پژوهشنامه روابط جهانی
پیاپی 1 (بهار 1402)

One of the significant challenges against the mainstream of International Relations (IR) as a discipline, and even against critical approaches within the discipline, has been the one which raised by post colonialist work. Post colonialism, as a critical approach mainly inspired by post structuralism, Antonio Gramsci’s idea of hegemony, and the Indian School of Subaltern History, as well as some anti-colonialist work such as those of Frantz Fanon (1368 [1989]; 2535 [1976]) and Albert Memmi (2536 [1977]), initially emerged in literary critique and social studies to find its way later into IR too. Its critique of Eurocentrism and dichotomies such as West/non-West and its focus on the relations among race, class, and gender (see Chowdhury and Nair 2002) has been taken to be a challenge against a discipline mostly concentrated on international security based on great powers’ relations. While, in the last two decades, dozens of academic articles and books in IR have been marked by an interest in postcolonial themes and approach, they have not been much welcomed by the Iranian community of IR scholars. Post-colonialism has been discussed in only two articles in Persian academic journals of IR (Darroudi and Salavati 1393 [2014]; Haji-Yosefi and Ghaebi 1397 [2018]) and a third article has appeared in an Iranian journal but in English (Adib-Moghaddam 2019). In Iran as a country where Western scholarship in social sciences in general and in IR in particular has been questioned for decades and the fact that most IR scholars look for more endogenous and home-grown theories in order to avoid what post colonialism refers to as Eurocentrism, one expects more or less enthusiastic embracing of postcolonial work.  This is not, however, the case. While dominant Eurocentrism is in the opposition to Iranian IR scholars’ interest in developing home-grown theories and approaches on the basis of endogenous experiences, in its current form, IR in Iran is actually somehow based on more or less Eurocentric assumptions.This article is an attempt to show the potential contributions of post colonialism to International Relations in Iran. Post colonialism with ideas such as the significance of imperialism in the construction of both the West and the East; the role of colonial practices in the constitution of race, gender, and class all around the globe; the significance of Orientalism (see Said 1985) as a discourse representing the East and the Islamic world as an inferior Other with a culture, society, and history in opposition to Western “rational” Self and the construction of an image of the East as a childish, sentimental,  backward, and barbarian entity (Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin 1998); the Eurocentric nature of most both academic and public knowledge and understandings; etc., have much relevance to IR as a discipline.Furthermore, post colonialism seeks to avoid Eurocentrism and Orientalism with alternative narratives of international life with an emphasis on the voice of the subaltern -even if this is itself problematized by some postcolonial authors (see Spivac 1994 [1985]) as well as through contrapuntal readings of the texts produced at foreign policy level, international institutions, or even by IR scholars (see Bilgin 2016). The agency of non-Western subjects in the history of international relations and international political economy is another contribution of postcolonial scholarship that not only reveals their often neglected roles, it can also be a history of their resistance as a form of power.Post colonialism, thus, goes beyond Eurocentric dichotomies that regard everything from security to power to history and state from a binary-based perspective and limit agency to that of the Western agents.It is assumed here that becoming more familiar with postcolonial contributions to International Relations, may lead to a change in some of the existing assumptions and understandings of world politics dominant in IR community in Iran. Post colonialism can help us question some of the taken for granted presumptions such as the superiority of realism and structuralism perspective in explaining international relations or the existence of a region called the Middle East. It can lead to alternative views with more focus on the role of race, class, and gender in international life. And, last but not the least, it may help us recognize the existence of a sort of Orientalism in reverse in some IR scholarship. Post colonialism, thus, by underlining the agency of non-western actors and the hybrid nature of all phenomena including the East and the West, may help enrich international studies and research Iran.

