IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v52y2022i2p225-253..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deproblematizing the Federal–Unitary Dichotomy: Insights from a Public Opinion Survey about Approaches to Designing a Political System in Afghanistan

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammad Bashir Mobasher
  • Mohammad Qadam Shah

Abstract

This study draws on results of an opinion survey about public views in Afghanistan regarding concepts related to federalism. We argue that concepts such as unitarism, federalism, centralization, and decentralization are highly politicized and often misunderstood when they enter the public discourse. As the survey results indicate, the association of ethnic groups with different systems of governance, although popular in Afghanistan, is misleading. A concurrent majority of ethnic groups takes a more nuanced approach of favoring central authorities on some issues, local authorities on others, and shared or divided authorities on the rest. The findings are helpful in contributing to a better understanding of how Afghans view federalism, and also by providing guidance to constitution-makers in designing institutional arrangements and distributions of power that address society’s needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammad Bashir Mobasher & Mohammad Qadam Shah, 2022. "Deproblematizing the Federal–Unitary Dichotomy: Insights from a Public Opinion Survey about Approaches to Designing a Political System in Afghanistan," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 52(2), pages 225-253.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:52:y:2022:i:2:p:225-253.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjab043
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:52:y:2022:i:2:p:225-253.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.