Afghanistan:

What Kind of an Election, What Kind of a Democracy?

Jan Qarabaghi

Procedural versus Republican Democracy:

Democracy, in spite of its real or perceived trepidations and sometimes chaotic appearance, is the only political system that can efficiently process individual desires and preferences into socially desirable collective outcomes. Yet, the social and political value of outcomes generated by the democratic process cannot be taken for granted. This is so, because the effectiveness of the democratic process in producing socially desirable outcomes heavily rests on the way elections are conceived, organized, and conducted. Elections plagued by intimidation, pressure, official corruption, vote-rigging, and vote-buying can easily lead to outcomes that are often worse than outcomes associated with one-party or single-man dictatorships. Such elections can also run the potential danger of giving rise to one of the two opposing but equally perverse outcomes: (i) tyranny of the majority and (ii) tyranny of the minority. Both of these two types of “democratic tyrannies” can be as bad for the society as a single-person or a single-party dictatorship.

Thus, the role and the inner-workings of elections in a political system are the key factors that determine the nature and the type of democracy that a country will end up having. Based on the criterion of elections, one can differentiate between procedural (sham) democracies and republican (true) democracies.

Procedural democracy, while void of true democratic substance, is mainly concerned with the motion of democracy and political appearances. In such a democracy, elections happen for their own sake, serving as the ultimate political goal in themselves, and not as the means of political participation and popular decision-making. As a rule, in a procedural democracy, elections are used (i.e., misused) for the purpose of scoring public relations points. In such a sham or pseudo democracy, elections can (and do) typically serve one or more of the following agendas: First, elections may serve as a tool to legitimize the power of an otherwise entrenched, non-democratic indigenous political establishment. Second, elections may help create goodwill toward one or more foreign powers, which may have stakes in preserving the status quo (thus legitimizing the status quo through stage-managed elections). Third, elections may assist the existing political nomenclature to distract from deeper problems plaguing the society, by keeping the masses busy with the wheeling and dealing (and the intoxicating euphoria) of election times. Last but not least, elections in a procedural democracy can serve as a source of employment, profiteering, and income for a large number of foreign advisors and indigenous white-collar and semi-literate workers, who do not find more stable jobs in the productive sectors of the economy.

Based on its contrived, perverse nature, a procedural democracy is hostage in the hands of a few powerful groups and individuals who mimic the motion of democracy merely to strengthen their illegitimate hold on political power by the way of deception, or to appease/silence voices against naked dictatorship and socio-economic failure at national or international levels. The outcome of elections in such a democracy is normally the expression of the will of a few who have managed to monopolize political power either through military means, attachment to foreign sources of support, or ethno/linguistic division and manipulation of simple-minded masses, or a combination of all of the above. The current world political climate seems to condone and foster the exercise of procedural democracy at the expense of true, genuine democracy in many parts of the globe. Examples of procedural democracies abound in a large number of African, Asian, and Latin American countries where corrupt and otherwise dictatorial regimes are going through the motion of general elections merely to satisfy (or take advantage of ) the exegesis of the global war on terrorism.

Republican democracy, on the other hand, is concerned with the substance of democratic conduct, and the creation of a level, enabling, accessible, and transparent playing field, where both candidates for public office and voters who support them are cognizant of their civic rights and duties and act within the legal requirements of free and fair elections. Equal access to the media, public funding of the election campaign, and freedom of expression and movement by the candidates and voters make the democratic process in a republican democracy accessible to all actual and potential participants. It is obvious that free and fair elections, taking place according to well-drawn election rules and under the protection of law, are the only dependable means of free political expression. It is through such fair and free elections that people in republican democracies openly assert their political will, freely choose among competing policy platforms, express their preferences for policy reform and change, and consciously elect the rulers they entrust with running the affairs of their countries. Elections can serve these purposes, and the sanctity of principal-agent relationship can be preserved, only when they are held in an environment endowed with personal freedom and security, accountability, transparency, rule of law, and respect for civic rights of individuals and groups who go to the polls to cast their votes.

Therefore, republican democracies, in contrast to procedural democracies, aim first and foremost at the creation of an enabling environment, an environment conducive to the active and informed participation of voters and candidates who have confidence in the electoral system and follow the rule of law. Such an environment would be free of intimidation and coercion; such an environment would afford no opportunity to warlords militia leaders or their proxies; such an environment would provide no political space for drug dealers and gun runners; such an environment would be free of political machinations; such an environment would not allow foreign intervention and interference in the election process; and last but not least, such an environment would shun those who are guilty of stealing public and private properties. Republican democracies would not only deprive warlords and gunmen of the right to run for public office; they will actually hold these groups and individuals accountable and punish them for their criminal deeds.

The Afghan Democracy: Procedural or Republican?