Among the various theories that are used to understand the new conditions in the world of politics and economics, the theory of practice theory, has received less attention. Mainstream theories usually try to use the same classical frameworks which they invented to understand international relations to global relations and emerging phenomena in the space of global relations. But Practice theory has completely different bases for understanding these new conditions. In this article, after examining the fundamental concepts of functionalism theory, an attempt has been made to understand international relations based on the concepts derived from this theory. Practice is both an action and a thought, the thought that is formed during the action and the actions that rely on it after the formation of the thought. If the concept of practice can be a basis for understanding international relations, new important questions like this case will be raised in the field of international studies: Has a new field of social relations been formed in the 21st century? Has it created new capitals? Are we witnessing the emergence of a new space of social relations? Are global relations as same as the new atmosphere of social relations that will lead to different habitus and actions? These are the questions that we will try to answer in this article. Our primary answer in this article is that from the perspective of practice theory, fields, habitus, network of action, new capitals have emerged in the global arena, which have changed the basis of international relations. After examining the fundamental concepts of practice theory, it has been endeavored to understand international relations based on the concepts derived from this theory. In this article, it has been shown that the basis of understanding international relations from this point of view is completely different, and the investigated topics and the focal points of the world are different from what is expressed in the mainstream theories of international relations. In this theory, there are concepts such as habitus, capital in a different sense, field and symbolic forms, from which international relations can be understood. In addition, the concept of practice, which is a different understanding of action at the international level, is proposed based on these new meanings. Based upon this, it has been explained in this article that the evolution of international relations towards global relations can be well understood from the point of view of practice theory. Relying on the current information and facts in the world, it has been stated how new habitus, capital, and symbolic forms have emerged in the global arena, which creates another type of action and, in a better word, practice in the environment of global relations. The new habitus that have formed in the space of social networks as well as new interconnected economic and political networks in the global area, indicate the emergence of a different environment that has changed the basis of human social life. These habitus have grown in new fields. These new fields are not only in the field of politics. Rather, new fields for global action have emerged in the cultural, scientific, and economic fields, which have brought new awareness and new actions. Examining these new fields shows that if we look at the world politics and economics from the perspective of practice theory, we will find that the new field that is in our view is not only an international but a global. In general, it can be said that from the point of view of practice theory in the international relations of the world, the arena of rational action (in the sense of individual calculation of benefits and losses) and profit-seeking of states and their competition for military and economic power is no longer considered. The world is a network of different fields in which different habitus and capitals flow. Various and complex beliefs have been formed that emerge and flow during life and action. The global communication and economic and political networks have created new fields beyond the national borders in which new habitus and new capitals are formed. New habitus are formed during the actions of all kinds of actors in the global field and they follow different knowledge and behavior. Capital is no longer considered economic capital in the Marxist sense, but capital has entered the public space in various cultural, economic and political forms. The action of international actors is realized in the new fields which have emerged in the world arena and creates both a different mentality and objectivity. In addition, it rejects the duality between structure and agent because actions are both the manifestation of habits and structures in different fields and influence their construction.In the new world, new habitus and new actors have been formed, and the fields of action have become so diverse and different that they have drawn a different scene for international relations. A scene where any actor, if he does not know the rules and doxas during the action, will practically go into isolation and will lose the possibility of effective action. According to all the pillars of understanding international relations will be transformed with this theory. The actors are no longer just governments, the concept of governance is changing, the international system no longer means the distribution of power between sovereign states, power and capital have completely different meanings, and Space and action rules will have a different meaning. In other words, practice theory has fundamentally changed the basis of understanding international relations.

Explaining the formation and evolution of "regional order" patterns and presenting a realistic vision of their future requires a multi-level analysis; At the domestic level, it is emphasized that, to understand the content and complexity of socio-political developments, as well as to identify the factors affecting the decision-making of political elites. At the regional level, it is important to investigate why and how the patterns of inter-governmental cooperation and conflict are formed, and at the international level, the relations of regional governments with great powers and foreign factors affecting security campaigns are of interest. Nevertheless, the necessity of deep analysis has led the current research to find a variable that has a significant impact on the future of regional order patterns and is one of the main drivers of their transformation. The findings of the research indicate that the "security structure" of the Middle East has become fluid and dynamic, and unlike the past when great powers were the irreplaceable determinants of regional order patterns, in the future, regional campaigns will have an impact. They will have a significant impact on the security structure and patterns of regional order. Meanwhile, the trends of cooperation and conflict in the security relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia as the two main powers of the region are of significant importance. The main purpose of the research is to explain the patterns of regional order by focusing on the patterns of conflict and cooperation between Iran and Saudi Arabia