written by Cuneyt Gurer printable version send your friend

Thursday, 20 August 2009

Procedural definition of democracy requires free, fair and regular elections in order to choose leaders by the people they govern. This minimal definition and prerequisite for well-functioning democratic system often times confused with democracy itself. Therefore in countries transiting to democracy, such as Afghanistan, elections create optimism that can easily turn out to disappointments and losing confidence of the system because of the lack of democratic institutions in the country. Elections are for people to choose their leaders in a competitive environment so that the majority could rule. However, among others, democratic institutions, economic development, civic culture, protection of individual rights are some of the crucial elements to stabilize democracy in one country. Without having those stability factors elections could provide limited support to the process of democratization in transiting countries.

Afghanistan entered the election term with both optimist and pessimist views hand in hand about the future and the democratization process in the country. Although upcoming presidential election is only the second election in its history, many people (especially people outside Afghanistan) expect the outcomes will create a huge difference for the country. On the other hand there are also strong and reasonable arguments indicating that Afghanistan is loosing momentum in the course of economic, social and political development and stabilization.

 Optimist view argues that elections will provide an opportunity for people to raise their voice and vote for their candidates and therefore that way the country, for the first time, will have an elected leader to transform the country. Optimists are aware of the fact that it is not an easy process but a necessary one, furthermore the only feasible one at this moment. According to this ambitious view, hopefully, the results of the election will be a gateway to stable institutions, better economy, prosperity and escape from the nightmares of the past.

Pessimists on the other hand, highlighting the past disappointments and broken promises of the western world, indicates that the elections will only make a small impact on the country’s development and stabilization process. The options for the candidates whoever wins will be limited and there is a need for structural reforms rather than power shift within the governing elite in the country. Therefore the election only meets the procedural criteria for the democratization process in Afghanistan and what is needed is a momentum which the election or the results cannot provide by itself.

 

Democratization by definition entails devolution of power from the state to society.[i] As the society has more to say, diversity in the society plays much more important role in politics. Afghanistan has a multi-ethnic society with the various ethnic groups playing a significant and characteristic role in the social and political framework of the country.[ii] Societal explanations and ethnic backgrounds of the candidates predict two winners for the first round of the election: Current President Hamid Karzai and Former Foreign Minister Dr. Abdullah. 

President Karzai is still the most powerful candidate with a decreasing popularity where as the Former Foreign Minister Dr. Abdullah is closing the gap rapidly that he could threaten the president if the election goes to a second round.[iii] Assuming all other things constant if we want to explain the current status and the popularity of the candidates based on their ethnic backgrounds with his Pashtun identity Karzai should be the strongest candidate as Pashtuns consist of 42% of the population. At the same time Dr. Abdullah with both Pashtun and Tajik background (father Pashtun, mother Tajik and Tajiks consist 27 percent of the population) should be the second favorite candidate for this election (Other ethnic groups in Afghanistan: Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%[iv]).

Therefore assuming a direct causation between ethnic background and support for candidacy explains current poll results, nonetheless politics is much more complex than it looks. There are so many other direct-indirect causal variables and intervening variables that explain the result of the election. Among others, relations with the world and ability to create new social and economic relations with other countries, a comprehensive party program covering economic development and social progress, reforming state agencies and adaptation of democratic system requirements, relations with other ethnic groups etc. will be other important determinants of the outcome of the election.

It will be a fair argument to claim that what is not going to change after the election is the options that the new president will have in hand to bring stability and prosperity to the country. Considering the current situation in the country and assuming that the election will make a big difference will be an extreme optimism. However the results of the election could be a fresh start to re-build the country and a chance to re-gain the lost momentum in progress towards stability. 

International actors and states play a crucial role re-building the country in a number of fields through their aid programs and international organizations by providing technical assistance and exchange of experiences. Years of presence of international community in Afghanistan did not bring much to the country other than having a new regime and a government. Over the years Afghanistan is getting worse in the listing of Failed State Index[v], collaboration between the Fund for Peace and independent research organization, and Foreign Policy journal to measure states performance from most to least at risk of failure.

In 2006 Afghanistan ranked as the tenth state with a high risk of failure with a 99.8 points (the more the points higher the risk of failure) where Sudan was first state having the highest risk of failure with 112,3 points. In 2007 Afghanistan ranked eighth state with an increasing risk of failure (102,3 points), in 2008 (with a score of 105,4) Afghanistan became the seventh risky state and in 2009 remained seventh with a higher score than previous year (108.2).

Failed State Index scores across years clearly indicates that the situation in Afghanistan in terms of having a functioning state is not going very well. Although state is considered as external society and the concept of “the national state” has developed only recently[vi], developing functioning state machinery is fundamental for the future of the country therefore next president of the country will have a top priority to reform state agencies by asking more support from international community. However there will be skepticism towards western nations because of broken promises after US invasion and current government’s failures over developing a better economy and stability in general.

 International community, which means independent countries and their uncoordinated programs which sometimes do not refer to the priorities and real needs of the country, should take more time to think about the mistakes made in Afghanistan. International community should also design programs which cover beyond the government and create connections with society without engaging themselves to certain tribes but be there for Afghanistan as a whole.

Afghanistan’s current tribal societal structure has so many obstacles to observe democracy since tribalism requires more collective behavior where as democracy encourage individual behavior. Therefore managing a possible ethnic conflict is a fundamental aspect of a successful transition to democracy in Afghanistan.[vii]

In order to increase expectations from democracy and democratic initiative in Afghanistan state structure should be reformed to get it better function and number of links between state and society should also be increased. It is more likely that Afghanistan will be an “illiberal democracy” because of the central governments desire for power and control over local provinces. Strong centralized states in the Third World with arguments of leaders in these countries that they need the authority to break down feudalism, split entrenched coalitions, override vested interests, and bring order chaotic societies creates illiberal democracies.[viii] 

Priorities of people in Afghanistan and local needs (such as better school, jobs, clean water and food etc.) should at the top priority of the elected officials and international community should act for a common purpose rather than carrying on their own “state interest” motivated uncoordinated programs. Afghanistan needs to recapture the lost momentum to re-build the country and election is a window of opportunity if only leading elite of the country and international community see the real priorities of the country do not attach too much hope from the elections. International community, on the other hand, should also create programs to gain credibility and trust of the people of Afghanistan. What the world cannot afford is another post-election turmoil which could lead to severe consequences for Afghanistan.     



By Cuneyt Gurer, PhD.

E-mail: cgurer@kent.edu