Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Democracy in Afghanistan
Today we learn that Hamid Karzai is gathering the support of the majority of warlords in the country for the upcoming elections. He will apparently be overwhelmingly elected in a free and fair election with their support. The downside is, of course, that this will mean the continuing control by these warlords of their fiefdoms. Some of these people are not well intentioned, some are. All have strong followings, and all are able to coerce the support of those in their area when they cannot use more gentle persuasion. Many in the more liberal human rights community in the country and outside are appalled.
Karzai does this simply because he sees no other way to hold the country together, and, incidentally, to maintain himself in power. The United States and its allies have not provided him the firepower or other resources to run the country any other way. But this Karzai "democracy" should not be considered a disaster. Much of the American South was for a century ruled this way (political scientists would call it "traditional political leadership"), and many newer democracies have had similar arrangements. It lays a social and political basis that can be converted later into more effective nation building if a strong enough leader or the opportunity presents itself. For the time being we should content to support the process. Power will end up being diffused by the process, the system will be roughly representative, democratic forms will be learned, and justice and human rights might at least prevail in Kabul.
To my mind what is happening in Afghanistan lays a basis for what we might expect in Iraq. We note that in the last few days the Times has described the importance of tribal identities in Iraq, identities that often transcend ethnic or religious distinctions. The new President is a tribal leader with ties to the Saudi princes. The Kurdish territories are divided among two old time chieftains. The Shi'a divide into several groups, each with its own leader. The latest word is that the militias of such sub groups will be disbanded, but this may be more superficial than not. When the election season comes we can expect that the country's power brokers, perhaps similar to warlords, will be able to organize and turn out the vote in their fiefdoms. Don't be surprised if we find some areas voting nearly 100% for X and others nearly 100% for Y. Again, the result may not be so bad. Of course, Iraq could surprise us. Iraqis are much more literate than Afghanis, more likely to be willing and able to think for themselves irrespective of built-in loyalties. But whatever happens, let us be sure that we outsiders go with the flow, showing ourselves willing to accept less than pure Western democracy, if this means the rebirth of an independent and freer Iraq.
Today we learn that Hamid Karzai is gathering the support of the majority of warlords in the country for the upcoming elections. He will apparently be overwhelmingly elected in a free and fair election with their support. The downside is, of course, that this will mean the continuing control by these warlords of their fiefdoms. Some of these people are not well intentioned, some are. All have strong followings, and all are able to coerce the support of those in their area when they cannot use more gentle persuasion. Many in the more liberal human rights community in the country and outside are appalled.
Karzai does this simply because he sees no other way to hold the country together, and, incidentally, to maintain himself in power. The United States and its allies have not provided him the firepower or other resources to run the country any other way. But this Karzai "democracy" should not be considered a disaster. Much of the American South was for a century ruled this way (political scientists would call it "traditional political leadership"), and many newer democracies have had similar arrangements. It lays a social and political basis that can be converted later into more effective nation building if a strong enough leader or the opportunity presents itself. For the time being we should content to support the process. Power will end up being diffused by the process, the system will be roughly representative, democratic forms will be learned, and justice and human rights might at least prevail in Kabul.
To my mind what is happening in Afghanistan lays a basis for what we might expect in Iraq. We note that in the last few days the Times has described the importance of tribal identities in Iraq, identities that often transcend ethnic or religious distinctions. The new President is a tribal leader with ties to the Saudi princes. The Kurdish territories are divided among two old time chieftains. The Shi'a divide into several groups, each with its own leader. The latest word is that the militias of such sub groups will be disbanded, but this may be more superficial than not. When the election season comes we can expect that the country's power brokers, perhaps similar to warlords, will be able to organize and turn out the vote in their fiefdoms. Don't be surprised if we find some areas voting nearly 100% for X and others nearly 100% for Y. Again, the result may not be so bad. Of course, Iraq could surprise us. Iraqis are much more literate than Afghanis, more likely to be willing and able to think for themselves irrespective of built-in loyalties. But whatever happens, let us be sure that we outsiders go with the flow, showing ourselves willing to accept less than pure Western democracy, if this means the rebirth of an independent and freer Iraq.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