as the two main players in the security environment of the Middle East.The studies which have investigated the security relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia fall into three general categories. The first category is researching that deal with the root of this conflict. In the meantime, many researchers have considered the security conflict between these two actors as a result of structural conflicts and ideological rivalries (Hafiznia 2014, Romina 2014). Some others consider it to be the result of security threats from both sides, and clearly consider the policy of balancing threats and accumulating power as the only available option for the conflicting parties (Moslinejad 1396, Barzegar 1382). Most of the researches in this category analyze the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia based on a realist or constructivist view. While these two schools, despite having the appropriate capabilities to analyze international relations, are unable to understand many complexities and hidden layers governing the behavior patterns of states such as the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia. The second category includes studies that consider environmental factors and the role of foreign actors to be the main factor in the formation and continuation of the conflict between the two countries (Ghoble 2019, Simons 2003). Researches of this type, which believe in the influence and penetration of the great powers in the security structure of the regions, have presented the Middle East as a subordinate system, where the great powers can direct the selection and priority of the regional actors and from this be effective on the regional order. Such a formulation of the position of the great powers and the security structure of the Middle East, although it sheds light on some characteristics of the Middle East, but it goes astray since it ignores the efforts of regional actors to change the rules of the game and hides the character of the transformation process. goes. The third group is mainly influenced by Barry Buzan's regional security theory and the thinkers of the Copenhagen security school, focusing on the level of regional analysis, examining the impact of security campaigns at the national and regional levels on security structures and regional order patterns are paying attention in the meantime, a research entitled "Research future of political relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its consequences on the regional order" which was carried out with the method of scenario writing without observing the principles of future research and scenario writing, only to express six scenarios of the regional order related to the future. The relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been discussed (Thaniabadi et al., 2019). At the same time, scenario writing is based on the explanation of trends and the identification of drivers of change. Leading research is in the third category in terms of research approach and its innovation can be seen in research methodology and findings.By focusing on the security relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia and considering other components of the security structure of the Middle East from 1979 until now, the current research answers the question of what effect the relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia have had on the patterns of regional order in the Middle East. Is? The research in the framework of the "Copenhagen Security School" is based on the hypothesis that the mutual security relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia have a decisive effect on the future of the regional order in the Middle East and the continuation of conflict or the creation of cooperative mechanisms in the security relations of the two countries can be considered as He considered two main drivers of transformation.The research method is process tracing. Process tracing is a method based on which analysts identify causal processes that link explanatory variables to effects (George and Bennett, 2005). The advantage of this method is that, in addition to explaining the current situation of the Middle East regional order, it is also useful in identifying the trends and events affecting its future. In the leading research, the use of this method is aimed at explaining the trends of conflict and cooperation in the relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which have led to the transformation of the patterns of regional order in the Middle East.The relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia in the post-revolution era were formed based on the leaders' perception of the existing and perceived threats and the semantic components governing the political system of the two countries. Depending on the environmental conditions, the internal developments and the mentality of the leaders appeared in periods of competition combined with cooperation with the aim of managing regional crises, in a period with strong signs of regional competition, and in periods such as the Arab revolutions of 2011, an intensifying conflict of a nature Proxy and focused on the escalation of the crisis. In recent years, the competitive patterns of Iran and Saudi Arabia have continued based on the accumulation of power and the balance of threats and have left a deep impact on the structure of the regional order. In these years, the expansion of the geography of the conflict to different Arab countries has practically made Iran the most important threat to Saudi Arabia and its regional allies, so that in order to confront Iran, they have gone towards cooperation and alliance with their old enemy, Israel. The nature of the current conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia is such that its resolution takes time and requires a change in the foreign policy and even cultural approach of the two countries; In fact, the ending of the conflict and the formation of relations based on regional cooperation patterns require substantial changes in the goals and regional behavior of the two actors. As long as the identity components and the semantic system governing the foreign policy of these two actors continue, despite the reduction of cross-sectional tensions, there is no clear prospect for the formation of real patterns of interaction. Reconciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Yemen and Syria, along with the return of the JCPOA parties to the nuclear agreement, can reduce the inflammation in the region and lead the two countries to reduce tension. The return of Syria to the Arab League and the establishment of Saudi Arabia's relationship with the government established in this country, along with Iran's efforts to stop the war in Yemen, is also the beginning of the end of the Cold War that governs the relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The evidences and signs indicate the desire of the two countries to manage the conflicts in the region. But what is certain is that the establishment and continuation of order based on participation in the security structure of the Middle East requires the fundamental resolution of conflicts; Conflicts, many of which arise from the nature of these two actors.

