Afghanistan and Switzerland are geographically very similar. Both very mountainous which make it very hard to invade. Both are strategically located in important routes. Switzerland is located between the powerfull countries in mainland Western Europe Germany, France, Italy. Afghanistan is located between most important regions in Asia East Asia, South Asia, Western Asia. But they are politically very different. Switzerland is among the richest and the most liberal democratic countries in world. Whereas Afghanistan is among the poorest and the most repressive countries in the world. But What if Afghanistan developed politically similar to Switzerland to become very liberal and rich ?
Afghanistan becomes Switzerland of Asia
- Thread starter Ohfshkssgb
- Start date
Hi. I was just reading about Afghanistan and King Mohammed Zahir Khan and found this post.
This is not impossible at all. Afghanistan and Switzerland share certain similarities - lots of mountains, several different ethnicities, being landlocked, etc.
But where Switzerland overcame its weaknesses in order to develop its economy a long time ago, Afghanistan was stepping up in the 1960s and 1970s.
To develop anything, you require peace to develop. That involves good policies at the helm and a good unifying figure, and I believe that the best Afghanistan had on that front was the last king, Mohammed Zahir Khan, who was overthrown by his cousin, who ruled as an autocrat for 5 years until deposed by the communists.
I believe that had the king remained in power and continued his policies, Afghanistan of 2024 could be a rather prosperous nation. The king was also a supporter of multi-party democracy. Its virtually untapped natural resources would attract investors and the money and expertise it required to develop. Not to mention prevent the war in Afghanistan.
This is not impossible at all. Afghanistan and Switzerland share certain similarities - lots of mountains, several different ethnicities, being landlocked, etc.
But where Switzerland overcame its weaknesses in order to develop its economy a long time ago, Afghanistan was stepping up in the 1960s and 1970s.
To develop anything, you require peace to develop. That involves good policies at the helm and a good unifying figure, and I believe that the best Afghanistan had on that front was the last king, Mohammed Zahir Khan, who was overthrown by his cousin, who ruled as an autocrat for 5 years until deposed by the communists.
I believe that had the king remained in power and continued his policies, Afghanistan of 2024 could be a rather prosperous nation. The king was also a supporter of multi-party democracy. Its virtually untapped natural resources would attract investors and the money and expertise it required to develop. Not to mention prevent the war in Afghanistan.
Avoiding of ousting of monarchy in 1973 is good beginning. But even then it is hard to make Afghanistan European style liberal nations. Many tribes are incredibly conservative and would resist reforms which would are too far stretched. Yes, in cities it is easier to make such things but countryside is another one and king and government have balance between reformists and conservatives. But Afghanistan has good chances become pretty prosperous nation anyway.
Not going to happen. IIRC, Afghanistan has always been governed from the center by the latest internal conqueror and the multi-ethnicity of its current boundaries, and cross border common ethnicities are the result of how far the rulers can expand and what boundaries its neighbors set (i.e. Durand line). Switzerland since its inception has in essence been a voluntary confederation. Even those districts 'conquered' by the various member cantons were often held as confederal condominiums. Even in the 'New' Confederation the member cantons retain substantial self-rule de jure and the central leadership is a collective. Not to be a determinist, but there is a great difference from the well-watered mountains and valleys of Switzerland and the deserts, steppes, and often barren mountains of Afghanistan.
There is lot of cultural differences between Switzerland and Afghanistan and you can't really just make Afghanistan carbon copy of Switzerland but you can make Afghanistan more stable and prosperous. Just keeping monarchy around should be enough. During Mohammed Zahir Shah's reign the country was pretty stable and experienced some economic rise at end of his reign.
I think that the prosperity and stability of the 1960s-70s has been exaggerated by westerners who wanted some sort of hope post-2001. Mullah Zaeef talks in his bio about being internally displaced in the late 60s by tribal feuds, and having to move from Zabul (or maybe Ghazni, it's been a while since I read it) to Kandahar.
In addition to the differences already discussed, the physical scope and scale of Switzerland and Afghanistan are completely different-41k km2 vs 650k km2 and 8million people vs 40 million people. They are not all that comparable.
One possibility of ensuring a more prosperous Afghanistan is to have the Afghans play off the British and Russians and thrive.
Could Afghanistan winning the Second Anglo-Afghan War allow them to do that or is an earlier POD required?
Hmm perhaps a more realistic option would be for the Swiss penchant for producing fine mercenary companies to be adopted by the Afghans of course that could lead to an influx of money and wealth as well I suppose
How is the assumption that Afghanistan is very similar to the Swiss Geography taken as so accurate, here? It is anything but that.
Switzerland is an alpine region with fertile and green meadows and forests in it's valleys and plains, bordering countries with largely sedentary and civilizational populations. Historically, there have been no transforming incursions into Switzerland in a more violent or drastic manner, because of that. Germanic settlement and transformation was largely a migration.