Since the ouster of the Taliban fanatics in November 2001, the coming date of September 18 will mark the second time that the new and old power-holders in Afghanistan will engage in the formality of going through the motion of elections. September 18 is taking place while the country is still deeply divided and bleeding, and safety and security remain dreams that evade millions. The first round of elections, which happened last October, was designed to give legitimacy to Hamid Karzai for the next five years (and perhaps beyond) as the favorite child of the occupation powers. The elections scheduled for this September are designed to produce a compliant, cooperative parliament and 34 provincial councils that would strengthen the legitimacy of the new order and vouch the tutelage of the occupation.

The environment in which these elections are taking place is diabolically different from that of a republican democracy. According to the latest figures, about 12 million voters have to choose among 5,800 individuals in the 34 provinces of the country. About 85 percent of those who cast votes are illiterate and unable to read or write the names of those are on the ballot. Therefore, each ballot has been printed with pictures and designated signs of all candidates standing for elections in a particular district. Of the 5,800 names and pictures that appear on the ballots, some 60-70 percent belongs to local militia leaders, Islamic clerics, former communists, heavy weight drug dealers, and relatives or proxies of such individuals. The overwhelming majority of those included in this diverse group are accused of war crimes, theft of private or public property, and allegiance to armed groups. Election contenders run as individuals and on a non-party basis; this helps former communists and militia leaders to distance themselves from the atrocities they or their groups have committed in the past. Those in charge of providing security at the polls are members of local militia groups who now wear the fatigues of the so-called Afghan National Army (ANA) but still take their orders from their respective warlord patrons. Those administering the voting process and handling and transporting the ballots to counting stations are mostly affiliated with militia or local political groups, who in one way or another have vested interests in election results. Intimidation, coercion, pressurizing the voters, and vote buying are common practice and rampant.

None of the aspects of the elections described above bode well for a quick transition of Afghanistan from a stage-managed procedural democracy to a genuine republican one, where rights of the people could be guarantied and the national interests of the country can be fostered and secured. The most ostensible outcome of these elections will be the granting of legitimacy and parliamentary immunity to those who are guilty of past crimes, and the deepening of the power of warlords and former communists who have taken the country and its people hostage for the last 27 years.

As a final note, I would like to draw the readers’ attention to the staggering costs of the up-coming elections (these costs are currently paid for by the generosity of the foreign powers occupying Afghanistan): To conduct and supervise the elections, over 150,000 election officials and workers have been employed for a period of over three months. The total personnel and logistical cost of the undertaking has been estimated to be over $158 million (the cost of last year’s presidential election was about $200 million). Based on these figures, election costs per candidate turn out to be over $27,000. The cost per elected MP will be $634,538 (=158,000,000÷249). Whether Afghanistan will be able to pay this price tag every five years in the future remains an open question that will bedevil the regime and its treasury for years to come.

Where a Picture Says a Million Words:

A well-known Chinese proverb says: A picture is worth a thousand words. In the case of the upcoming Afghan elections, I would contend that a mere cartoon may be worth a million thoughts. Thus, my invitation goes to the readers to read the rest of the story within the captions of the following cartoons:

Reflecting on the unhealthy election environment, the government-run newspaper Anis, has published the following cartoon.

While walking over the skulls of his own victims, an Afghan warlord is whispering to himself: "with the blessing of democracy, attaching myself to a governmental post, and burying the evidence of my past crimes, I am well on my way to become a [respectable] member of the parliament."

Source: Anis

Another cartoon published by the private newspaper Arman-e Meli (the National Aspiration), draws attention to the fact that the majority of those standing for elections consists of people who enjoy the support of some domestic or foreign power:

Arman-e Meli: People to the warlord: “You get to eat jam when you have a supporter.”

The following cartoon, also published by Anis, reminds its readers of the past atrocities of those candidates who were once warlords and now stand for election:

Anis: “Forget the past, look at my symbol, and vote for me!”

Another cartoon published by Anis, shows the influence of money on the votes of the voters:

(Anis) The cartoon portrays candidates and voters during the campaign for upcoming parliamentary elections in Afghanistan. The audience in the first frame is shouting, "You are a war criminal! We won't vote for you!" In the frame below the first, they go on, "You are a warlord! We will never vote for you!" Finally, in the third frame, they shout, "We will vote for you, we will vote for you!"

The following cartoon shows an armed Jehadist sitting on the top of the ballot box, while sarcastically assuring a woman of her civil rights:

(Kabul Times) A heavily armed man sits atop a ballot box, assuring a female voter of his good intentions

regarding the woman’s rights..

And, finally, this last cartoon, again published by Anis, gives an indication of the intention of an election candidate, which is described as emptying people’s pockets, i.e., stealing their money:

(Anis) A venal election candidate says, "My election symbol is a mobile phone… also known as a 'dollar-eater'. Vote for me. Once in parliament, my aim will be to empty people's pockets just as my symbol indicates".

END

© Qarabaghi 2005.