Democracy in Afghanistan?
An Authoritarian State Is In The Process Of Construction
By Meena Nanji
www.countercurrents.org
25 February, 2004
With Iraq an unmitigated disaster and a U.S election approaching in November 2004, U.S President George Bush desperately needs a success story in his foreign policy pursuits to justify the unleashing of the U.S's gargantuan military might against impoverished nations. What better way than to trumpet the triumph of 'democracy' - that sacrosanct term that opens the hearts of ordinary Americans eager to believe that their government is doing 'Right' in the world. With plans for Iraq's installation of 'democracy' proving far too popular with the 'wrong' kind of people for Washington's tastes, Afghanistan seems to be once again cast to serve the Bush administration's needs, this time by being paraded as the grateful - and successful - recipient of US-exported 'democracy'.Under the Constitution agreed upon in early January, Afghanistan is to schedule both presidential and parliamentary elections in June 2004. Bush and Afghanistan's President Karzai have accepted a possible delay of the parliamentary elections. However, they are determined to keep the presidential elections on the June timetable. This - despite the fact that similar 'technical' problems cited by chief US administrator Paul Bremer in Iraq as reasons to delay the elections there - also exist in Afghanistan,
Bush's rosy rhetoric about Afghanistan has already been stepped up. In his State of the Union address this year he said:
"As of this month, that country has a new constitution, guaranteeing free elections and full participation by women… With help from the new Afghan army, our coalition is leading aggressive raids against the surviving members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The men and women of Afghanistan are building a nation that is free and proud and fighting terror."
Yet, as in the case of Iraq, it seems that the president is again suffering from faulty intelligence. His remarks seem to bear little resemblance to the reality that is Afghanistan today and certainly merit closer scrutiny.
True, Afghanistan does have a new constitution, ratified on January 4, 2004. However, it was a product of dubious means: The Loya Jirga, or Grand Assembly, in which the constitution was meant to be debated was dominated by fundamentalist mujahideen and warlords who did not inspire open discussion. International human rights groups and local Afghan journalists reported that decisions were 'agreed' upon' not through free and equal participation but by physical intimidation of delegates, vote-buying, death threats and backroom decisions between government officials and influential militia leaders that excluded a majority of delegates. In short the 'ratification' of the constitution was anything but democratic.
The constitution itself also has many problems. While on paper it does make sweeping enunciations of equality, democracy, economic, civil and political rights, there is little about creating the institutions to uphold or implement these provisions. Without the means to actually enforce laws, the constitution carries little authority - perhaps none in the face of armed warlords. How it can "guarantee free elections" is therefore something of a mystery.
Meanwhile, the US claims it is supporting peace democracy in Afghanistan. For the last two years, the US has embarked on operation after operation to 'root out' remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in its "war on terror". While this in itself may not be cause for concern, what is alarming are the tactics and policies employed by the US in doing so. Indeed, far from creating the conditions for stability to evolve in Afghanistan, US policy is having the opposite effect. Much of the violence that is raging throughout the country is arguably a direct result of US policies:
a) The US's most egregious policy is the forging of unholy alliances between the US military and known war criminals. Far from getting "help from the new Afghan army," (which consists of a paltry 7000 men, rather short of it's aim of 70,000, and already suffering hundreds of desertions), the US is relying on regional warlords and their militia for support in pursuing the Taliban. It seems not to matter to the US that the differences in outlook between the Taliban and these warlords is minimal: most are as dictatorial, fundamentalist, and anti-modern as the Taliban. They are also they same people who dominated Afghanistan during its chaotic civil war era from 1992-96. The Taliban did succeed in disarming these warlords and restoring some kind of order to the country.
