End of Karzai era would be a blessing for Afghans |
|
|
|
Written by The Australian
|
NEXT Thursday's presidential and provincial elections in Afghanistan have the potential to strengthen the nation's democratic institutions, provide a fresh mandate for the fight against terrorism and extremism, and help improve the living conditions of Afghans.
Moreover, judging from the large and enthusiastic crowds at the leading candidates' election rallies, the elections may bring to office a new president, a new government and younger provincial members.
Although a US-funded survey released this week shows the incumbent, President Hamid Karzai, has 36per cent support among voters, some of his rivals, in particular former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, are gaining ground and there is the strong possibility of a run-off, especially if local strongmen are unable to mobilise blocs of supporters in favour of the status quo.
Yet, far from being destabilising, a change, if handled wisely by the Afghan elite and its international partners, would strengthen democracy. Unfortunately, there are signs that opponents of the election are determined to disrupt it.
The recent Taliban call for an election boycott, attacks on election rallies and campaign offices, as well as the killing and wounding of several campaign officials and a dramatic increase in foreign troop losses are tragic indications of this. The UN's Afghan envoy has described this month's election as "the most complicated ever".
Yet the international and Afghan military forces appear to be serious about creating a safe environment for conducting the poll. And regardless of the difficulties, holding an election, even with some deficiencies, would be better than postponing or cancelling it. However, every effort must be made to avoid a failed election, one marred by violence or widespread fraud, which could lead to political in-fighting over the outcome and a possible power vacuum.
Unfortunately, a new UN report claims the Karzai government has abused state resources to bolster the President's candidacy. This and previous unconstitutional steps such as delaying the elections and extending Karzai's term of office have already overshadowed the election outcome.
With the possibility of a run-off gaining momentum, some pro-government analysts have started fear mongering, warning of potential ethnic unrest and violence. It's therefore extremely important that President Karzai and other leading candidates exercise restraint and show statesmanship in taking Afghanistan through this crucial election peacefully.
Irrespective of the Karzai administration's performance, after eight years there is a natural call for change. Historically, Afghanistan's rare opportunities to develop and entrench an effective political system have been undermined by personal ambitions and foreign meddling. Many Afghans will only believe in democracy's potential to foster change if they see their votes turning a president into an ordinary citizen and an ordinary citizen into a president. It is also important that Afghans see their votes as part of a process that strengthens the rule of law and state institutions instead of serving any candidate's ego or ethnic agenda. The argument that Afghanistan needs strong leaders before it can have strong institutions is no longer valid: strong institutions can now give birth to successful leaders.
Despite the international community's investment, Afghans have lately lost confidence in their government. This can be attributed to the polarisation of Afghan politics because of a heightened focus on individuals and on ethnic divides, coupled with the state's dysfunctional performance. This has eroded the public confidence that had developed since the previous presidential election in 2004 and spawned a worrying culture of indifference to state affairs.
A democratic change of leadership in Kabul would lead to a fresh period of co-operation between the government and the governed.
Afghanistan also needs a responsible and strong opposition.
Karzai, if not surrounded by opportunist associates, may have the capacity to make use of his statesmanship and lengthy experience by helping to nurture an opposition capable of holding the government to account. He could also use his extensive international contacts to keep Afghanistan in the spotlight while it needs development aid.
Contrary to the myth generated by vested interests, Karzai is not the only person who can rule the country. His presidential rivals include several candidates who may well prove capable of running the state effectively, and who also have experience of dealing with the international community. If the level of international support given to President Karzai is extended to another popularly elected Afghan leader, it may well lead to a more effective government and improved living conditions, with al-Qa'ida and the Taliban being deprived of oxygen.
On the other hand, a victory for the status quo, granted by a listless electorate, would symbolise the triumph of back-room manoeuvring, a tribal system (Arbabi), and the personalisation of politics.
Given Karzai's recent alliances, mostly with those who have championed the divisive causes of ethnicity and self-interest, his next government could be even more disappointing than the present administration, and responding to the demands of his power-hungry coalition partners would keep him tied up for months. Judging from history, 13 years of rule by Karzai would probably pave the way for governments to be run once again by dynasties, thereby exacerbating the Afghan people's disillusionment with democracy.
The emergence of a new leader and a new government, on the other hand, would reflect the maturity of democracy in Afghanistan. It would lead to renewed enthusiasm and a fresh opportunity to move things in the right direction.
A new president would need to make merit the basis for all government appointments, build on the achievements of the past eight years and chalk out a comprehensive strategy for effective state-building, democratisation and institutionalisation.
Curbing the insurgency and terrorist activities and cutting off their sources of external support would obviously be the first priority.
Finally, under the Afghan constitution, governance is highly centralised, with the presidential office encumbered with too many responsibilities. An overburdened presidency would lead to disappointment even under a new government, just as it did under the present administration. The gradual decentralisation of power promised by some presidential candidates may be the way to go.
Mahmoud Saikal has served as Afghanistan's deputy foreign minister (2005-06) and ambassador to Australia (2002-05). He is a visiting fellow at the Australian National University's Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy. This article reflects his personal views. |
|
|
News 
