Professor Sayed Hussain Eshraq and Zalmai Nishat
This article by Professor Sayed Hussain Eshraq—the chair of the Working Group tasked with producing the Composite Comprehensive Roadmap (CCR), and Zalmai Nishat Founder & Executive of Chair of Mosaic Foundation—was originally published in Narrative360 on 7 September 2025. As rightly captured by the editor of Narrative360 “The discussions taking place in Cambridge are not abstract exercises: they are vital to understanding how Afghanistan can move beyond cycles of domination and failure. The Composite Comprehensive Roadmap reflects a rare convergence of political movements of Afghanistan, civil society actors, and scholars who recognise that structural justice, pluralism, and ethics must anchor any viable future” (see the end of the article for the editor’s full notes).
Introduction
Afghanistan—a land with a formidable civilisational heritage and a long-standing legacy of wisdom and knowledge within the broader “Persianate world”—has faced a paradoxical condition in its modern history. On the one hand, it is the bearer of deep-rooted traditions of coexistence, tolerance, dialogue, justice, and compassion; on the other, it has been ensnared in persistent cycles of authoritarianism and underdevelopment throughout the modern era. Structural transformations of power and the evolution of contemporary politics have placed Afghanistan on a complex and turbulent path, marked by a multilayered and perpetual state of crises that simultaneously encompass political, social, cultural, and legal dimensions—undermining stability and social order.
The structural crisis in Afghanistan resembles the two dark sides of a single coin: one side is despotism, the other underdevelopment. These two obstructive forces have constrained the latent potential of Afghanistan’s social and cultural diversity—a potential that could have served as a foundation for coexistence, dialogue, and collective action. Instead, they have posed serious obstacles to overcoming chronic authoritarianism and underdevelopment. These twin afflictions have trapped the country’s history and politics in a continuous cycle of failure and crisis reproduction, severely limiting the possibility of establishing a just and sustainable order.
From its inception as a “buffer state” between British India and Tsarist Russia, to the establishment of modern institutions based on European and Ottoman models, Afghanistan’s state-building process has never been grounded in its civilisational realities, historical experiences, social structures, or the aspirations of its people. The modern state in Afghanistan was not the product of an organic evolution of political culture or historical experience, but rather the outcome of geopolitical imperatives and colonial interventions. These imported institutions were incompatible with the logic of social coexistence and the cultural fabric of society in Afghanistan, leading to repeated failures and collapses. The country’s modern historical memory is saturated with institutional and political breakdowns, whose effects continue to cast shadows over legitimacy, security, and social order.
Structural crises in Afghanistan have never truly ended; their intensity and consequences have varied across different historical periods. Following the collapse of the republic in 2021, these crises reached their peak, and the country faced a complete breakdown of political order and legitimacy. This reality underscores that Afghanistan’s problems cannot be resolved through the repetition of imported models, but rather through an approach that is rooted in the country’s historical, cultural, and social realities—while also drawing inspiration from successful global experiences.
The Cambridge Conference and the Need for Foundational Responses
The annual Cambridge Massoud Conference, convened under the auspices of the Mosaic Foundation, is held with two strategic aims: first, to generate scholarly and critical literature on the future of the modern state in Afghanistan and to align it with the civilisational heritage and historical “political culture” of the Persianate world; and second, to offer practical and foundational responses to Afghanistan’s complex, multilayered and perpetual state of crises—responses that are both deeply rooted, radical and yet politically and socially implementable.
The conference seeks to strengthen “intellectual leadership” and strategic thinking in the fields of politics and crisis management. By combining theoretical research, empirical data analysis, and the formulation of actionable policies, it aims to bridge critical knowledge with practical decision-making. The goal is to design solutions that are both realistic and grounded in Afghanistan’s historical, cultural, and social capacities.
The conference is guided by a fifteen-member academic board, comprising representatives from Afghanistan’s diverse social strata, religious traditions, ethnic groups, and linguistic communities. Mosaic Foundation draws on the advice and guidance of this board to fulfil its intellectual and practical mission in steering the conference.
