Who Was the Afghan Elections For?

Immediately following the presidential election in Afghanistan, U.S. media attention faded, chasing more sellable stories. Despite the fact that we do not yet know the winner or the extent of electoral fraud, our concerns are drawn elsewhere. The lack of follow-up and interest in what is happening in Afghanistan reflects the reality of the election and what it was ultimately about. While democratic processes anywhere in the world must be supported and cheered, we must also recognize that an election for the sake of an election rarely holds any substance. The outcomes of elections such as that in 2005 reelecting the dictatorial ruler of Egypt or a deeply divisive election as that recently held in Iran lack any spirit of democratic inclusiveness and are nothing short of farces.

The election in Afghanistan is another such example of an election without substance or legitimacy. It was not to elect a president of Afghanistan, but to put in a place a ruler for the United States to rule through. The election was to create legitimacy for U.S. support of Karzai. The election was held more for the American public, a side-show to Obama’s deepening embroilment in Afghanistan, than for the Afghan people.

Media coverage of the election reflected perfectly U.S. administration’s concerns: the focus was on the electoral process and potential disruptions by militant forces (thus proving their lack of “democratic” principles). Who were the candidates for president? What were their policy initiatives? What were their political ideologies? Nobody really knew or cared, that was not the story.

Democracy is not just a monolith to be imposed on foreign lands; there are in fact very distinct democratic cultures, with differing electoral practices, producing different forms of political legitimacy. The American presidential system is not the only form of democracy. In the case of Afghanistan, given nearly 30 years of civil war, one must ask if a presidential system, based on simple-majority rule and the exclusion from power of opponents, is the most appropriate to begin with.

Besides decades of civil war and centuries of divisive manipulations by outside powers, Afghanistan is also home to extremely rich cultural practices and a strong sense of historical traditions. Building a vibrant democratic civil society in Afghanistan will not be sustainable if culture is not respected and local modes of political legitimation are ignored.

The traditional ‘jirga’ system, an assembly of tribal and clan leaders where decisions are made on consensus, provides a model for establishing a more conducive democratic system. The jirga itself is far from ideal, while inclusive of different ethnic groups, it excludes half the population: women. Additionally, by drawing upon traditional forms of leadership, it excludes individuals who take on other forms of leadership through their education, social activism or entrepreneurial success.

A more conduce democratic system to the American model, one that relates most closely to the jirga system, but provides a more inclusive democratic ideal, is a parliamentary system, similar to that in Britain. A parliamentary system does not exclude losers from power and encodes decision making processes through consensus and compromise. For a country as torn apart as Afghanistan, all efforts must be made to bring together communities, not divide them further.

The problem with a parliamentary system is that it does not fulfill the needs of the Americans, the British, the Pakistanis, the Iranians, the Russians, the Saudis, and the many others who all seem to think they have a vested interest in ruling Afghanistan. The presidential election of August 20th only exposed the reality that Afghanistan is not meant for Afghans. The region’s construction as a conduit for natural gas and oil between Central Asia and ports beyond condemns Afghans to forever being the cannon fodder for the economic and political interests of others.