Brazil and Argentina are among the countries with high political and economic weight in Latin America, which developed their political and economic relations with China during the last few decades. A lot of research have been conducted about China's presence in Latin America and specifically about Brazil and Argentina, which examined the strategy, goals, challenges and opportunities of bilateral cooperation between China and the countries of the region, but most of these studies looks at the relationship between Latin American countries and great powers from the perspective of “Dependency Theory”, which sees the development of the center dependent on backwardness of the peripheral environment, but in this paper by studying the perceptions of the leaders of Brazil and Argentina as two major countries in the region, has been tried to explain that the mentioned countries are trying to adjust their foreign policy in order to reduce their asymmetric dependence on traditional hegemons in the region like the United States and increase their autonomy by replacing emerging powers like China in Latin America.Here the question is raised; what are the determining factors on the interest or disinterest of Latin American countries to China? As the largest trading partner in South America, China is active in Latin America with the main motivation of importing raw materials and participating in construction and energy projects, but what is the motivation of the leaders of Brazil and Argentina as the two largest economies of South America in communicating with China? From the study of Brazil and Argentina's relationship with China as a new power in the region, this hypothesis is proposed that the sectarian origin of the ruling governments of Brazil and Argentina as an internal factor, and the threat of the hegemonic control of the United States over Latin America as the foreign factor, determines the attitude of Argentina and Brazil towards China. In other words, the geopolitical changes in Latin America are a factor affecting the perception and level of interaction between the countries of the region and the Asian giant. Thus, in the first decade of the 21st century, with the emergence of the "pink tide” or “marea rosa” and the dominance of socialist and left-wing governments, there was a positive view of the development of interactions with China, but the flow of protest during the next decade and the rise of right-wing and populist powers, has been accompanied by a decrease in public favor towards China.The theoretical framework of the study is based on the theories of development, dependence, and autonomy. To advance and expand this study with a qualitative research method, has been tried to collect information and statistics based on open internet data, scientific articles, and official documents published in countries China-Brazil-Argentina, and the text of the speeches of the presidents of Brazil and Argentina. Also, statistics obtained from reliable surveys in the region have been used, which are mostly quantitative. Therefore, the so-called above research method is bricolage. At first, after the outline of the subject, the definition of concepts and some related theories are discussed, then the official position and goals of China in Latin America are briefly explained, followed by the description of the current situation in the relationship between the countries of Argentina and Brazil with China. Using quantitative and qualitative research, efforts are made to examine the perception of the leaders of these governments towards China. Of course, the above study only researched a limited period of the two governments of Brazil and Argentina. Certainly, if this study is carried out at the level of different governments of each country, will provide more accurate results, which requires separate work, and considered the limitations of this study.After all is said and done, it can be concluded that compared to the 60s and 70s and the period of the emergence of dependency theories, today the concept of hegemon has been changed, which requires a revision of the definition of the relationship between countries and superior powers. From this perspective it can be said that the degree of desire of the leaders of Brazil and Argentina to China is largely affected by their sectarian origin (depend on their political party). In the era of left-wing governments in Latin America, there is a greater desire to communicate with China, and in the era of right-wing governments, the opposite is true.On the other hand, apart from the sectarian origin factor, and the public opinion of these countries as another affecting factor, the third factor that plays an effective role in regulating their foreign policy is the efforts of Brazil and Argentina in “balance of threat” against the United States. The existence of colonial history and the intervention of the United States, which has marked long years of military dictatorship in these countries, today has caused these countries to look for an alternative to American financial aid and investment in their countries. They intend to replace America with China to reduce their unipolar dependence and lead to a higher percentage of autonomy against the traditional hegemon. Therefore, the main reason of inclination of the leaders of these countries, even sometimes in right-wing governments, is balance of threat against America's dominance over the Latin American region.

