It seems that the accepted key to a change in Middle Eastern affairs is in the power of elections and the countrymen taking ownership of the government through the vote. It has been a method pushed in Iraq, a story that has been in the news with Iran, and now it seems the NATO forces in Afghanistan are mobilizing to ensure unhindered elections on August 20th, according to this report.
And why not? Conceptually, elections are designed to give all people a voice by picking those that shuld represent their interests. Then a leader elected by the people, will respect the people, and keep the people’s interests in mind. Theoretically. But most important, elections provide legitimacy. A government has a good chance of having credibility and support from the people if it is one they freely chose and gives them access to security and other necessities.
The Taliban realize this, and are making it difficult for the country as they prepare for the August 20th, presidential elections. Success would mean deterring voters from coming out, which in turn will delegitimize the re-election of President Hamid Karzai or the election of a new leader.
In earlier posts I said the key for U.S., NATO, and the UN in Afghanistan was to fill the vaccuum of power left by a history of conflict, fighting, and warlord rivalries. The Taliban came into power in the country over a decade ago providing order and necessities in exchange for unquestioning obedience to them and their religious practices. Now they are hard pressed to relinquish this control.
That is why it is critical to do what they must to support the smooth operation of these elections, but also to move beyond military operations and support and provide aid funds to help redevelop the infrastructure and provide for the country. Only then will the Taliban be useless to the Afghan people, and they may find themselves completely on the negative side of Afghan public opinion.
In pursuing the Taliban, it should not be just about U.S. goals. It would serve well to apply the economic concept of pareto efficiency here. The people of Afghanistan and the U.S. both want to be made better off by U.S. occupation there. So if the U.S. is going to be there to eradicate the Taliban, is that alone going to make Afghans better off? Are Afghans benefitting from having their lands and infrastructure ravaged by war?
A legitimate Afghan election I think will help the U.S., and if the new administration in Afghanistan is strong and able to regain control over local warlords and community leaders in Afghanistan, it can be good for the Afghan people as well; however the support should not stop there. And as the U.S. pursues its goals, one thing that should continually be kept in mind is: will the country be better off after U.S. forces leave?
Popularity: unranked [?]
Sphere: Related Content
Young Writer's Block