They Don’t Understand Democracy
The West Denounces Afghanistan — and Takes the Spotlight off Its Own Failures
The Afghans don’t know what democracy is. They oppress their women. If they hear the phrase “rule of law,” they switch off the safety on their assault rifles. If you preach democracy to them, they think of bazaars. No, Afghans are truly something else. We have recently been hearing that line increasingly here in the West. Yet, for years, we were told the exact opposite: Just a few simple steps and the Afghans will be exactly like us. Let them vote once or twice and they might be poorer than we are, but they’ll be just as free and self-determining. Not to mention happier, too. So now they’ve voted for the fourth time — this time for parliament — and what do we see? Fraud, corruption, violence and fanaticism. Where did we go wrong?
We must want to believe that. How else should we interpret the official statements coming from our Western government offices? No mention of the blatant and everlasting election fraud. If you ask why we’re not mentioning that, you’ll just get a knowing smile along with the platitude that you can’t expect Westminster-style democracy; we’re dealing with Afghanistan here! There’s the constant reminder to be realistic, and the realism leads to the denunciation: The Afghans? They’re all wild and unpredictable!
But that’s a really transparent rhetorical excuse. While NATO plans its withdrawal, we’ve already started passing the buck to Afghanistan. Well, we tried, but they’re just too different; they don’t understand democracy, and they don’t want it! But the West won’t get off that easily. All this cultural relevancy talk about Afghanistan’s “intrinsic otherness” undermines one of the building blocks of Western society: the universality of human rights. To claim that the Afghans reject all these Western imports is to misinterpret not only the situation on the ground, but also to saw off the branch we’re all sitting on.
That’s the collateral damage of an operation that takes the spotlight off a simple, yet very dramatic question: How is it possible that the 37 NATO nations — among them the world’s richest countries — could fail to get the world’s fifth poorest country back on its feet? What did all those soldiers accomplish in the nine years they’ve been there? What effect did the many billions of dollars and all the bombs and rockets have? This failure of the Western governments is the subject we should be discussing — not the failures of the Afghan people.
The debate has to begin at the beginning; it has to begin with 2001 and the Sept. 11 attacks. The enormity and the global visibility of these attacks forced the West to act. It decided it had to go to war. When that decision was made, scarcely anyone considered what a Herculean task that would be. The question of whether the West was powerful and capable enough to solve all the problems wasn’t even considered. Why should it be when the West was at the zenith of its powers and was facing the ultimate challenge from al-Qaida? Who even mentioned the developing world powers of China, India and Brazil in those days?
It’s difficult to deny that the West stumbled into this war because of a mixture of hubris and necessity. But that in itself can’t explain the West’s failure in Afghanistan. What came to grief in the Hindu Kush was also a specific political concept; the notion that somewhere in the reigning darkness, there was a switch just waiting to be thrown and then light would come streaming brightly in — in this particular case, into the house called Afghanistan. Politicians and generals alike nourished this illusion by constantly talking of a “new strategy,” of a “decisive year” or of “the turning point.” Policy became an act of revelation: All we had to do was find that special key and the doors to paradise would be unlocked. That was bound to end in disillusionment.
Instead of promising the grand solution, it’s more about turning many little fine tuning knobs. When everything has been properly adjusted, there will be progress in Afghanistan. Developmental aid is the key phrase here. A policy of hard work with no assurance of success. Today, the word is that there can be no civilian assistance in Afghanistan without the protection of the military. But what have the soldiers accomplished thus far? Stability? Wrong. Democracy? Wrong again. Everything thus far has failed because they are part and parcel of the same thing. But whoever comes as a helper must be seen as neutral in order to be trusted. And only something trusted has a chance of success. The military presence, by its own sheer weight, blocks all those little knobs from functioning.
It’s time to end the military presence in Afghanistan.
The Afghans don’t know what democracy is. They oppress their women. If they hear the phrase “rule of law,” they switch off the safety on their assault rifles. If you preach democracy to them, they think of bazaars. No, Afghans are truly something else. We have recently been hearing that line increasingly here in the West. Yet, for years, we were told the exact opposite: Just a few simple steps and the Afghans will be exactly like us. Let them vote once or twice and they might be poorer than we are, but they’ll be just as free and self-determining. Not to mention happier, too. So now they’ve voted for the fourth time — this time for parliament — and what do we see? Fraud, corruption, violence and fanaticism. Where did we go wrong?
We must want to believe that. How else should we interpret the official statements coming from our Western government offices? No mention of the blatant and everlasting election fraud. If you ask why we’re not mentioning that, you’ll just get a knowing smile along with the platitude that you can’t expect Westminster-style democracy; we’re dealing with Afghanistan here! There’s the constant reminder to be realistic, and the realism leads to the denunciation: The Afghans? They’re all wild and unpredictable!
