Afghanis will soon go back to the polls in a runoff ballot to choose between the two leading presidential candidates following July’s contentious election: the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, and his rival, Abdullah Abdullah. But one questions if the results will even matter in a nation plagued by corruption, decentralized authority, and dependence on foreign powers for protection.
One of the reasons NATO took on the war in Afghanistan seven years ago was to create a working democracy with a framework of human rights in a formerly theocratic and totalitarian state. There is a lot of work yet to be done.
The runoff follows an election that was marred with corruption from the beginning. Beyond the election results, the process was dubious. Hamid Karzai had already twice delayed the date of the vote, citing security and logistical problems, which effectively extended his term in office past its end date set by the constitution.
When the election finally happened, it was marked by extensive corruption and fraud. A BBC report exposed voter cards being sold openly in Kabul markets, and large amounts of money being exchanged between tribal elders and political candidates. On top of this, voter turnout was low, 30 to 35 per cent—partially because of threats by the Taliban, but also partly because of voter apathy.
But Afghanistan’s election woes stem from before the recent election. Perhaps NATO was grabbing the wrong end the stick when its member nations decided to start by focusing on democracy. Instead, they should have concentrated on making Afghanistan independent through its security forces, and bolstering the newly-formed government’s legitimacy among the Afghan people.
Since the fall of the Taliban as an official ruling power, the American army has taken a major role in outfitting and training the Afghan army, and President Obama has pledged to triple the number of soldiers in uniform. However, the nascent Afghan army has been plagued by corruption, low motivation, widespread desertion, and overall lack of discipline. It simply cannot be expected to keep the peace any time soon.
Regardless of outcome, the winner of the upcoming runoff will be completely dependent upon the armies of NATO for security. Not only will this do little to improve the winner’s legitimacy as leader—it will serve to make him unpopular with his own people.
Furthermore, the government of Afghanistan has little sway over most of the country due to ethnic differences and the ubiquitous power of local warlords, both factors that only exacerbate the natural divisions caused by the country’s mountainous geography. The leader of the government, whether fairly chosen or appointed by corrupt means, will be powerless to enforce laws or oversee development far outside the outskirts of Kabul without the goodwill of local warlords or foreign armies.
The questionable legitimacy of the Afghan political system points to a much deeper failure in our mission in that country. After seven years of occupation by NATO, millions of dollars of aid, and over a hundred Canadian army casualties, the establishment of a stable and viable democracy continues to elude us.
