The internal power dynamics of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan have become increasingly complex, revealing deep divisions within its leadership. One of the most significant indications of this growing struggle is the prolonged absence of Sirajuddin Haqqani, a key figure within the regime. His disappearance from major official activities has raised serious questions about his influence and whether he has been effectively sidelined by the Kandahar faction. While Taliban leaders often emphasize unity, the reality on the ground tells a different story.
Haqqani, once considered one of the most powerful figures within the Taliban, has not been seen in any major decision making platforms for an extended period. This absence is not merely symbolic but reflects a fundamental shift in the balance of power within the IEA. Kandahar has tightened its grip over policymaking, bypassing Haqqani’s network and consolidating authority within a select group of hardline leaders. If there were no real differences within the leadership, one would expect Haqqani to be actively involved in governance. Yet, his silence and absence suggest otherwise.
A key point of contention between the factions appears to be the approach to governance and engagement with the international community. Haqqani had previously hinted at a more pragmatic stance, particularly concerning issues like girls’ education and the role of international organizations. However, the Kandahar faction has doubled down on its rigid, isolationist policies, rejecting any significant reforms. This stark contrast in ideology suggests that the divide within the Taliban is not just about power but also about the future direction of Afghanistan.
The recent implementation of policies such as the Purification Law and the expansion of the Exit Control List further demonstrate the growing dominance of the Kandahar faction. These measures have been widely interpreted as an attempt to tighten control over Kabul and limit the autonomy of other factions, particularly Haqqani’s network. By centralizing power, the Kandahar leadership ensures that decision making remains in the hands of a few, suppressing any internal opposition. If Haqqani still held significant influence, it is unlikely that such measures would have been enacted without his input.
Another striking aspect of this power struggle is Haqqani’s prolonged stay outside Afghanistan. While the Taliban leadership officially claims there are no serious divisions, the fact that Haqqani has remained abroad raises questions about internal mistrust. If the IEA were truly united, one of its most senior leaders would not need to remain at a distance from the very government he helped establish. His absence signals that the leadership is no longer functioning as a single, cohesive entity but rather as competing factions vying for control within the same structure.
Despite attempts to downplay the situation, insiders within the Taliban acknowledge that differences exist. However, they often dismiss them as exaggerated or misrepresented. Yet actions speak louder than words. Haqqani’s absence from critical discussions and key policy decisions suggests he no longer holds the influence necessary to push for moderate reforms. The growing centralization of power in Kandahar only reinforces the perception that the Taliban’s so called unity is a carefully maintained illusion.
This internal struggle exposes the contradictions within the Taliban’s governance. While they claim to rule with religious legitimacy, the power struggle within their ranks suggests that control, rather than faith, is the driving force behind their decisions. The sidelining of a senior leader like Haqqani demonstrates that even within their own movement, voices of dissent no matter how subtle are not tolerated. This raises an important question: if the Taliban cannot trust each other, how can the Afghan people or the international community be expected to trust them?
Furthermore, the Taliban’s infighting highlights their broader failures as rulers. A government that cannot maintain stability within its leadership is unlikely to provide stability to its citizens. The growing internal friction reveals that the Taliban are not a monolithic force but a fractured group where competing interests dictate policy. As long as these divisions persist, governance will remain inconsistent, further deepening Afghanistan’s crisis.
The implications of this power struggle extend beyond internal politics. The more the Kandahar faction tightens its control, the less likely it is that Afghanistan will achieve international legitimacy. Many countries have been hesitant to engage with the Taliban due to their harsh policies, and the current infighting only adds to concerns about their ability to govern effectively. A leadership that is more focused on internal disputes than on addressing Afghanistan’s economic and humanitarian crises is unlikely to gain the trust of the global community.
While the Taliban project an image of strength, Haqqani’s absence is a clear indication that all is not well within their ranks. The longer these divisions persist, the more unstable their rule becomes. Power struggles within authoritarian regimes often lead to larger fractures, and in a country as fragile as Afghanistan, such instability can have far reaching consequences. The current situation suggests that the Taliban’s grip on power is not as secure as they claim.
The cracks within the leadership reveal a deeper truth; the Taliban’s rule is built on force and control rather than genuine cohesion. As Haqqani remains in the shadows, sidelined and distant, it becomes increasingly clear that Kandahar is shaping the future of the regime according to its own agenda. Whether this internal power struggle will lead to further fragmentation remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the Taliban’s internal tensions are only growing, and their ability to maintain control in the long run is far from guaranteed.
