By Siddique Malik
Louisville, KY.
The last minute boycott (eventually given up) of the Afghan elections by the opposition candidates was not surprising. One of the symptoms of the absence of a sound democratic culture in any country is candidates’ inability to accept defeat or looming defeat gracefully, and their feeling (sadly sometimes justified) that their making noise can affect the outcome of elections.
No one expected that the first Afghan elections were going to be completely hassle-free. However, it was exhilarating to see a woman presidential candidate in a country in which, not long ago, women were dragged into sports stadiums and shot point blank for the crime of showing even a trace of independence.
The voter turnout was astounding. Afghan voters stand patiently in queues for a chance to help start the engine of democracy in their hitherto freedom-starved country. Thankfully, expected attacks by the Taliban cult did not materialize. The people of Afghanistan deserve warm congratulations on a job well done.
Afghanistan has surpassed even the USA where a woman has yet to contest the presidential elections. Afghanistan has also surpassed its neighbor Pakistan where religious fanatics have tolerated a woman prime minister but have made no secret of their opposition to the idea of a woman running for president. They perhaps believe that Islam is not ‘endangered’, as long as women stay at least one step behind men. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that no Pakistani woman has ever sought this office.
Afghanistan has outperformed Pakistan in two other areas, too. The Afghan presidential elections were held by an incumbent administration with army playing only a support role, its natural logical role.
In Pakistan, the last time an incumbent head of government (Z.A. Bhutto) held elections, it was March 7, 1977. The ‘mullah-military alliance’ of the time refused to accept the outcome of these elections and the resultant disorder cost Bhutto his life. Subsequently, all Pakistani prime ministers were disgracefully removed from office before any general election could be held.
Moreover, just about every general election in Pakistan (except the above-mentioned 1977 election and elections held during the first few years of Pakistan) has been held under the aegis and for the sake of the army generals. The winners in elections are expected to seek the nod of the generals before they can even think of being ushered into the corridors of power.
Even the self-declared champion of the cause of the people, Ms. Benazir Bhutto, could not succeed in deviating from this unwritten rule of Pakistani politics, a rule that tragically is more consequential in Pakistan than even the country’s constitution.
This contrasting of a strong and organized Pakistan army with a disorganized and ill-equipped Afghan army may be questioned but this question will lack merit. If the Afghan army is weak then so is the Afghan government that cannot withstand perhaps the slightest resistance.
Any army, if it decides to jettison its allegiance to the rule of law, can cause considerable obstruction in the business of the state. It is not the question of the strength of the army but that of army’s commitment to the sovereign’s inalienable right to captain the ship of the state.
It is amazing how far down the path of political maturity just one episode of genuine elections can propel a country, even a backward country like Afghanistan. Imagine the extent of political maturity and stability that Pakistan would have gained by now had its politics and elections been free of the interference by the army.
As far imperfections and perils of democracy are concerned, even the USA is not an exception. We all know what happened in Florida in the 2000 US elections. The importance of holding perfect elections is secondary to the importance of a reliable system that can rescue the country from a logjam.
I am not suggesting that it is fruitless to try to improve a country’s electoral mechanisms. My point is that it is beneficial for a country to have other institutions (e.g., a strong and independent judiciary) that can jumpstart the vehicle of democracy if it ever gets afflicted by inertia.
America would have entered dire political straits, had there not been a strong Supreme Court to offer its historical 2000 verdict in Bush vs. Gore; this is a completely non-partisan comment.
Democracy is an evolutionary process and if Afghanistan demonstrated a persistent commitment to freedom and democracy, every episode of Afghan elections will be better than the previous one. Hopefully, Afghanistan will, one day, become a role model for the Muslim world by becoming a truly secular and democratic country, its nascent constitution’s religious undertone, notwithstanding.
American constitution had to be amended to make it coincide with the needs of humanity, and the same could occur for the Afghan constitution, down the road. It is a great omen that the process of political evolution in Afghanistan has taken an important step. “Let freedom reign”.