Since 2024, the conference has placed special emphasis on resolving practical issues and formulating effective strategies for Afghanistan’s contemporary crises—crises rooted in the failures of the modern state-building process. Within this framework, six major political movements in the country presented their proposals and roadmaps, which independent experts critically evaluated. Analyses by Mr David Loyn revealed that over 90% of the content in these roadmaps overlapped—a finding that highlighted the need to develop a “Composite Comprehensive Roadmap.”
To this end, it became necessary to form an interdisciplinary working group comprising representatives of political movements, civil society activists, women, journalists, university professors, and independent experts. This diverse and competent composition enabled the design of comprehensive, practical solutions aligned with Afghanistan’s historical, social, and cultural realities—paving the way for sustainable and effective policymaking.
Formation of the Working Group to Draft the Composite Roadmap
A working group was formed, consisting of representatives from some of the six roadmap-proposing movements and independent experts, to collect additional proposals and extract their commonalities. The Mosaic Foundation served as the facilitator of this process.
Active participants in the Working Group (WG) included representatives of the National Trust Movement of Afghanistan, the Vienna Process for a Democratic Afghanistan, and the Federalist Assembly of Afghanistan. The chair of the WG was entrusted to the “MEHR Coexistence and Liberation Assembly,” an organisation tasked with fostering coordination among anti-Taliban and democratic forces. To strengthen the representation of civil society, women, and journalists, the “New Democratic Afghanistan Forum” (NAD-Forum) was also invited to join the WG.
After reviewing the 2024 report on the submitted roadmaps, the WG decided to examine more than twenty proposals and roadmaps. These reviews laid the groundwork for drafting the Composite Comprehensive Roadmap, and several guiding documents were produced to organise the drafting process:
- The completed 2024 report on six roadmaps
- An analytical report on twelve roadmaps and eight conceptual proposals
- A list of criteria for roadmap analysis
- A guiding framework for drafting a comprehensive roadmap for political transition in Afghanistan
Based on these documents, the draft roadmap endeavoured to reflect the shared points among the political and civil movements’ proposals, highlighting key concepts, values, and visions. At various stages, practical approaches, mechanisms, and procedural steps were also incorporated into the document.
Overview of the Composite Comprehensive Roadmap Draft
This document is a draft of a comprehensive roadmap for Afghanistan’s transition to a legitimate, democratic, and sustainable system. It aims to provide a strategic and visionary framework for overcoming structural crises and reconstructing inclusive and accountable governance.
The introductory section states that Afghanistan is currently in the most critical phase of its modern history. Taliban violence—rooted in coercion and monopoly—has marginalised women and social groups, and the absence of law, coupled with the spread of terrorism, has obstructed the establishment of peace, justice, and pluralistic coexistence.
Transitioning from this condition requires coordinated and legitimate strategies grounded in international law, successful political experiences, and the right to legitimate defence. Targeted domestic and international pressure, human rights–based dialogue, and the participation of moderate forces can enable a sustainable and inclusive transition.
The document emphasises that Afghanistan’s current crisis reflects domination, repression, and a rupture from the vital and dynamic values of contemporary civilisation—events that have imposed a profound and widespread catastrophe on the country. In response, the mission of democratic and moderate forces is to seek pathways to liberation by relying on “common ground” and upholding foundational principles such as the people’s right to self-determination, the establishment of popular sovereignty through democratic processes, the protection of human rights, gender, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural equality, and the rule of law. This mission is not merely a political act, but a transformation in the foundations of legitimacy and the model of governance—one that must dismantle the enchantment of domination and pave the way for justice, development, and human coexistence.
