Afghanistan is in the midst of a legitimacy crisis. The recent elections there did not comply with Afghan law, nor with international standards. It would have been logical to postpone them, given Nato’s inability to provide the security required for proper election monitoring.
At the core of the question of legitimacy in Afghanistan is a tension between what is best strategically and what is right morally. Sadly, the two may be mutually exclusive. First, there is the government of Hamid Karzai. Already ineffective in the eyes of most ordinary Afghans, it is now seen as illegitimate to boot. The run-off election just announced for 7 November may improve the situation, but only slightly. Most Afghans do not like Karzai. Non-Pashtuns see him as a western stooge and Pashtuns share this assumption, but they figure at least he is a Pashtun stooge, so they "support" his presidency. Pashtun support is critical for Nato’s efforts, given that the most volatile area of the country is the Pashtun south.
The problem for the international community – for which read Barack Obama – is how to enact what the American public expects in Afghanistan as opposed to what is achievable. The public expects that their soldiers are dying to secure America. They have been told that a democratic Afghanistan is the best way to ensure this in the long term. Somehow the idea of young Americans or Brits dying to support an unelected, illegitimate government in Kabul does not go down well. Thus Obama must support a democratic process in Afghanistan.
Paradoxically, the president has to balance the public faith in democracy abroad with American impatience. The US electorate wants out, and so do many Democrats up for re-election in the 2010 mid-term elections. You can bet the calculus at Number 10 is not much different.
To achieve this goal, we need stability in Afghanistan. If stability can be provided by a strong-arm government that is not democratically elected, should we perhaps look the other way? This, however, will not be seen as a legitimate course of action at home or in Afghanistan. Such a course of action may also undermine the new counterinsurgency strategy recently outlined by the Nato/Isaf commander General Stanley McChrystal.
Read more on guardian.co.uk
Popularity: 2% [?]