|
Back (for this article, at least) to the points raised by Michael Gebert. • Nation-building in Afghanistan, to ensure that a few years from now we aren't facing a strongman there (to be initially fawned over by certain parts of our government, as Saddam Hussein and others were in their time) Now, this is a diffcult statement to parse. There are a few alternative definitions of "nation-building". One thing that I have absolutely no faith in (and that I don't think Gebert was proposing): "Nation-building" in the sense of "The Loya Jirgah adopts a European-style constitution, holds elections (in which center-left parties invariably win a parliamentary majority), and the Afghans live happily ever after". Not going to happen. Probability zero. Afghans (and Afghanistan) are not ready for democracy. But, you cry, this is surely a racist position! Afghans are just like you and me (except that they kill other people more frequently)! Aren't all people naturally democratic and pacifistic? Nope. If they were, history would look a lot differently that it does. "Legitimacy", in terms of political structures, boils down to: what ruler people are willing to tolerate. Not necessarily how they think they should be ruled; anyone who says, "There ought to be a law..." is implicitly putting himself up for the position of king (as Robert Heinlein said, people very rarely ask for a law that will stop themselves from doing something they know is bad for them; it's always those no-goodniks doing disgusting things behind that tree that need regulating). It's what, in the final analysis, they are willing to put up with as an alternative to picking up a bamboo spear, a threshing flail, or a hunting rifle, and starting a revolution. Facing down the royal army with an improvised weapon and a guy on your left who might decide at any moment to bug out and go back to the farm is a fearsome thing. Don't let anyone kid you that the Revolution is going to consist of fearless and brawny workers storming the barricades whilst the capitalist mercenaries run away in fear. It's much more likely that the brawny workers will be running from the barricades whilst the mercenaries shoot them in the back (and mutilate the corpses afterwards). That why jacqueries can be counted on the fingers, instead of happening every other week. Democracy requires the belief that democracy is a legitimate form of government, that 50% plus one has the right to make the rules, and that the 50% minus one should sit patiently waiting for the next election, instead of picking up AK-47s and blowing the ruling clique. Historically, democracy has not been "one man, one vote" but "one sword, one vote". (The struggle in classical times was not over this principle, it was over who should have swords. Athenian demokrateia came about because the "naval mob", the low-class, poorly-paid-if-not-a-rower citizen could actually sit on a bench, pick an oar, and make a significant contribution to the war-making capability of his city.) We now joke about the Golden Rule being "he who has the gold, makes the rules", but the truth has been, "he who has the steel, makes the rules". Machiavelli has a few stories to tell about rich Italian cities who forgot that gold cannot always get good soldiers, but that good soldiers can always get gold. Afghans do not believe in democracy (not surprisingly; it's been thirty years since they've had even a whiff of it). I've said before that the best thing Zahir Shah could do would to have Magna Carta translated into Pushtun and put it before the Loya Jirgah as the new Afghan constitution. Douglas Turnbull has had much the same idea (he doesn't specifically say, "Magna Carta", but from his post I'd guess it was in the back of his head). A more-or-less stable feudal government isn't the ideal, but it will be a lot better for Afghanistan than a "democratic" government that nosedives into tyranny and/or warlordism five minutes after the TV cameras are turned off. John "Akatsukami" Braue Friday, June 07, 2002 |
|