The document comprises the following sections:
- Foundational principles and core values
- Strategic solutions and operational approaches
- National dialogue and convening of an international conference
- Role and status of the Constituent Assembly
- Formation of a transitional interim government
- Phases of stabilising the new order and establishing elected governments
- Conclusion
In its conclusion, the draft emphasises the necessity of Afghanistan’s transition to a legitimate, democratic, and sustainable system—one grounded in international law, universal human rights principles, and good governance standards. Implementing the Composite Comprehensive Roadmap requires genuine public participation, the guarantee of social justice, the preservation of cultural and ethnic diversity, and the legitimate exercise of the right to resist undemocratic structures. This transition demands simultaneous and coordinated transformation across institutional, legal, and social levels to lay the foundation for inclusive and sustainable governance.
Points of Divergence and Proposed Solutions
Within the Working Group (WG), several points of divergence among political movements were identified—issues requiring expert analysis and scholarly exchange. These differences were boiled down to five fundamental points. Therefore, five key areas of disagreement have been proposed for deliberation at this year’s Cambridge Conference:
-
Structural Justice and Historical Inequality
Re-imagination of governance requires a rational strategy for addressing inequality and ensuring structural justice in Afghanistan, which demands a deep understanding of the country’s long history of injustice. Centuries of uneven power distribution, discrimination, class and social conflict, and weak legal and governance structures have placed immense pressure on people’s lives, obstructing sustainable development and peace. This challenge must be addressed through rigorous analysis and the formulation of fair, evidence-based solutions.
-
Strategies for Change
The method of struggle for “change” remains a critical issue. While some rely solely on armed resistance, others favour political or civil resistance approaches. In reality, a free future for Afghanistan requires a balanced combination of these methods. Success in achieving change depends not on elite bargaining or artificial transitions, but on an alternative political vision, active public participation, and national consensus, or rather, compromise.
-
Localisation vs. International Engagement
Divergent views exist regarding the role of international actors and the need to localise reforms for change. Localisation entails adapting reforms and policies to Afghanistan’s historical, cultural, social, and political realities. These changes must not be externally imposed or imported, but instead aligned with indigenous structures, historical experiences, and the public conscience. At the same time, Afghanistan’s integration into global strategic networks and intelligent engagement with international institutions ensures that these transformations receive international support and legitimacy, preventing external pressures from becoming destructive. Only through a synthesis of localised reform and strategic global engagement can Afghanistan undergo a paradigmatic shift—toward development, stability, and effective governance, and away from the recurring cycles of injustice, war, and historical failure.
-
The Political System Model
The nature of Afghanistan’s political system is a central question in the discourse on change. Some advocate for a centralised system, others prefer decentralisation, and some propose federal or parliamentary models. From the perspective of the Cambridge Conference, the key point is that the desired system must not be limited to superficial changes. It must be grounded in structural justice, multi-level governance, recognition of social and cultural diversity, and the reduction of centre–periphery disparities.
In this view, the political system is not merely an administrative tool, but a mechanism for realising citizenship rights, enabling active public participation, and fostering human development. Governance structures must be designed so that social, cultural, and regional diversity becomes an opportunity—not a threat—and power management facilitates development, social stability, and national cohesion rather than exclusion and inequality.
Therefore, the choice of political system in Afghanistan must not be based solely on ideological preferences or imitation of other countries’ historical experiences. It must be aligned with principles of justice, efficiency, and social legitimacy to enable responsive, inclusive, and developmental governance.
-
Territorial Cohesion
Territorial cohesion is another area of divergence among movements. In this approach, territorial cohesion replaces ethnic grandstanding and emphasises internal connectivity, solidarity among diverse groups, and respect for identity, language, and cultural pluralism. This organic cohesion is shaped through soft power, shared values, and collective beliefs—creating a sustainable space for coexistence and cooperation, rather than imposed or mechanical unity.
The proposal for a Constituent Assembly has also been suggested as a middle-ground solution for achieving national consensus and compromise. Emerging from the international conference, this body could guide strategic decisions on transition and reform toward a legitimate, democratic system. It would simultaneously revive Afghanistan’s historical legacy of social dialogue and serve as a modern instrument for collective strategic decision-making.
