With the legal term of Afghanistan’s parliament ending in a week, there is a constitutional conflict and political vacuum looming in the country. There is now increased focus from the media, politicians, election monitoring organizations and the lawmakers in the parliament over the fate of the parliamentary elections and the constitutional stalemate that is looming. On Sunday June 14, 2015, President Ashraf Ghani said the issue of the Lower House of the parliament will be referred to Afghanistan’s Supreme Court as the court is the only competent authority to interpret the constitution. In a sense of urgency to tackle the issue, President Ghani has recently carried out a series of consultations with representatives of relevant stakeholders including government agencies, top political figures and representatives from the donor countries. He assured on Saturday that there would no legal vacuum in Afghanistan’s state and that the parliament’s fate will be decided according to the constitution and in light of national consensus and interests.

The ambiguity over the fate of the current parliament and the looming constitutional is marking another bad precedent in governance in Afghanistan. The evolving constitutional crisis is not unprecedented in Afghanistan, but with no doubt it is the most serious case of breaching the constitution during the last fourteen years of post-Taliban era. The ongoing uncertainty over the legal term of the parliament has roots in last year’s controversial presidential elections which produced the National Unity Government in Afghanistan. In fact, the presidential elections held last year tarnished the credibility of whole electoral bodies and systems and led to administrative failures to hold a timely parliamentary election. As result of the presidential elections, all parties particularly the main stakeholders of the National Unity Government and the major international donors of Afghanistan lost trust to the bodies responsible for conducting national elections.

Exhausted with the outcome of the presidential elections, the Afghan political spectrum and the international donors of Afghanistan expected reforms in the electoral bodies and election procedures for a fair and free parliamentary election. Reform to electoral bodies and system was one of the main provisions of the agreement which led to formation of the current unity government in Afghanistan. It took months for the leaders of the unity government to establish a reform commission, but again they failed to agree over who should lead the commission tasked with proposing reforms to the electoral system. The donor countries financing Afghanistan’s elections abstained from funding the parliamentary elections without due reforms to the electoral system. With the electoral reforms commission in limbo, the electoral bodies have virtually been unable to proceed with the preparations for the parliamentary elections.

While the legal term of the current parliament ends in a week from now, the end of the Lower House of the parliament’s tenure will be the onset of further uncertainties in Afghanistan’s political system and constitutional legitimacy of the state. Obviously, there is no constitutional and legal basis neither for extension of the term of the current parliament nor shutting down the legislative branch of the state. According to Afghanistan’s constitution, the term of the parliament ends at the end of the first quarter of the fifth year of the parliament’s tenure. Based on the constitution, the parliamentary elections should be held within 30 or 60 days before the end of the parliament’s term. There is no provision in the constitution whether what to do with the parliament’s working if parliamentary election is not held on time.

On the other hand, there is no competent authority authorized by the constitution to interpret ambiguous articles of the constitution and to set out a way for resolving such challenges while the constitution remains on any such matters. However, former president Hamid Karzai set a precedent with referring some high-profile cases to the Supreme Court of Afghanistan or setting up special courts for resolving such stalemates. Still, there is no convincing justification for referring issues with constitutional ambiguities to the Supreme Court or any special courts formed by the government. While there is a body responsible for clarifying constitutional matters, its mandate and capacity is yet to be clear and justified.

With no doubt, extension of the term of the current parliament by the Supreme Court or the parliament itself will remain controversial given the lack of legal basis for such an action. Many lawmakers also believe that decisions made by a parliament with ‘extended working term’ would be unconstitutional and illegitimate. This is while others believe it would be legal given the silence of the constitution over such a stalemate and Afghanistan’s need for a functioning legislative branch. They argue that the state would be dysfunctional in absence of a parliament and that the government would go despotic and take arbitrary decisions in absence an overseeing body such as the parliament. All the arguments are justified given the constitutional stalemate and the country’s best interests. But there should be legal basis for any decisions to be made for the fate of the legislative branch of Afghanistan’s state when the term of the parliament ends.

The bottom line is that both extension or termination of the parliament’s tenure beyond its legal term would be another precedent for violating the Afghan constitution. The formation of the national unity government produced by the last year’s presidential elections was itself a derailment of the constitution in Afghanistan. Former president Hamid Karzai violated the laws in many occasions while confronting the decisions of the parliament or dealing with other important challenges. Systemic violation of the constitution does not forebode well for the future course of Afghanistan’s political system. It suggests how democracies in unstable countries like Afghanistan are vulnerable to legal and constitutional derailments.

The prospect of the parliament until the next presidential elections is uncertain while its legitimacy will remain questionable. The impacts of this constitutional derailment would not be limited to the legislative branch but also to the whole political system in the country. This would further undermine efforts of Afghanistan and its international backers to boost state-building and good governance in the country.