Thus when Taliban rule ended, there was a real opportunity for the creation of a strong government without the dominance of armed warlords to contest its authority. However, the U.S chose to resurrect the warlords by supporting them once again with cash and arms.
b) The U.S has until very recently opposed the expansion of international peacekeepers to the rest of the country. The International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) is undoubtedly the reason for relative peace and stability in Kabul. With their presence, the power of private armies loyal to highly placed ministers, such as Defense Minister General Fahim, has been diffused; commercial activity has been allowed to progress, aid workers can work openly, women have been able to take part in public and civic life with relative safety. NATO decided last October to expand their forces, although so far significant numbers of troops have not been forthcoming. The U.S is now pushing for NATO to deploy provincial reconstruction teams or PRT's. PRT's are not designated peacekeepers but do humanitarian work, such as build schools here and there. They have little impact on security, and have no power to intervene in factional fighting or in human rights abuses perpetrated by militia.
c) Disarmament of the estimated 100,000-500,000 armed men in Afghanistan has also been moving at an extremely slow pace even though it is considered by most Afghans to be the first and most vital step toward the rule of law and away from the gun. Indeed the US is further undermining disarmament by re-arming regional warlords in the name of fighting terror.
Taken together, these policies have allowed the warlords to once again consolidate their regional domination which they are using it to terrorize their citizenry with extortion, rape and killings. There is no talk of their being held accountable for their past and present crimes.
The re-emergence of warlords has also resulted in another fateful development: Afghanistan is again the foremost opium producer in the world, producing an estimated nine times the amount of opium now than it did under Taliban rule. Recently, the U.N warned that Afghanistan is on the brink of becoming a narco-state where drug barons will be more powerful than the government.
With the breakdown of security, most independent political organizers are too afraid to organize. Additionally, no political parties have been officially recognized, and no electoral law has been enacted. The U.N is registering voters but the dangerous conditions have slowed the process tremendously. So far only about 10% of an eligible 10 million voters have registered, and most of those are in urban centers although approximately 70% of Afghans are rurally based.
The south and east of the country are especially unsafe for registrars and would-be voters who face potential attacks. Yet it is vital that people in these areas are represented if election results are to be accepted. If large parts of the population were excluded from voting, the legitimacy of the vote would certainly be jeopardized. Already, many Afghans do not take this sudden appearance of 'democracy' all too seriously, believing that it is the product of self-serving interests of the powers that be. Real democracy, they say, is impossible until the powerful warlords have been disarmed. Exclusion would also exacerbate ethnic tensions, further destabilizing the country.
Various world bodies, including the U.N and the European Union (EU), recommend that elections be postponed until mid-2005 at the earliest, unless safety conditions are drastically improved. Many groups also state that even if registration is sufficient, in areas of warlord influence, voters and candidates may well be intimidated and pressured not to participate or to vote a certain way.
Women are especially at a disadvantage in voting 'freely'. Although UNAMA is admirably making a concerted effort to register more women, they are unlikely to make significant impact in this regard. So far only 2% of eligible female voters have been registered, primarily in urban areas.
Only a handful of women have benefited from increased opportunities in vocations and education and they are largely restricted to Kabul. The ratification of The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in March 2003 has had no effect on the well-being of Afghan women, and there is little reason to expect that their stated 'equality' in the Constitution will have any positive effect either. The vast majority of Afghan women remain illiterate and uneducated and under oppressive traditions. Militiamen target them for rape, torture and kidnapping. Girls' schools are being set on fire. Laws are being upheld that restrict women's education and public appearances. Many women cannot receive health care either because clinics are too dangerous to get to, or because male doctors can't treat them. Though illegal, forced and under-age marriages are still common. In Herat, a new phenomenon has emerged over the last two years, that of self-immolation: women are so desperate and fearful of men that they actually set themselves on fire.
Under these circumstances it is wholly disingenuous of Bush to claim "free elections and the full participation by women", especially in the face of the insecurity that his administration has helped to promote. The Bush administration has done very little to ensure better conditions for women. If anything, it has done more to ensure their continued enslavement by supporting fundamentalists within and outside of government who are notorious for their brutal treatment of women and flagrant human rights violations.
In sticking to the June 2004 schedule against recommendations from a variety of sources, George Bush is confirming his own penchant for the appearance of democracy rather than any real participation in the political process by a majority of citizenry. But then, what kind of 'democracy' can we expect when it is 'exported' by a President who himself was installed by a backroom decision that overrode the popular vote?
Meena Nanji is an independent filmmaker. She can be contacted at: [email protected]