I’ve been astonished by some of the commentary on Afghanistan’s election, a term that is often preceded by the modifier “flawed.” Well, duh. It’s a matter of comparison. No process is not, in some ways, flawed. But is it an improvement?
Hamid Karzai is also subjected to frequent sniping attacks by people who do not face and cannot imagine facing the risks of assassination to which he exposes himself on a daily basis. He could enjoy a prosperous life virtually anyplace else on the globe, but instead he risks his life to try to bring more peace, rule of law, and individual freedom to his country. I don’t understand those who dismiss him with a sneer as merely “the Mayor of Kabul” and who insist on withdrawing his U.S.-provided body guards, who have saved his life on several occasions. Those who don’t want a return to the savage rule of the Taliban and the reestablishment of terrorist training camps should be grateful to him, not sneeringly dismissive.
I think you are assuming that everyone views the facts as you do. For example, I have heard that Karzai’s power doesn’t really extend far beyond Kabul. If most of the country is ruled by warlords and that Karzai’s power mostly is in Kabul, would it be such a sneering remark to call him the “Mayor of Kabul”? If he can’t trust his own Afghan bodyguards to protect him, what does that say about his claim to legitimacy?
The point of discussing Afghan elections is to ask if the result is a genuine democratic election where the Afghan people chose the president or if the US government decided that he is the person we like dealing with and installed him. Is he the democratically elected leader or is it a sham? As long as there are genuine complaints about the election, one must wonder. Wouldn’t it be better to openly say, no this isn’t democratic, but it isn’t bad?
The point is not that Karzai is better than the Taliban. Of course he is. The question is whether what is going on is genuine democracy. If a “democratic regieme” is dependant on the support of foreign powers, can it really be called “democratic”.
Certainly the US has a history of supporting regiemes that are less than democratic. These governments may be better than a millitary takeover or communist revolution. However, that does not make these governments any less corrupt.
You could say “but instead he risks his life to try to bring more peace, rule of law, and individual freedom to his country” or you could say “he risks his life trying to set himself up as the puppet dictator of an Islamic Republic.” Six of one, half-dozen the other, maybe. Personally, I plan to continue being sneeringly dismissive.
The remarks from Mike and from Mr. Kerner are interesting in several ways. First, Mike has raised the question of what qualifies a regime as “democratic.” Is it popular consent or support by a majority or respect for individual rights or free speech or what? It looks like the election in Afghanistan qualifies on all counts, although imperfectly, to be sure. But that’s also true of every regime that could be counted as democratic.
Regarding the issue of U.S. provided bodyguards, I don’t find that all that surprising in a nation as riven by linguistic, ethnic, tribal, clan, and religious schisms as Afghanistan. Remember that Mrs. Gandhi was killed by her own Sikh bodyguards. And do recall that the Federal Republic of Germany was initially set up and administered by foreign powers, but certainly Germany qualifies as a democracy, at least, as the term is commonly used.
Finally, I should point out that I made no remarks on whether the regime was democratic or not, merely that Mr. Karzai seems to be a rather good man to whom I am grateful for his efforts to turn a country that was a safe harbor for fanatical terrorists and murderous religious zealots into a freer, more peaceful, and more just place that no longer provides safe harbor to Al Qaeda and their training camps.
(As an aside, Mike might ask how I could assume that everyone views the facts as I do and still be astonished at how others view those facts.)
Mr. Kerner’s remarks are marked by the skepticism that is normally a healthy response to the claims of politicians to be working for justice and the common good. It’s most often the case that they are in fact after power for its own sake or after opportunities to enrich themselves and their supporters. Yet, there are times when people do act in ways that secure justice and the common good. I don’t see the two options Mr. Kerner set out — “risking his life to try to bring more peace, rule of law, and individual freedom to his country” and “trying to set himself up as the puppet dictator of an Islamic Republic” — as “six of one, half-dozen of the other,” as if the two options were just two different ways of describing the same process. Mr. Kerner may remain “sneeringly dismissive”; after all, that’s his right. But he enjoys that right primarily because throughout history many brave people have not considered those two options as equivalent. Those people deserve our respect, not our sneers.