Let's move to Afghanistan, now. You are in a land that's largely a desert, with very few river plains to the North, along with oases, with certain riverwashed valleys in the South and the East, in the midst of the deserts. The rivers aren't Danube or Rhine, but these are smaller rivers, like Helmand and the Ancient Saraswathi/Harahwati. Steppe incursions transformed the region drastically each time, leading to ethnic tensions that still run. The lack of the resources is a major factor, even if you ignore that. The region has been a warlike land and peoples, unlike Switzerland. Let's ignore and get to what we will need, to transform that.
Given the above reality, getting a Switzerland in Afghanistan needs a lot of Social Capital along with Industrial/Material and Resource Capital. It's not easy to manage all these. It needs a huge investment and infrastructure, to transform everything, bit by bit, and could take multiple decades to more than a Century.
Some drastic changes could be implementation of Underground Nuclear power plants, driven by a powerful intellectual and industrialist/trading elite (maybe more prominent, surviving and numerous Sikh Khatris, Hazara, Sogdian, Bactrian and Persian merchant/trader communities or even surviving Greek or Kushan trader communities in Afghanistan?), and then terraforming and greening the lands using those, setting up cities and more industries, setting up an R&D ecosystem, all the while supplementing these with Tourism (if you want a Switzerland, then Tourism along cannot sustain everything like it does in the Maldives). Pretty much that, because, as my pet peeve, for transformations of this scale, only widespread Nuclear Energy use is the solution.
Switzerland is an alpine region with fertile and green meadows and forests in it's valleys and plains, bordering countries with largely sedentary and civilizational populations. Historically, there have been no transforming incursions into Switzerland in a more violent or drastic manner, because of that. Germanic settlement and transformation was largely a migration.
Let's move to Afghanistan, now. You are in a land that's largely a desert, with very few river plains to the North, along with oases, with certain riverwashed valleys in the South and the East, in the midst of the deserts. The rivers aren't Danube or Rhine, but these are smaller rivers, like Helmand and the Ancient Saraswathi/Harahwati. Steppe incursions transformed the region drastically each time, leading to ethnic tensions that still run. The lack of the resources is a major factor, even if you ignore that. The region has been a warlike land and peoples, unlike Switzerland. Let's ignore and get to what we will need, to transform that.
Given the above reality, getting a Switzerland in Afghanistan needs a lot of Social Capital along with Industrial/Material and Resource Capital. It's not easy to manage all these. It needs a huge investment and infrastructure, to transform everything, bit by bit, and could take multiple decades to more than a Century.
Some drastic changes could be implementation of Underground Nuclear power plants, driven by a powerful intellectual and industrialist/trading elite (maybe more prominent, surviving and numerous Sikh Khatris, Hazara, Sogdian, Bactrian and Persian merchant/trader communities or even surviving Greek or Kushan trader communities in Afghanistan?), and then terraforming and greening the lands using those, setting up cities and more industries, setting up an R&D ecosystem, all the while supplementing these with Tourism (if you want a Switzerland, then Tourism along cannot sustain everything like it does in the Maldives). Pretty much that, because, as my pet peeve, for transformations of this scale, only widespread Nuclear Energy use is the solution.
Last edited:
Yes, the comparison between Switzerland and Afghanistan are just. Afghanistan is a highway for Central Asian invasions of India and it lies in the middle of nowhere. Switzerland lies as a island between warring powers and lies in the absolute center of the European economy.
The nearest comparison purely geographic to Afghanistan in Europe is Finland or Sweden, and that’s a very imperfect comparison.
The nearest comparison purely geographic to Afghanistan in Europe is Finland or Sweden, and that’s a very imperfect comparison.
Why would you build a nuclear power plant underground? Sounds like you're just increasing the amount of capital investment for zero reason. Unless it's Project Pacer-tier nuclear fusion, which is cool but given the terrain in Afghanistan would be perhaps better used for excavating tunnels and irrigation canals.
Also consider you probably can't actually build one at any point in Afghanistan because the infrastructure is so bad the costs are prohibitive. Afghanistan has ample hydropower potential, supposedly 22 GW of it, yet because of bad infrastructure imports electricity from nearby Tajikistan (hydroelectricity is one of Tajikistan's main exports). That's a better source of development, especially since dams do double duty as reservoirs for irrigation. Displacing people from dams can also be a strategy for controlling them.
If you had good roads and rails and a stable country (which will probably be rather corrupt since it's always been quite tribal and you have to pay off their rulers somehow), then Afghanistan can find a larger export market for its natural resources (be it lithium, hydropower, cotton, livestock, etc.) plus actually use the size of its internal market to its advantage.
I wouldn't say "middle of nowhere" because it is on the Silk Road and all roads to China and India from Persia and the West go through there. Problem is by the modern age that area was an absolute backwater.
Yes, that's why I am saying that this can happen only if the several "ifs" were fulfilled, some of which being ASB.