7th Saur 8th Saur: If These Were Victories, Then Where Did Failure Begin?

 

In Afghanistan’s recent history, two event are often called “victories”: 7th Saur 1357 (April 27, 1978), and 8th Saur (April 28, 1992). This word has been repeated for years and has become part of the country’s political memory.

But a simple question challenges this idea: if these were victories, why did they lead to so much destruction, instability and human suffering?

This analysis does not focus on who took power, but on something deeper: How was power gained? How was it used? And what did it do with people’s lives?

The short answer is this: in both cases, power was either disconnected from society or never become a stable system. In both situations, the result was a week state and serious harm to the people’s lives.

The 7th of Saur in 1357 happened when the republic government led by Mohammad Dawood khan was overthrown by a military coup of the People’s Democratic Party, and Noor Mohammad Taraki took power. The new system had a strong ideological direction, but it quickly faced internal resistance, political repression and later foreign intervention, leading to a long and destructive war.

The 8th of Saur in 1371 came after years of war, when the government of Dr. Najibullah collapsed and Mujahideen groups entered Kabul. This included different factions such as Jamiat-e Islami, Isalmic Party and others. It was supposed to create a new system, but due to political disagreements and competition among groups, the country entered a period of civil war and division that lasted for years.

The main issue was not who came to power, but how they came to power.

In many stories, the focus is on won. But these two moments show that the more important question is how power was formed.

In 7th of Saur, 1978, power came through a military coup, fast and decisive, but without public support. This kind of power depends on control, not people’s acceptance.

In 8th Saur, 1992, power came from the collapse of an old system, not the creation of a new one. Power was divided among many groups, without clear rules for governing.

In the first case, power was centralized but weak in legitimacy. In the second, power was scattered and without structure.

They look different, but their outcomes were similar, and that is the key point.

From a human and social perspective, both periods share one reality: people were not at the center of politics, they became its victims.

After 7th of Saur, the new government tried to change society quickly, but came with heavy repression. Media was controlled, freedom of speech was limited, and oppositions was suppressed. Arrests, executions, and fear weakened the relationship between the state and the people.

At the same time, there were efforts to improve education, especially for women, and expand healthcare. But because of violence and lack of public acceptance, these efforts did not last. So society saw both limited progress and serious human rights violations at the same time.

In this period, the state became very powerful, controlling people’s lives. But instead of justice, it led to widespread violations of rights:

• The right to life was violated through executions and violence
• Personal freedom and security were lost through arbitrary arrests
• Freedom of speech was not tolerated
• Political participation was severely limited

In contrast, after 8th of Saur, the situation looked different but was just as serious. This time, the problem was not too much power, but no power at all. With the collapse of the state, media became the tool of different groups, insecurity spread, and law was replaced by weapons.

Women faced more restrictions, children lost access to education, and a whole generation grew up in war. Schools, hospitals, and basic services were destroyed or stopped working. Daily life became a struggle just to survive. In short, in this period, the issue was no longer just violation of rights, it was the absence of any system to protect them.

• The right to life was violated daily, without accountability
• Personal security almost disappeared
• The justice system collapsed
• Basic rights like education, health and housing were deeply damaged

Here, human rights were not only suppressed, they were left unprotected. If in the first period people were vulnerable to the state, in the second they were vulnerable to everything.

From a governance perspective, there is one key difference: in the first period, the state existed but was authoritarian and repressive. In the second, the state collapsed completely and chaos replaced it.

The role of different actors was also very important in shaping this situation. During the 7th of Saur, a centralized group supported from outside took control of power. In contrast, after the 8th of Saur, the presence of many groups and the lack of political agreement turned the country into an arena for both internal and external competition.

The result in both periods was the same: people’s basic rights, from security and freedom to education and access to services, were seriously damaged, but in two different ways: one through state repression and the other through the collapse of order.

Governance: From Extreme Centralization to Complete Vacuum

These two experiences show two extreme forms of a crisis in governance. In the first period, the state was too strong, but this power did not serve society. Authority replaced legitimacy, and instead of managing social relations the state controlled them.

In the second period, that same state collapsed. The state’s monopoly on legitimate use of force disappeared, and multiple actors took its place. In such a situation, neither law nor institutions had real meaning.

In both cases, the state failed to perform its main role: creating order, ensuring security, and protecting people’s rights. The outcomes of these two periods were not only political, but deeply social.

In the decade after the 7th of the Saur, repression and war gradually weakened the social structure. Trust between people declined, social relationships were damaged, and large-scale migration changed family structures. Society slowly lost its unity, even though it did not fully collapse.

After the 8th of Saur, this process became more intense and reached to a breaking point. Civil wars, destruction of infrastructures, and ongoing insecurity almost destroyed normal life. Society moved from being “damaged” to becoming “fragmented”, a condition where not only trust, but even the possibility of normal life was weakened.

Afghanistan as a Battleground, Not an Actor

In both periods, external factors played a decisive role. After the 7th of Saur, the soviet intervention raised the conflict to a level that had not been seen before, turning Afghanistan into a major arena of global competition.

After the 8th of Saur, support from different countries for armed groups did not bring stability. Instead, it prolonged the conflict, made it more complex and prevented the formation of a unified political system.

As a result, decisions about the country’s future gradually moved from inside Afghanistan to outside. The country became more a place where others acted, rather than an important actor shaping its own future.

Conclusion

These two experiences show one shared reality: Power without public support leads to repression. Power without structure leads to uncontrolled violence.In both cases, the result is the same: people are pushed out of the center of politics.

So “victory” become just a word, not a reality. Both 7 Saur and 8 Saur were called victories, but in reality, they weakened the state, destroyed order and severely harmed society.

These experiences send a clear message: no political change, no matter its name or slogan, can succeed unless it balances power, legitimacy and human rights.

In the end, what matters is not just taking power, but building a system where people can live with safety, dignity and hope for the future. And that is exactly what was lost in both periods.