By Joshua Meah, Contributor
Does anyone actually believe democracy exists in Afghanistan? If democracy is defined purely in terms of the existence of elections—that is, people vote—then fine. People in Afghanistan do vote. In the most recent presidential elections, incumbent Hamid Karzai faced former Afghan foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah. Karzai defeated his challenger only after less than half of the Afghan population voted, allegations of ballot fraud were ignored, and Abdullah finally withdrew from the race, arguing that a runoff election between himself and Karzai would inevitably be wrought with the same high-levels of fraud that plagued the initial contest.
Fraud—plus low-levels of participation and the electorate’s choice between Karzai and only Karzai—equals an illegitimate electoral process. This establishes the core component of “shamocracy,” which is non-democracy or ineffective democracy with a “good” democracy sticker pinned on it by the international community.
The difference between “shamocracy” in Afghanistan and non-democracy in China is that neither China nor the international community tries to pretend that China is a democracy. Everyone knows it’s not, and the world operates as such. In some countries, such as North Korea, democracy is claimed by the regime while the international community rejects that claim. In Afghanistan, much of the country feels that the national government is the puppet of U.S. and other international interests. Yet, the rest of the world tries to convince Afghans otherwise. In reality, Afghan democracy isn’t quite non-democracy in China, nor is it North Korea’s totalitarian version of democracy. Instead, it’s a unique Humpty Dumpty “shamocracy” based on international collaboration.
In a country where the vast majority of the population is illiterate, poor, and lacks access to quality education, the U.S. and NATO are attempting to put on a charade of democracy. But this is unwise. Afghanistan is electing a republic—not a democracy—and the only democratic element in a republic is the notion of accountability, which is absent in a society where, again, the vast majority of the population can’t read and doesn’t have access to a quality education.
In reality, no Afghans voted for the U.S. and NATO invasion. Some Afghans voted for President Hamid Karzai, but few were part of the process that brought him to recognition and power. Since Karzai first assumed the presidency, his government has been plagued by corruption charges. (For instance, Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, remains attached to drug cartels.) Public confidence in the Karzai regime is low, and according to Transparency International, Afghanistan ranks as the fourth most corrupt country in the world, out of 180 countries surveyed—only Haiti, Iraq, Myanmar, and Somalia are viewed as more corrupt. Furthermore, in wake of this fall’s disputed presidential election, U.S. Special Representative Richard Holbrooke and Zalmay Khalizad, the potential Chief Executive Officer of Afghanistan (a new, unelected position) will likely hold more power than Karzai.
Why support a shamocracy? Western interests are sacrificing good governance for hope of democracy, but this is a bad trade-off—especially since most Afghans do not actually believe that Karzai represents their interests. If the West insists on backing a shamocracy in Afghanistan, then at least it should provide the best shamocracy that money and military support can buy. That means the U.S. and NATO should not support Karzai, a non-leader that has already proven his ineffectiveness. Instead, the West would be better off supporting a leader like Ashraf Ghani, whose domestic and international experience provide him with a proven track record of competency.
Ghani would be Afghanistan’s Jawaharlal Nehru, a leader focused on bringing together local society through modernization and economic integration. This approach represents the only proven formula for creating an economically prosperous state in an area where national identities remain secondary to tribal or other local identities. Ghani—named the best finance minister in Asia by Emerging Markets in 2003 for his work in Afghanistan—placed second behind Ban Ki-moon for the position of UN Secretary-General in 2006.
A few months ago, in an interview with the Diplomatic Courier, Ashraf Ghani spoke about winning the war on drugs in Afghanistan. Ghani argues that in addition to interdiction, one of best approaches to fighting the narcotics trade would be to create more jobs for women, as a means of boosting the average family’s income. He believes that by providing ordinary Afghans with alternative economic livelihoods, the drug trade would become less attractive. Is there any response more consistent with the creation of a free-market, participatory democracy than that?
Democracy is not always as “good” in and of itself. For example, China’s rapid development since 1978 and Singapore’s rise over the past several decades have been at the expense of democracy. During the 1930s, Adolf Hitler in Germany was elected by a democracy. The process of “democratizing” Iraq led to a civil war, while the advent of democratic rule in the Gaza Strip resulted in the election of Hamas.
This doesn’t mean democracy is always bad, either. Afghans deserve democracy, just like any human being around the world deserves a say in the direction of his or her own life. But democracy isn’t easy; it takes social preparation and a belief in the competency and legitimacy of the state. Before democracy can exist in Afghanistan, Afghans need to believe in the virtue of having an Afghanistan. Prior to the development of a legitimate democracy, a national identity must first exist. To entrench that national identity, Afghanistan must justify its own existence through economic development and the provision of public services. The very notion of “Afghanistan” must make people’s lives better, not worse. And this would require a technocrat such as Ashraf Ghani—not a corrupt bureaucrat like Hamid Karzai—running the show.
