Friday, May 20, 2005
Democracy and Riots in Afghanistan
Recent riots in Afghanistan incited by a Newsweek reference to flushing a Quran down the toilet reminds us that democracy means something quite different from our understanding in states without long democratic traditions. President Karzai was elected by a large majority of Afghanis. But what did that mean? It meant first of all that many people were asked to vote for him by their local tribal or other leaders. In transitional democracies voting is often not an individual choice. It is a group choice. Many people who voted for Karzai may in fact have no idea who he is. Secondly, many Afghanis voted for Karzai simply because it was a unique experience that they wanted to have a part in. By this act they did not betray any deep commitment to the person of Karzai or the governmental system that he represents. The next week an issue might come up much closer to their hearts, and one which would inspire quite different means to express public power.
Historically, there have been many "democracies" that utilize the processes we are all familiar with, but have populations and occasionally political leaders who are by no means constrained by these processes. This pattern has been especially prominent in Latin America where leadership by "caudillos" has been the historical pattern. Such strong men may or may not come to power by the ballot. Once in power they are unlikely to leave office because of the ballot. The tendency of populations to grant their right to flaunt the law reinforces the pattern, as we saw in the case of Juan Peron. Another example is found in Ecuador and Bolivia where power is expressed by the street as often as by the ballot. Frequent changes of head of state, irregular means to office, and of exit from office are the pattern. In Ecuador we have recently had the example of a government dismissing the Supreme Court and vice-versa. Perhaps Mexico and Venezuela are teetering on the edge of return to such regional patterns.
One can only hope that the majority of the new democracies of the last thirty years will not relapse into such quasi-democratic processes. That we will escape such a reversal in Iraq in the next few years is almost too much to hope.
Historically, there have been many "democracies" that utilize the processes we are all familiar with, but have populations and occasionally political leaders who are by no means constrained by these processes. This pattern has been especially prominent in Latin America where leadership by "caudillos" has been the historical pattern. Such strong men may or may not come to power by the ballot. Once in power they are unlikely to leave office because of the ballot. The tendency of populations to grant their right to flaunt the law reinforces the pattern, as we saw in the case of Juan Peron. Another example is found in Ecuador and Bolivia where power is expressed by the street as often as by the ballot. Frequent changes of head of state, irregular means to office, and of exit from office are the pattern. In Ecuador we have recently had the example of a government dismissing the Supreme Court and vice-versa. Perhaps Mexico and Venezuela are teetering on the edge of return to such regional patterns.
One can only hope that the majority of the new democracies of the last thirty years will not relapse into such quasi-democratic processes. That we will escape such a reversal in Iraq in the next few years is almost too much to hope.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