The Cambridge Conference and the Ethics-Centred Tradition
The Cambridge Conference, drawing on scholarly and expert capacities, engages in foundational analysis of the failures of modern state-building and the impact of colonial interventions and modern exclusive nationalism. It provides a space for specialist dialogue on divergent views, historical and social realities, and the development of pragmatic solutions. This approach enables the integration of historical experience, indigenous capacities, and principles of good governance—leading to policy designs that reinforce legitimacy, justice, and social stability.
Naturally, these differences will be discussed in dedicated panels, and the convergence of perspectives will be synthesised into an analytical report. This process requires that scholarly debates and empirical facts remain free from ideological distortion—preserving both methodological rigour and the credibility of proposed solutions.
The Cambridge Conference emphasises that Afghanistan’s challenges cannot be resolved through maximalist programmes or ideological dogma. Responding to diversity and respecting the “Other” is only possible through polyphony and polylogue—multi-voiced and multi-sided dialogue. Afghanistan must recognise “plurality within unity” and “unity within plurality”—an approach that rejects unilateral imposition and prevents social fragmentation.
The conference’s effort is focused on generating a new political vocabulary and fostering alignment toward practical and theoretical alternatives. Notably, comparative analysis shows that over 90% of roadmaps and programmes from various movements and organisations share common ground.
The five points of divergence reflect the roots of Afghanistan’s acute crises. Still, dialogue and rational compromise remain the most urgent needs for the country’s present and future—so that its diverse cultures may coexist peacefully.
The Ethics-Centred Paradigm in Persianate Political Thought
In the political history and culture of the Persianate world, three prominent intellectual traditions have emerged—identified by Indian scholar Muzaffer Alam as adab or etiquette-centred, akhlaq or ethics-centred, and Sufi-centred paradigms. Among these, the ethics-centred model holds vital relevance for contemporary political rethinking in Afghanistan and the region.
This tradition, whose echoes stretch from Bengal to the Balkans, sought justice—not power or royal splendour—as the essence of politics. The ruler or prince was not merely a guardian of protocol, but a guarantor of social justice, a protector of religious moderation, and a custodian of coexistence among sectarian, ethnic and linguistic communities. In this framework, justice—understood as fairness, avoidance of oppression, and respect for people’s rights—was the core of political thought.
Such a conception of justice has been repeatedly reflected in our intellectual and literary traditions, where justice is not merely a personal virtue but the divine radiance of kingship and the foundation of all political and social order. As Jami writes in the Bahāristān (quoted by Muzaffer Alam, though mistakenly attributed to Barani):
“Justice and fairness, not disbelief or religion,
These are what preserve the realm.
Justice without religion brings order to the world
Better than tyranny by a religious king.”
This verse reveals that the survival of a realm depends not on religious or sectarian slogans, but on fairness, justice, and the protection of everyone’s rights. In this view, justice transcends the formal execution of laws—or Sharia in its strict sense of the word. It entails balancing diverse groups and ensuring their coexistence within a fair political order.
The deep-rooted political ethics of our civilisation regarded the ruler not merely as a powerful sovereign, but as a guardian of balance and fairness. A just ruler must listen to the “Other,” recognise them, respect them, and refrain from considering their own culture, religion, or morality superior to others. Hence, the mirror-for-princes texts and royal etiquette manuals have consistently emphasised tolerance and accommodation.
Philosophically, justice in this tradition means placing everything in its rightful place and avoiding oppression and discrimination. Literally, justice is the foundation of knowledge and wisdom. Legally, it signifies compromise and acceptance of limitations in a pluralistic society. Compromise and tolerance are not signs of weakness, but conditions of political rationality and guarantees of durable governance.
