Hi Nazia, interesting post. You are right to point out that there is nothing "new" in the most recent NATO statements, rather just a re-enforcement of their commitment to the Afghan conflict. You pose an interesting question at the end about the impacts of security agendas upon democracy within the region. I am interested to hear your thoughts on the relationship between security and democracy within the nation building process. On the one hand some argue that democratization is an essential part of winning the "hearts and minds" of the local populous; and therefore an essential part of establishing security. On the other hand, others argue that trying to establish a democracy (in the western sense) without having first created a basic level of security is self-defeating because a democracy cannot function properly in an insecure environment and is ultimately de-legitimized for failing to protect its people.

So what do you think....

a) Democracy first, security second
b) Security first, democracy second
c) Both at the same time
d) Other

Thanks for your comment and question Mike. To be honest, I have no definitve answers, and writing back a smart worded answer would be shortchanging. I would hope that the post sparks alternative ideas/thoughts. However, I think the linkages between security and democracy lead us to possibly the basic premise: what kind of state do we envision? a development oriented/welfare paradigm of state or security dominant paradigm of  state? Because, deciding what comes first, entertaining the notion of what constitutes national interest vis-a-vis security over everything else, or relegating dominance to development/human development over security concerns might simplify things a bit. This would hold though in the case of a functioning state. So for example, in the case of Pakistan, maybe policymakers might ask if they should spend more on defence/ create strategic depth or spend on the human resources, the people.

In the case of a territory tring to reclaim its sovereignty, securing peace would be the foremost thing. So as you ask what comes first, security or democracy,I would think definitely security. But then what constitutes a strong state? not just security, but also the perception of a state that can take care of its citizens. Democracy offers the political elite a chance to not just institute governance but also to build links with the electorate. I would think that both aspects are equally important then, and mutually reinforcing.

Whats more, I think there cannot be a blanket response or some fixed notion of what comes first, as each country represents its own unique history, power dynamics and socio-political landscape. Furthermore, I think there is need to study this whole argument from the perspective of the fragile states, as political elites there jockey for influence, try to maintain old patterns of power/prestige while negotiating for 'change' from donors. That might, in my opinion, lead to a better understanding.

Nazia,

Very interesting post. Certainly displays a subtelty and nuance in your thinking. Mike poses an interesting question as to which comes first. If I could be so bold, I would offer an answer: C

If Nazia's right, and the operative logic in Afghanistan is one of humanitarian imperialism, that's the kind of thing that can't be siloed. Afghanistan requires a robust counter-insurgency efforts along with a comprehensive attempt to reform local governance. In a place like Afghanistan, you can't churn out a liberal democracy all that quickly, I shouldn't think.

As well, all this stuff about empowering local populations to govern themselves effectively is surely nothing new, as Nazia says. Imperial powers have been doing it for centures: quelling insurgencies, dividing the 'reconcilables' from the 'irreconcilables', etc.

But it must be nearly self-evident that security and governance (I'd use this word instead of 'democracy') go hand in hand, because they are mutually reinforcing. Your point, Mike, that an unprepared democracy is delegitimised if it can't protect its citizens is a good one. But what's more on the line at this stage is the credibility not of the Afghan government - at least in terms of defeating the insurgency - but that of the 'imperial' powers: the US, UK, even Canada and Nato. Afghanistan remains a fairly martially-centred society, given the ongoing insurgency, and so it's not so much Afghan credibility as western military and political credibility that's on the line.

Thoughts?

Keep up the good work, Nazia!

Thanks Matt. You are right in stating that the credibility of all the countries involved in Afghan situation is at stake. My point was that this whole new debate on people friendly armed defence is not new, this has been in theory for some time now, with the whole focus on whole of government approaches, human security etc. I have not taken any side as yet in claiming that it is humanitarian imperialism, as I think its very easy to label and harder to find solutions. Who knows though, if the whole enterprise falls through, I would end up among the cynics. I am skeptical though of the scale of efforts and the concepts of state building being at the heart of the whole action.