November 2009 / vol. 6 issue 3
| You too can visit scenic Afghanistan and witness democracy at work! Photoillustration by richard badgett |
Afghanistan Votes
BECAUSE WE SAID SO
Do you remember when we knew what our country was fighting for in Afghanistan? When we first invaded, the sense of purpose that fueled the occupation was clear and focused — the security of our nation was at stake, the Taliban was in league with Al Qaeda, and the horror of 9/11 demanded righteous retribution.
President Bush attempted to make the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq appear altruistic by proclaiming that those countries would be shining examples of democracy in the Middle East, but it’s as clear now as it was then that his declaration was nothing more than a thin veil designed to obscure the obvious truth of the matter: The American public never cared about the Afghani people.
The invasion was premised on the same asinine assumption that cripples adventures in nation-building: We had the audacity to believe we could invade a country for our own self-interest, force their society to adhere to our principles of government, and expect everything to work out fine.
The Afghanis, and unfortunately the most ambitious and malevolent powers in Afghanistan, can sense our apathy. After our initial invasion, we poured money and resources into Afghanistan. As with Iraq, our nation’s involvement was seen as a cause for hope. However, as with Iraq, we find ourselves at a precipice years after the initial hope has worn off. We’ve finally realized how awkward an export democracy is.
Democracy is not a system that can be traded — let alone forced — across cultural and societal lines. It requires commitment from the people; trust must be forged and routinely strengthened between the nation’s people and its government. Our system of government is a structure that must be built by the very hands of the people who will abide by it — or else the house will never obtain the legitimacy of being called a home.
Afghanistan is the perfect example of what happens when the process of democratization is violated and forced by outside powers; the vacuum of power is filled not by representatives who feel beholden to the will of the people but by ambitious rulers who cater to the whims of occupying forces. The recent elections in Afghanistan have demonstrated the kind of government that results — one with rampant election fraud and officials trying to line their pockets.
The 1,500 formal complaints filed to Afghanistan’s Election Complaints Commission regarding the legitimacy of the vote (complete with accusations of bribing election officials) attests the political limbo that ensnared Afghanistan’s government in the weeks following the August 20th elections.
But Afghanistan’s government has always been more of a house of cards than a sturdy structure built on the principles of democracy – and the corruption cannot be blamed solely on President Hamid Karzai. He makes a compelling scapegoat, and the media has done its part to make him a figure of disrepute during the tumult of the election.
Granted, President Karzai hasn’t done himself any favors, but the larger problem is that Karzai’s actions are acceptable to a culture steeped in fraud — it’s not as though Abdullah Abdullah or any of the other candidates for the Presidency could be considered torchbearers for democracy or incapable of engaging in the same kind of corruption.
Government corruption is symptomatic of structural deficiency — it thrives in a system where government officials are not held accountable. The growing credibility gap between the Afghan people and their government needs to be dealt with. That problem wounds our reconstructive efforts more than a resurgent Taliban ever will.
The exasperating truth is that it’s out of our hands; it depends entirely on the whims of the leadership in Afghanistan. President Karzai recently stated his support for a runoff election against his rival and former Finance Minister Abdullah Abdullah.
That is a positive sign that we’re starting to see the kind of leadership Afghanistan needs — but it needs context. The United Nations caused the change: It’s final audit of the Afghani election declaring that President Karzai had not won enough votes to avoid a runoff election seems to have been the straw that broke the camel’s back. However, no matter who wins, the situation will be the same — American and NATO troops will have to remain on the ground building trust for an Afghan government that the Afghani people views as corrupt.
The only solace I can gain from this state of affairs is that our torrid engagement in the Middle East will hopefully teach our generation that nation-building is a fool’s errand. You can’t build a nation, let alone a democratic one, for a people — they must build it themselves. They must dedicate themselves to the process. They must fight for it, die for it. Their blood alone must be the mortar that holds the house of democracy together — American blood for American liberty and for no other. 
Add a comment!