The Taliban solidifies ideological rule, rejects Western laws, faces internal divisions, and navigates global isolation amid human rights concerns and economic struggles.

The Taliban leader, Hibatullah Akhundzada, recently reaffirmed the group’s position on government, declaring that democracy is out of date in Afghanistan. His statement at Kandahar’s Eidgah Mosque during Eid al-Fitr highlights a wider ideological change that puts Islamic law at the center of the country’s legal and political order.

Akhundzada’s statement that Afghanistan will not follow Western legislation is an expression of the Taliban’s historical resistance to foreign influence. He further solidified this stance by criticizing Western countries, accusing them of being against Muslims and coalescing against them, citing recent conflicts including the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza. This is reflective of the Taliban’s overall narrative of resistance to foreign influence, which has been a guiding force behind their policies and style of governance.

Although the Taliban have been able to make diplomatic overtures to nations like China and the UAE, their government continues to be mostly unacknowledged on the international community level. Human rights concerns over abuses, especially on the issue of women’s rights, keep Afghanistan alienated from Western investment and assistance. Afghan women have been subjected to tight restrictions since the Taliban reclaimed power in 2021, including prohibitions on secondary school, work, and public life. Even though there were earlier assurances of moderation, the administration has hardened its version of Islamic law and strengthened its hard-line policies.

There are, however, divisions within the Taliban leadership. While Akhundzada and his core supporters insist on a strict observance of Islamic law, other officials accept the need for foreign assistance and economic stability. Certain groups within the Taliban have argued that there should be more interaction with the international community in order to win financial support and investment. However, Akhundzada is unflinching in his hardline position, shunning outside pressures for policy moderation.

The Taliban’s insistence on the unfreezing of Afghan assets abroad continues to be the main point of contention in their talks with America. Although some discussions have been conducted, important policy changes in Washington are still unlikely unless there are concrete improvements in human rights. This stalemate serves to underscore the Taliban’s larger issue: reconciling ideological inflexibility with the pragmatic demands of ruling in an intensely interconnected world.

Akhundzada’s growing sway has also further entrenched power among the Taliban ranks, with little scope for internal opposition. Some officials have also raised alarms at the concentration of power, aware of the long-term dangers of international isolation. But whether the Taliban will continue its hardline ideological trajectory or slowly begin to accommodate international pressure for reform is yet to be known.

Afghanistan is at a juncture, as its leadership must make a fundamental choice between ideological fidelity and practical leadership. The destiny of the Taliban depends on their ability to reconcile those opposing forces while navigating the intricate web of geopolitics that encompasses them.