# Afghan Elections 2009



## Edward Campbell (6 Aug 2009)

The forthcoming Afghan elections will generate much hope, worry, fear and propaganda – and, yes, that is how I classify the Government of Canada’s _information_ - but little else.

Elections, while rarely bad things, are not terribly important. In our system of *electoral democracy*, elections are the way we _validate_ the process – they prove that the one _definition_ of democracy (government with the free consent of the governed)  is actually applicable.*

What elections do not do, in any way, is *equate* to democracy, itself.

Thomas Jefferson believed that America’s democratic experiment was something of a “hot-house flower” that needed constant “tending” and that would not _export_ well – not even to native (aboriginal) Americans. He saw this because he was well aware that *democracy* – of any and all stripes – requires two things:

1. Strong *social capital*; and

2. Independent and trusted *institutions*.

Dambisa Moyo in her recent polemic best seller Dead Aid gives an clear, concise and accurate definition of _social capital_:



> Social  capital [is] the invisible glue of relationships that holds business, economy and political life together ... At its most elemental level, this boils down to a matter of trust.
> 
> ... ‘soft’ factors – such as governance, the rule of law, institutional quality – play a critical role in ... putting countries on a strong development path. But these are meaningless in the absence of trust.


(See also: http://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htm and there is a quite clear _Wikipedia_ article.) (Am I the only person who habitually misspells it as _Wikip_*a*_edia_? Is that just an ago thing?)

So, at the “most elemental level” people in a democracy must *trust* one another and the institutions they create for themselves. I argue that this trust, this strong _social capital_, is an absolute precondition for democracy and that elections are quite meaningless in its absence.

Institutions are of two sorts:

1. Organizations – like law courts, parliaments, fire departments and securities commissions; and

2. Ideas – like *”respect”* for the rule of law and for fundamental rights like life, liberty, property and privacy.

The “most elemental” level of “trust” has been building slowly but surely in human society, *all* of human society, for millennia. Its roots, most elementally, are found in the “watch” that watched the fire and protected the camp or village from wild animals or intruders. Many of us did this most elemental thing when we stood fire piquet or a standing patrol.

Some people, notable George W Bush,‡ believe that democracy is a _gift from God_. I reject this notion: even if there are gods, democracy and freedom are not the sorts of things they “give” to mankind. Democracy is a totally human construct that arises, now and again, when the conditions – the “hot-house” are suitable.

When we think of counter-insurgency we always do well to remind ourselves that we cannot, nor would we wish to, duplicate _everything_ Field Marshal Templer accomplished in Malaya in the ‘50s, but we would do well to remember that he rebuilt and _fortified_ “institutions” that still, more than a half century later, have value to Malaysians, and he created a climate in which “trust,” the essence of strong social capital, could develop. Democracy – not always a perfect democracy – followed. 

It is on social capital and institutions that we should focus, in Afghanistan. We cannot impose democracy; we can support elections but they are not to be equated with democracy. Natan Sharansky, who has given some thought to the issue, said, in  The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror that elections



> ”are not a true test of democracy,“ [nor are they] “the beginning of the democratic process. Only when the basic institutions that protect a free society are firmly in place – such as a free press, the rule of law, independent courts, political parties – can free elections be held.”



So, elections in Afghanistan are welcome but they are of little significance. They are, in and of themselves, signs of nothing except the ability to conduct elections. Until Afghanistan has in place the strong social capital and the necessary institutions upon which democracy can grow it will remain just another weak, _illiberal_ state with a poor facade of elections hiding a corrupt oligarchy. In that it will resemble 165 of the UN's 200± members that, like Afghanistan, lack the social capital and institutions that will allow democracy to arise and flourish.


--------------------
* This presupposes that there is some acceptable alternative to *electoral democracy*. I suggest there can be, just as a *conservative democracy* (e.g. Japan) is an acceptable alternative to a *liberal democracy* (e.g. Australia). It is difficult for us to imagine an alternative to an *electoral democracy*, in part, at least, because we are so accustomed to the idea of elections. But that – a failure to imagine – does not, cannot mean that no alternative is possible. 

‡ See Kaplan, “Daydream Believers,” Hoboken, NJ, 2008, pps. 141 and 161-167


----------



## GAP (6 Aug 2009)

After the decades and decades/if not centuries of lack of trust in its' own institutions (of any kind), I can see where trust does not play a big role in Afghanistan. 

That is probably the best and strongest argument for some kind of intervention/mentoring/security over the long haul for Afghanistan....to let the institutions learn to function in a way that people start believing in them, then to give the people the time to see that they will be there to help them.....it's the next generation that will mainly benefit from what is going on now...


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Aug 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> After the decades and decades/if not centuries of lack of trust in its' own institutions (of any kind), I can see where trust does not play a big role in Afghanistan.
> 
> That is probably the best and strongest argument for some kind of intervention/mentoring/security over the long haul for Afghanistan....to let the institutions learn to function in a way that people start believing in them, then to give the people the time to see that they will be there to help them.....it's the next generation that will mainly benefit from what is going on now...




Indeed!

Thucydides keeps reminding us that progress doesn't even *start* until all those girsl who just started going to school finally graduate - a decade from now.

If we, Canadians, care, even a bit, about the poorest of the poor and our _Responsibility to Protect_ then we, in our tens of thousands, would be out on Parliament Hill chanting: *"Stay the course! Don't 'cut and run!' Canadians IN for the long haul!"*.

But, of course, we, Canadians, are not out there demonstrating for that because we do not care about the poorest of the poor or about our "responsibility to protect." We care only about our _pogey_ and we only get excited about our love/hate relationship with the USA and all things American - especially American celebrities.

 :'(  Oh, Canada!  :'(


----------

