Skip to main content

The North West Territory

Brian Hermon

Election Timing in Afghanistan

By Brian Hermon - 9 months ago

An interesting comment on last week’s blog raised the question of timing when considering trying war crimes suspects in court.   This comment has had me thinking about the timing of another major event in post-conflict states: elections. 

Like the timing of war crimes trials, finding the right time to hold elections in post-conflict states is a question of considerable debate.   This is an issue that has been raised in a number of my graduate classes, and a question that my colleagues and I have been asked to write about.   The issue is particularly relevant in Canadian public policy classes because of Canada’s military engagement in Afghanistan.  

Canada’s engagement in Afghanistan is part of a “whole-of-government” approach that has seen the country become the single largest recipient of Canadian bilateral aid.   As part of Canada’s policy toward Afghanistan, it has been actively involved in supporting Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission ahead of the country’s 2009 presidential election.   However, despite Canada’s continued military and financial contributions, violence in Afghanistan is at its highest point since 2001, and showing no signs of decreasing ahead of the summer elections.

The Afghan elections will take place in the summer, historically a season of increased insurgent attacks.   Furthermore, violence has increased in Afghanistan year-over-year since 2004; and according to the UN, 2008 was the most violent year in Afghanistan since 2001, with 31% more security incidents than in 2007. 

Afghanistan’s political and security institutions also remain weak.   A report by the U.S. Institute for Peace has called the efforts to reform Afghanistan’s police force “disappointing”, and a study by the U.S. Defense Department concluded, “the readiness of the ANP to meet its internal security and conventional law enforcement mission remains low”. 
 
Within the context of increased violence, and as Afghanistan’s political, judicial, and security capacity remains weak, is the time right for the country to be holding elections?

Article Rating

Average: 4  out of  5 (1 vote)  

4 Comments

 
Post #1
Michael Middleton Michael Middleton - 9 months ago

I think that you are right to note the dangers that elections pose within a fragile democracy, particularly when security is weak, there is a risk that the general population can be coerced by violence. 

One insurgency group in Kashmir is reputed to have placed a coffin outside of a polling station with a sign on it saying that; this coffin is for the first voter.  When the elections were held, voter turnout was almost non-existent and the results were seen as at the very least skewed, or at worst, illegitimate.

So the question I will put to you is, what is better, not holding an election for fear of violence or holding an election which yields illegitimate results?

 
Post #2
Brian Hermon Brian Hermon - 9 months ago

Well clearly neither are ideal.  But my thinking is that the latter- holding an election which yields illegitimate results- if often worse. Kenya and Zimbabwe are perhaps the most recent examples of elections that were not considered "free and fair" and resulted in violence.  Of course, there is also a danger that delaying elections will reduce the legitimacy of the government, risking violence as well.  Furthermore, many goverments delay elections under the guise of "stability" or "security", when what they really fear is losing power. 

There's no easy answer, but I think it should be emphasized that, while elections are important to a well-functioning democracy, they are only a small part of a much large democratic process.  For peace to be sustainable, steps such as building democratic and judicial institutions, reforming the security sector, and stressing the primarcy of the rule of law, among other things, are crucial. 

 
Post #3
Matthew Bondy Matthew Bondy - 8 months ago

Brian,

Great post. Very thought-provoking. In my research - I've taken a cursory look at that Anglo-American phenomenon sometimes called liberal or democratic imperialism - I came across the principle of "democratic delay". The principle I suppose rests at least in part upon an imperial predicate, but it essentially calls for good government before self government. Here is an outstanding piece on the subject by Stanley Kurtz from the Hoover Institution. It fits neatly into the discussion of how to meaningfully implant democratic customs when exercising suzerainty over a political territory.

 
Post #4
Brian Hermon Brian Hermon - 8 months ago

Very interesting article Matthew.  Could be a good idea for a follow-up post.  Cheers!

Would you like to comment?

You must be a member. Sign In if you are already a member.

Viewed 102 times