After a relatively peaceful period, it seems that a new period has emerged in the life cycle of the Security Council with the selfish, ambitious and unilateral behavior of the United States. From the Americans point of view, international institutions and especially important structures such as the Security Council are supported and accepted as long as the interests of the United States are secured in them. With this approach and while in the new multipolar world, there are some gaps between the opinion of the United States and the other powers that are members of the Security Council and the member countries of the General Assembly, it seems that the United States is making new arrangements. Considering the unclear perspective of the structure of the Security Council and the approach of the United States and the international community in this regard, the main question of this research is what will be the consequences of reforming the structure of the United Nations Security Council in the framework of the national interests of the United States of America for the Islamic Republic of Iran? In response to this question, this research examines all possible scenarios and their consequences for the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of foresight and using Peter Schwartz's scenario writing method.Although in the past, the United States has a desire to make changes in the United Nations, but based on the current evidence, the United States is trying to pursue its goals and interests through the reforms of the Secretary General and with a justified appearance, from the reforms of the Security Council and the United Nations. In this framework, America's goal is to increase its influence and reduce the opposition power in this council. Based on the trends and considering the many variables and various obstacles to the implementation of any changes and reforms, the "scenario of the continuation of the status quo" can be the most likely scenario for the Security Council. This is definitely not the desired scenario of the United States, and basically for this reason, it has fueled the discussion of reforms and pursues this issue at the highest level of its government and interaction with countries. So it seems that another possible scenario is "Distributed Security Council". In this scenario, the main goal of the United States is to increase the influence of its own and allied countries, and to reduce the power of opposing countries (especially Russia and China). As discussed in the analysis of the national security strategy documents of the United States of America, in a broad and strategic effort, this country is trying to rebuild the existing key institutions or create new institutions in order to manage the world in accordance with the new era and the future perspective. . It is in this framework that Trump's reforms find their role. But the question here is what is America's strategy and Biden's plan in this regard? Probably, the United States has prepared plans like this in the form of the UN reform plan - the generalities of which were approved by the majority of countries.The general plan of the United States is a "behind-the-scenes strategy." For this purpose, the United States seeks to assemble a creative legal, institutional and political solution to circumvent Russia and China. By obtaining the support of at least two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly, legitimizing the use of military force beyond the current structure of the Council, attracting the opinion of the G20 members to the reforms, including its aligned members in the Security Council and limiting the veto, the United States seeks to Practically, the guidance and leadership of the council gained security. Probably part of the US plan is to convert the current "free veto". The hidden goal of this plan is to weaken the current decision-making process through future "reforms" and finally remove the "free veto", which means that this tool will be removed from the hands of Russia and China. To achieve this, the United States may raise a greater number of related and unrelated issues in the Security Council to highlight the inefficiency of the Security Council and challenge it. Creating a heavy workload and intensifying the mentality that the council with its current structure and members cannot provide its basic responsibility in the field of security is one of the goals of such a possible action. Another possible measure is to reduce financial support from the United Nations and the Security Council. This action is a practical threat that, in addition to creating real pressure, will also create the right psychological atmosphere to advance America's plan: a) Facilitate the entry of countries targeted by America, which also have adequate financial capacity to support. b) Imposing the share of financial support from other countries on the shoulders of newly arrived countries, which is the use of the motivation of these countries and at the same time can attract the support of other members of the United Nations in support of this plan. Part of America's plan may be to maneuver around the lack of council members and look for replacement or new members. In this framework, a 25-member Security Council is possible with the increase of fixed seats to 10 members and the increase of non-fixed seats to 15 members. There are many considerations in the selection of these members, but options such as Japan, Germany, Brazil, India and even Jordan are more fortunate and they are countries that happen to be under the influence of America and have a lot of alignment with this country. As mentioned, various scenarios regarding the future of the UN Security Council can be imagined, some of which seem more likely, but at the same time, from the point of view of national interests, less likely scenarios should not be ignored.Therefore, considering each of imagined scenarios, it is necessary to analyze the consequences and prepare the necessary measures. Also, in front of the alternative situations of the future, it is possible to design the scenarios of the confrontation accordingly, which, of course, requires the participation of thinkers, experts and politicians. All this, some joint activities and special measures can be prepared according to the total of scenarios or possible and desired scenarios, some of which were mentioned in the previous sections and the general summary It is shown below. According to the space drawn, it can be seen that compared to the current situation, nine of the thirteen possible scenarios lead to the aggravation of the conditions against J.A. Iran tends at the same time, some of these scenarios include some more room for diplomatic maneuvering and practical action. In contrast to the three scenarios, the message of a better situation for J.A. Iran, of course, is considered one of the less likely scenarios. As a summary, according to the drawn space of Security Council change scenarios, it is possible to display the actions and the general way of facing each category of scenarios in the form of the following figure.