But that’s a really transparent rhetorical excuse. While NATO plans its withdrawal, we’ve already started passing the buck to Afghanistan. Well, we tried, but they’re just too different; they don’t understand democracy, and they don’t want it! But the West won’t get off that easily. All this cultural relevancy talk about Afghanistan’s “intrinsic otherness” undermines one of the building blocks of Western society: the universality of human rights. To claim that the Afghans reject all these Western imports is to misinterpret not only the situation on the ground, but also to saw off the branch we’re all sitting on.
That’s the collateral damage of an operation that takes the spotlight off a simple, yet very dramatic question: How is it possible that the 37 NATO nations — among them the world’s richest countries — could fail to get the world’s fifth poorest country back on its feet? What did all those soldiers accomplish in the nine years they’ve been there? What effect did the many billions of dollars and all the bombs and rockets have? This failure of the Western governments is the subject we should be discussing — not the failures of the Afghan people.
The debate has to begin at the beginning; it has to begin with 2001 and the Sept. 11 attacks. The enormity and the global visibility of these attacks forced the West to act. It decided it had to go to war. When that decision was made, scarcely anyone considered what a Herculean task that would be. The question of whether the West was powerful and capable enough to solve all the problems wasn’t even considered. Why should it be when the West was at the zenith of its powers and was facing the ultimate challenge from al-Qaida? Who even mentioned the developing world powers of China, India and Brazil in those days?
It’s difficult to deny that the West stumbled into this war because of a mixture of hubris and necessity. But that in itself can’t explain the West’s failure in Afghanistan. What came to grief in the Hindu Kush was also a specific political concept; the notion that somewhere in the reigning darkness, there was a switch just waiting to be thrown and then light would come streaming brightly in — in this particular case, into the house called Afghanistan. Politicians and generals alike nourished this illusion by constantly talking of a “new strategy,” of a “decisive year” or of “the turning point.” Policy became an act of revelation: All we had to do was find that special key and the doors to paradise would be unlocked. That was bound to end in disillusionment.
Instead of promising the grand solution, it’s more about turning many little fine tuning knobs. When everything has been properly adjusted, there will be progress in Afghanistan. Developmental aid is the key phrase here. A policy of hard work with no assurance of success. Today, the word is that there can be no civilian assistance in Afghanistan without the protection of the military. But what have the soldiers accomplished thus far? Stability? Wrong. Democracy? Wrong again. Everything thus far has failed because they are part and parcel of the same thing. But whoever comes as a helper must be seen as neutral in order to be trusted. And only something trusted has a chance of success. The military presence, by its own sheer weight, blocks all those little knobs from functioning.
It’s time to end the military presence in Afghanistan.
Thanks for a solid and palpable story. Colonial Britain brought democracy in the sub-continent but Britain didn’t play fare. Otherwise too West’s interaction with Isla left a great deal to be desired. Coming to Afghanistan, its brand of Islam is a replica of the Saudi model. Saudi brand of Wahabbism is rigid, biased and too much tilted towards prevention of vice and hardly any emphasis on promotion of Islamic values. Saudi royalty has lavishly funded for the reading of the Quran but neglected to convey its messages to create a society free of poverty and depravity. President Bush’s reaction against Al Qaida in Afghanistan bordered on extremism. He, at same time, gave a free hand to Israel’s Sharon to spread terror and intimidation in the Mideast. In a way, Israel’s creation and its blind support by America has sown such seeds that unless corrective measures are put in place as late as now, the whole West might suffer a catastrophe leaving hardly any way out for them. Israel came as a scourge to the holy land in a most unholy garb. Its founding father Ben Gurion, unmasked himself at the founding ceremony by rebuking God and once for all getting rid of Him by taking the oath minus Him, on an abstract object of “Rock”, so-called “The Rock of Israel.” his has sealed the fate of the Israel ever to be a Jewish State. His blaspheme at the founding ceremony has shocked the true Torah loving Jews. They fear a severe retribution from the heavens and this might suck America in its maelstrom. This is one part of the drama in real life in the Mideast. The other is the Saudi brand of Sharia, which is devoid of Islamic compassion, mercy, forgiveness and purification of society. There is still time to mount powerful Radio transmission apparatus and TV channels directed towards the mislead Taliban. Taliban would devour the blessings of Islam when presented to them by dedicated Islamic scholars. Islam’s first emphasis is on peace. Its Sharia is for man and not man for the Sharia. The Sharia is nowhere in practice and if and when it is pt in practice it would begin with a clean slate. The Prophet announced forgiveness and clemency when he took control of Mecca. Let the Taliban and the rest of the world know that there would be no stoning of women, no cuttings of hands and no lashings in public. The Quran begins with showering its blessings in torrents. God declares in the Quran: “There is no living creature on earth but that God owes its sustenance. One needs only to look at the fish, the birds, animals and insects to witness its proof. God multiplies charity by 700 times (70,000 per cent). God has kept maximum profit in keeping prices fare and low in trade and commerce. The bottom line is that the Quran comprise the whole of Torah and the Gospels. This is to keep them safe from interference.