
Tomorrow, all across the country Americans will get the chance to vote in House and Senate elections. The Senate elections in New Jersey and Virginia appear to be of particular interest to most pundits, but the most important election of them all will never occur and falls outside of the lower 48 states, yet does not include Alaska or Hawaii. The election that never will be should have occurred in Afghanistan.
While America under the Obama Administration decides how to properly deal with the Bush Administration's Middle East foreign policy of spreading democracy to that region through force, we in effect are supporting this policy until we make a different one. The effectiveness or lack thereof has been on display for quite a while, but the juxtaposition of our elections, and their corrupt/no existent ones should make the flaws of this principle evident to all.
Last week, under the urging of America, Afghan President Hamid Karzai agreed to have run-off elections between himself and his main challenger Abdullah Abdullah to stem the calls of corruption in the recent Afghan elections in which he emerged the victor. Essentially, corruption was rife in many levels of that national election, and the degree of the corruption made America question the type of relationship they intended to have with Afghanistan. We are trying to build and sustain a democracy, but if they cannot even have a proper election, should we continue to support this country? This corrupt election asked America, "What are you doing here?" America paused for a moment and said, "We hope to build a stable democracy." We had to give democracy another try, so we made Afghanistan give proper elections another try. The answer we got was a corrupt run-off election. The corruption was so profound that Abdullah Abdullah dropped out of the election, and gave the victory to President Karzai. Hamid Karzai was declared the winner, and President Obama has urged Hamid Karzai to "write a new chapter" in governing Afghanistan. This result may be frustrating to those that hope for the spread of democracy, but it should not come as a surprise.
President George W. Bush gave Hamid Karzai a country. They told him to serve as if he was the elected leader of Afghanistan. They told him to organize elections, and help create a legitimate democracy in the Middle East. A democracy in Afghanistan as well as Iraq could create a domino effect and spread democracy around the world. They told Karzai to help with this and he agreed, yet now he creates corrupt elections and acts more as a king than an elected president. We may all think that he is wrong for behaving like this, but any other action would have made far less sense. Why would someone who was given a country work tirelessly to create an institution that could remove him from power instead of exerting the same amount of effort to ensure that he remains in power? That is the question we need to ask. If the most powerful country in the world decided to give me a country, I would say nearly anything to ensure that I did not blow it. Running a country is a great opportunity for anyone, but most of the time there a tons of rules and that can make governing very stressful. Just look at how much most Presidents age while in office. However, being given a country without too many established rules could be great, and that is what Hamid Karzai got. He got to run a country and make all the rules, and who would want to give that up. Few would, and Mr. Karzai is no different.
As Americans we should not expect everyone to embrace democracy. It is not inherent in human beings to favor fairness for all over our own selfish desires. Americans frequently vote based on their own selfish ideals, but so do many other citizens of democracy all over the world. Democracy is hard, and that is probably why most democracies have emerged after a revolution or civil war. Not only is it something that requires fighting for, but it is also an internal organic structure. Each society needs to make their own and they alone need to work at sustaining. The least democratic idea of all would be to forcefully institute a democracy in another country. To do so, one country would have to selfishly thrust their beliefs upon another and that runs against nearly every tenant of freedom that most democracies aim to sustain. You cannot enter a country, appoint a leader, and then proclaim democracy. It does not work, yet this is where we are.
America systematically erodes democratic principles with our foreign policy, yet tries to sustain a democracy domestically. This cannot be sustained, and it should come as no surprise to anyone that we are faltering at both. Thus for those of you who have the opportunity to vote today, you need to know what you are voting for. Of course you are voting for a person, but are more importantly voting to sustain an institution. Make sure that the person you vote for works to sustain that institution instead of his own interests. Otherwise, we may become increasingly more similar to Afghanistan: a quagmire of death, war, and money that kills democracy for the sake of power.