Afghanistan is one of the countries that has a heterogeneous and multi-ethnic structure, and the problem of ethnicity and ethnicity is one of the great harms of unity and the source of differences on the social structure of the Afghan society, and it has been one of the serious obstacles to national cohesion, convergence and political development. has been in this country. Of course, in Afghanistan since its establishment as an independent country (1747 AD), attention has been paid to this phenomenon, and in order to curb it in different periods and governments, considering the diversity and characteristics of Afghan ethnicities, on the one hand, and on the other hand, looking at the conditions governing the region and interests The national and political systems of this country have engaged in ethnic politics. The political structure in Afghanistan is based on ethnic politics. The structure of this country has always depended on ethnic politics. The main goal of this research is to analyze and evaluate the mono-ethnic policy in the political structure, while this country has ethnic diversity.Research background Various researches and articles have been written about ethnic politics, political structure and cultural and social diversity in Afghanistan, which can generally be examined in the following categories.The phenomenon of ethnocentrism is a negative phenomenon which was examined on the axis of Afghanism (Pashtunism) and the ethnic policies of Afghanistan's rulers were formed "unsuccessfully and based on nervousness", which can be seen in the article "Political Development of Afghanistan and the Inhibiting Role of Ethnicism" In its formation", written by Mohammad Ali Mir Ali and Mohammad Mohsani, he pointed out.Due to the severity of religious, linguistic and especially ethnic differences between "all the ethnic groups of Afghanistan", he considers that the talk of the ethnic politics of Afghanistan's rulers was mostly the result of "foreign element's intervention". In this regard, the thesis of Hafizullah Hafiz is entitled "Comparative study of the role of Iran and Saudi Arabia in the management of the conflict in Afghanistan (2001-2017).Regarding the political structure of Afghanistan position, we can refer to the article "The position of ethnic groups in the formation of the political structure of Afghanistan's governance after 2001 AD", written by Kyomarth Yazdan-Panah and Seyed Jalal Ahmadi, which mostly deals with the position of ethnic groups in the republic period. While ethnic politics in the form of unity in plurality existed in a weak and intense form during this period.Regarding the solution to Afghanistan's crises, the research entitled "The path to ethnic problems in Afghanistan" by Barfield is of the opinion that the existing solution is to transition from the crisis and decentralize the power structure and give more powers to local governments. While one of the main factors in crises is the monopoly of the political structure by governments.This research is looking for accurate and useful reports about the role of ethnic politics in the political structure, and on the other hand, it aims to focus more on ethnic politics in the field of ethnic politics in the contemporary period.The basic question raised in this article. It is: How is the role of ethnic politics in the political structure of Afghanistan analyzed?Sub questionsIn what period of Afghanistan's rulers was the ethnic identification model implemented?The model of ethnic pluralism was carried out during which period of Afghanistan's rulers?The model of unity in ethnic plurality, during which period of Afghanistan's rulers, has continued to happen?The declarative and practical policies of dealing with ethnicity in Afghanistan in the contemporary period and different governments have similar and different characteristics and approaches, and in addition, the shortcomings of the ruling governments, sometimes with the resistance of the traditional society and tribe. They faced Afghanistan.From the period of Abdali, Abdul Rahman, Habibullah, Nader, Hashim, Dawood and the Taliban in order to lead and control it, they used the approach of ethnic identification models and models based on Afghanism (Pashto) and even though they institutionalized Afghan nationalism.From the era of Amanullah, Shah Mahmoud, Zahir Shah, Nur Mohammad Taraki, Hafizullah Amin, Birak Karmel and Najibullah, in this regard, according to the models and models of pluralism that led to the equality of ethnic groups. they moved. Although they had significant achievements, traditional values prevented it and finally left the playing field for the other party.Finally, the Daud Khan Republic and the government of Hamed Karzai and Mohammad Ashraf Ghani emphasized on the model and models of unity at the same time as plurality. But none of these rulers were successful in this move.This research is among developmental and applied research. According to the type and topic of the research, the collection of research data is based on documentary and library methods.The findings of this research show that the political structure in Afghanistan has always been based on ethnic policies and the ruling Afghan (Pashto) people. In other human societies, people have power from governments. But in the society of Afghanistan, which is a very traditional society, which has power based on religion, religion, ethnicity, and even tribe. In this country, all interactions, relations, political and social affairs are formed based on religion, ethnicity, and the continuity of governments is in the shadow of ethnicity and religion. On the other hand, the rulers of statesmen; They have also tried in many ways to reduce the influence of ethnicity and religion and to change the bilateral relations between ethnic groups, tribes and governments and bring them to the benefit of the central government.