On this basis, the ethics or akhlaq-centred political paradigm takes shape: politics in the “political culture” of the Persianate world, before being understood through rigid laws or sectarian dogma, is expressed as the art of living with others—an art grounded in ethics, justice, tolerance, and recognition of the “Other.” Such politics is, in essence, the art of managing difference and ensuring social balance. The secret to the survival and endurance of any realm lies in justice and fairness—a principle that the Cambridge Conference also emphasises in its deliberations and policy design.
Final Reflections
In light of the Cambridge Conference’s discussions, it becomes clear that politics in Afghanistan—like the political tradition of the Persianate world—is, above all, the art of engaging with the Other, respecting and managing difference through everyday compromise. Achieving paradigmatic change and legitimate governance is only possible through the fusion of scholarly insight, indigenous capacities, and practical governance principles—an approach that ensures both social legitimacy and stability.
The teachings and historical experiences of the ethics-centred, or akhlaq-mehvar, tradition show that justice in successful governance has been interpreted not merely as a personal virtue, but as the foundation and criterion of political legitimacy, i.e. it’s structural and systemic. This perspective recognises difference and diversity of views, emphasises dialogue and rational decision-making, and resists the imposition of a singular worldview. More precisely, ethics-centred governance represents the intersection of practical wisdom, the concept of political legitimacy, and the idea of distributive and procedural justice—where ethics, reason, and justice are interwoven to provide a sustainable framework for fair politics.
In this view, justice is not only a personal virtue but the nucleus that shapes governance institutions and political structures, enabling peaceful coexistence among groups, ethnicities, religions, sects, and languages. This model, which establishes a deep connection between ethics, practical wisdom, and political legitimacy, is precisely the intellectual axis that the Cambridge Conference highlights in advancing paradigmatic change—and it may well serve as a guide for rethinking and re-imagining governance and political practice in the contemporary context.
Ultimately, Afghanistan’s path forward lies in the fusion of collective wisdom and respect for cultural and social diversity.
#MosaicMassoud2025
About the Authors
Sayed Hussain Eshraq is a philosopher, writer, and former lecturer at Kabul University. He is the editor-in-chief and founder of NEBRAS, a peer-reviewed philosophical journal. He previously served as Afghanistan’s deputy minister of education and is the author of several books on philosophy, politics, and culture. X: @SayedHussainEsh
Zalmai Nishat is the founder and executive chair of the Mosaic Global Foundation, a UK-registered charity focusing on Afghanistan and Central Asia. He previously worked at the Tony Blair Institute on Central & South Asia and has held advisory roles in governance, migration, and counter-radicalisation. He is also a writer and policy analyst with research interests spanning political reform, development, and regional security. X: @ZalNishat
Introductory note from Narrativa360
Afghanistan’s governance challenges remain among the most complex in the world. This essay, authored by Professor Sayed Hussain Eshraq and Zalmai Nishat, outlines the intellectual foundation and practical design of the Composite Comprehensive Roadmap (CCR), a product of the Cambridge Massoud Conference. The CCR seeks to fuse Afghanistan’s historical, cultural, and civilisational traditions with pragmatic strategies for democratic transition and inclusive governance. Published here in full, it contributes to a much-needed debate on justice, legitimacy, and the re-imagination of political order in Afghanistan.
Narrativa360’s Editor’s Note
As editor of Narrativa360 and a speaker at the Cambridge Massoud Conference, I find this work especially timely. The discussions taking place in Cambridge are not abstract exercises: they are vital to understanding how Afghanistan can move beyond cycles of domination and failure.
The Composite Comprehensive Roadmap reflects a rare convergence of political movements of Afghanistan, civil society actors, and scholars who recognise that structural justice, pluralism, and ethics must anchor any viable future. My role at the conference will focus on bridging this intellectual project led by actors from Afghanistan with international audiences—emphasising why Afghanistan’s transformation matters for global stability.
Narrativa360 exists to capture precisely these moments, when scholarship, activism, and political imagination intersect. This document exemplifies that spirit.
— Chris Blackburn, Editor, Narrativa360