broader clerical network and have become one of the main parties to the conflict over the past three decades. On the modernist side, individuals educated in modern schools and universities—especially those with overseas experience and familiarity with developed societies—are considered essential to the governance of a developing country. These individuals are well-versed in modern bureaucracy, legislation, contemporary education, and other imperatives of modern life, and form the backbone of the modernist camp.
Conclusion and recommendations
The enduring tension between traditionalists and modernists stems primarily from a lack of mutual understanding and conflicting interests. To resolve the conflict in Afghanistan, these two groups need to engage in dialogue to enhance understanding of one another, and transform their conflicting interests into shared ones. This requires a shift of mindset from domination to conversation among the domestic actors. The international community can play a critical role to make this happen by creating and protecting spaces where actors from Afghanistan can engage in constructive and inclusive dialogue with each other.
Reconciling tradition and modernity—and the search for a middle ground that can accommodate heritage, as well as aspiration—is a key chapter in the broader process of conflict resolution in Afghanistan. Facilitating this process is both a moral responsibility and a strategic investment in regional and international peace and security.
Download a PDF of this issue »
Ambassador Mohammad Moheq, Afghan scholar, author, and diplomat, has held senior roles in academia, government, and international diplomacy, including serving as Afghanistan’s Ambassador to Egypt (2018–2021).
