Afghanistan's election

Remove all ads!

Looks like all is mostly well with the election in Afghanistan -- very little violence and high participation. The weak boycott by Karzai's opponents is already crumbling in the face of public dismay (and the lure of cabinet seats for the first to endorse Karzai). Reminds me of Cambodia's election in the early '90s, where the Khmer Rouge threatened 'til they were red in the face about electoral violence but ended up powerless in the face of mass participation. 'Course, Cambodia's democracy was quickly strangled by infighting, and the same may yet happen in Afghanistan...Karzai may have Western-technocratic leanings but it's not clear that he will be democratic, or be able to assert sufficient control over the warlords. An election does not a democracy make. But given possible al-Qa'eda attacks in Egypt, the concern about attacks during the US November election, and the threats looming over a January Iraqi election, I think the peace of this election is good news.

Any thoughts?

 

Well, there is the delay on counting, after large complaints about fraud. However, since the election has been endorsed by international observers, I'll be happy with the result.

Also, I too am pleased that there has been very little violence, and mass particiation. Whether it will continue this way remains to be seen, but a good start. The only disappointment in it all I had, personally, was the way Karzai still got the majority coverage. His backing by the States has allowed him to be seen as their best chance, and I would have preferred the US, and others to have stayed out of it all together, exspecially as far as endorsements go. But other than that, a good election.

 

It went better than feared but not perfectly. These first elections are not really very democratic or much of elections at all, they are just there to give Kharzai some legitimacy just like the possible election in Iraq will be there to go give Allawi a semblenece of legitimacy. What those two now have to do, well not have to but what we can hope that they will do is to continue working for democracy and perhaps even risk losing an election a few years from now.

 

I hope the candidates that weren't elected don't claim they have been wronged by some kind of 'heathen' system of government, gather their supporters and start violent protests. But that's probably a worst case scenario.

 

I'll probably get flamed for this, but IMHO, you can compare this to Chechnya, in one regard. A big super power is endorsing their puppet, and basically helping him become president. As soon as their back is turned, he'll probably get assasinated.

 

These are people who haven't voted in...well...hundreds of years. The women...maybe never. Try to overlook any fairly minor irregularities or Kharzai's obvious preference by the US government...and appreciate it for what it is ----- a major accomplishment by the Bush Administration to bring Democracy to a part of the world that had none. I know it's difficult for many of you to say that, but if you repeat it with me it won't be so hard. Al Gore woulda still been pressuring the Taliban Ambassador.

 

You wish, HS. If Al Gore was president it would be Bin Laden's lawyers doing the pressuring - trying to get Osama off death row.

 

Better one puppet who keeps the masses somewhat quiet, then a whole bunch of warlords trying to become the "uberwarlord". But true enough...when the foreign soldiers leave, the country will fall apart again, some people simply don't know any better.

 

Chandos is right, HS. You shouldn't underestimate Gore's smooth and silky charm when it comes to convincing recalcitrant regimes to cooperate. After all, it was during Al Gore's two-term tenure that he convinced the Sudan to turn over bin Laden, got Yemen to surrender the Cole bombers, talked Saudi Arabia into loosening up, kept Hussein from acting provocatively, talked the Dear Leader into dropping his WMD program, swayed Qhadaffi into surrendering his WMD program, supported the Palestinians with the promise of an independent state, and persuaded the Taliban to not destroy the Buddha statues.

Oh...wait...

 

Let's hope this election can set some kind of precedent. I don't think the peace or the government will last after the troops leave, it's just human nature, but it's a start. The only way I can see to prolong the existence of the democratic state (apart from through military strength) would be to have the warlords fully engaged with the political process and willing to work within it. As Blackadder might say; "There was just one tiny flaw in the plan. It was bollocks."

Hey, I'm not sympathetic to Bush's administration, but there has been some - *some* - benefit out of the policies they have pursued, even in Afghanistan and Iraq. That doesn't mean I agree with their decisions.

 

True.

But, you know. We're still in Korea (South Korea, anyways). And in Japan. And Germany. And, uh. Britain. Puerto Rico. The Phillipines.

Technically speaking, there's Czechs there, too. The UN has troops all over the place...

 

Maybe a better comparison is to the UN's Bosnia protectorate, where benevolent puppetmasters like Paddy Ashdown still hold sway over the nascent democracy. At least Karzai is an Afghan who was recognized by his people before the US arrived. Unlike in Bosnia, the US holds no formal authority to nullify electoral results, rewrite laws, adjust the constitution, or throw out officials. Maybe the US should ask Europe for puppeteering lessons.

 

Yes, I remember Clinton/Gore firing tomhawks into Bin Laden's camp. Two things were said by the "tough on terror" oppostition: First, why was Bill Clinton firing "a million dollar cruise missle at a bunch of tents?" (Of course, the Republicans never dreamt that it could have saved a couple of buildings, and countless lives in New York City). Second, that the attack on Bin Laden was not only a waste of time, but nothing more than a "diversion from the Monica scandal." And here, I bet you anti-Clinton guys thought we had forgotten. Try again.

 

Two words: Follow-through.

And the Northern Alliance doesn't count because...?

They couldn't have fought for their "rights" or to "preserve democracy" because there was no democracy to preserve. Like in Cambodia after UN intervention or Haiti after US intervention, Afghanistan's nascent democracy could easily crumble. But it's still worth being proud of, even if it's contingent upon a US troop presence. Should we disdain German, Korean, or Japanese democracy despite its reliance upon US soldiers during the Cold War and beyond?

That said, prospects for Afghan democracy remain pessimistic. But let's not dishonor what may prove their brightest point in the dark years to come -- or, perhaps, the dim beginning of an Afghan renaissance.

 

Well, the game is one of dominoes. Enter a country, engineer a fledgling democracy, pave the way for the Light and help them reach it for the next 20 years, whether the citizens want it or not. The US has been doing that for decades....it's nothing new. Vietnam did not want us there -- plain and simple. We did not listen to the French, who had been there for years before us -- with nothing to show for it, except a HUGE monetary drain and dead soldiers. Afghanistan is the same. Korea is the same. Iraq is the same. It goes on and on and on -- because US administrations feel that it's their god-given duty to enlighten the world. And if they don't want it -- what the hell -- force it on 'em! WE know what's best. WE are the guiding force for the world. In my opinion, there wouldn't have been much difference if by some weird twist of fate, Falwell had ended up in the White House. His flag at least would have probably been a replica of one from the Crusades -- but at least it says what it is -- the missionaries of the world. I'm not quite sure what the American flag stands for today. Could be the same thing.