Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Democracy's work is never done


The Statesman

October 20, 2004

Democracy’s work is never done
N.D.Batra

The continued insurgency in Iraq has unfortunately distracted our attention from some positive developments in Afghanistan. The election in Afghanistan held under the auspicious of the United Nations and international observers is the first small step toward the beginning of a new democratic society. Regardless of what the ground conditions are at present, it seems that a new horizon of hope, peace and prosperity might just be opening up in Afghanistan. For millions of Afghans, including women who cast their votes for their presidential choice, it was a historic occasion. And by doing so, the people of Afghanistan have distanced themselves from the Taliban, al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden and militant Islamic fundamentalism. For women specially, the very act of going out to vote was an act of freedom that they never experienced before. Gradually they would assert themselves and reject the oppression of a closed tyrannical society run by mullahs and warlords. The peaceful vote must have had a persuasive influence on opposition candidates who had boycotted the election, complaining about ink fraud that might have let some people to be misled to vote more than once. The setting up of an independent commission to look into the alleged election irregularities was in itself a lesson on how necessary transparency is for the functioning of democracy. Public opinion, not the booming of guns, would eventually become important in political decision making. Democracy is trust building through accountability, and indeed it demands patience and hard work, especially when it has to be transplanted as an exotic plant. But imagine if the USA, albeit in its self-interest, had not invaded the country! The people of Afghanistan would have continued living in the dark ages ruled by the Taliban. Afghans might still stumble and fall back, but democracy deserves a chance. Nonetheless, the first successful democratic exercise in nation building in Afghanistan indicates that diversion of resources to Iraq might not have been that catastrophic. Even in Iraq, the government’s cash for weapons programme might bring about changes and hope for peace. In Sadr City, the vast slum in Baghdad that has been the centre of Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s resistance against US efforts towards rebuilding a new democratic Iraq, Mahdi Army fighters, as part of the truce deal, are giving up their weapons including machine guns, mortars and landmines by the tons. The fairness of Afghanistan presidential election cannot go unnoticed by Iraqis. Hope creates hope. Bartle Breese Bull, who earlier reported for The Financial Times from Baghdad, wrote in The New York Times that Moqtada al-Sadr’s commitment to the democratic process is genuine and "represents momentous progress for the democratic project in Iraq and it signifies the emergence of a broad and powerful Shiite front... After five centuries under Sunni rule, Iraq’s Shiia majority will get its elections in January. In the end, Sadr and the occupation have common cause on the issue that matters most: a stable democratic outcome." Would the prospects of a fair election and participation in power sharing through democratic wheeling dealing change the minds of the Sunni population too? That’s the challenge. Last month, Bush told the UN: Our security is not merely founded in spheres of influence or some balance of power; the security of our world is founded in advancing the rights of mankind. Bush is convinced that fighting terrorism would be an endless task unless it is accompanied by spread of freedom and economic opportunities. He says he feels no regrets in invading Iraq despite the clear and convincing evidence that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The rationale for war has changed. A closed country might become a haven for terrorists and, therefore, it must be opened through democracy and trade. It is a political philosophy in a new key and goes beyond pre-emption. Benevolent intervention might become the other face of pre-emption. The challenge in Iraq is not how soon the USA can get out but to find ways and means of controlling insurgency so that National Assembly elections scheduled for January have full participation from the Sunnis too, along with the Shias and the Kurds who make up 80 per cent of the population. The National Assembly has the task of drafting Iraq’s permanent Constitution, and without the full representations of the Sunnis, the Constitution will lack legitimacy. If the Sunnis are convinced that election would be held as fairly as in Afghanistan, they might turn around, take part in the January elections, and participate in the framing of the Constitution. Spreading democratic freedom is not only a moral obligation but a political necessity. Along with other pro-active measures such as going after terrorists wherever they happen to be, freedom would provide a long term insurance against terrorism. At least that’s how Bush has been professing during the last days of the presidential election campaign and his opponent Senator Kerry has not expressed any disagreement with him on this point.

2 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:04 PM

    I think that the main reason that we are not aware of some of the positive devopments in Afganistane is becuase Bush's main concern is Iraq and even though that it has been siad that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction Bush still suggest that the mains issue be Iraq even though Saddam Hussien has been captured. I think that what needs to happen is that we need to not to focus on so much Iraq any more so that we realize the positives things and the negitive things that are going on any place else. It was a big deal when women had that right to vote for the first time in the U.S. and now that is it happening in Afganistan we really have not been informed or was not important becuase we are TOO focused on someting else. That could help us in a way becuase if the people of Afganistan have distaned thereselves from the taliban, al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, and other terrorists groups then that is going to help us fight the war of terrorism which this is all about. I don't think that we should just abbandon Iraq completely but not make it as big of an issue as it was before when Saddam was at large and there was a rumor that he did have weapons of mass destruction.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous11:05 PM

    I think that the main reason that we are not aware of some of the positive devopments in Afganistane is becuase Bush's main concern is Iraq and even though that it has been siad that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction Bush still suggest that the mains issue be Iraq even though Saddam Hussien has been captured. I think that what needs to happen is that we need to not to focus on so much Iraq any more so that we realize the positives things and the negitive things that are going on any place else. It was a big deal when women had that right to vote for the first time in the U.S. and now that is it happening in Afganistan we really have not been informed or was not important becuase we are TOO focused on someting else. That could help us in a way becuase if the people of Afganistan have distaned thereselves from the taliban, al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, and other terrorists groups then that is going to help us fight the war of terrorism which this is all about. I don't think that we should just abbandon Iraq completely but not make it as big of an issue as it was before when Saddam was at large and there was a rumor that he did have weapons of mass destruction.

    Eric Murphy

    ReplyDelete

Copyright ND Batra 2010