Afghanistocracy. Or, Abhorrent Stability

A recent bill, passed by the Afghan legislature and signed into law by President Karzai, legalizes what in the West would be considered rape. The law states that, unless ill, wives in Afghanistan's small Shia community must have intercourse with their husbands should he demand it. Following Western attention and condemnation (President Obama called the law abhorrent), a review of the law's constitutionality has been ordered. However, the larger point remains; Americans will have to accept that the final product in Afghanistan may seem distasteful when compared to Western democracies.

Former President Bush spoke of a Jeffersonian Democracy in Afghanistan. President Obama speaks not of establishing democracy, but of establishing stability. Americans ultimately desire an Afghanistan free of terrorist safe havens. An unstable Western democracy will not provide this. A stable democracy, or a stable authoritarian government if necessary, will fare much better at preventing terrorists from launching attacks from Afghanistan. This may result in a U.S. backed strongman taking charge. An un-democratic leader with whom America can work is preferable to the chaos in which terrorists flourish.

An argument could be made that the short and medium term stabilizing benefits of an authoritarian government could lay the foundation for a future transition to democracy. Democratic governments are wonderful for their accountability and various freedoms. But the democratic process can also be used to take away freedoms, especially in countries just leaving periods of intense strife and without a history of rule of law to fall back on. Forcing democracy too quickly on a country grants strong powers to majorities perhaps not used to honoring minority rights. An authoritarian leader has the ability to provide the necessary stability, while slowly instituting democratic processes.

One thing COIN practitioners have picked up over the years is that a host government's military forces should not be organized to work like those of an occupying power. Taking Afghanistan as an example, the Afghan National Army (ANA) should operate and be organized like Taliban forces, not like the U.S. military. For starters, the ANA is in direct competition with the Taliban for the will of the Afghan people. The ANA can only win by beating the Taliban at their own game. If the Taliban are playing football, the ANA will win by playing football too and better, not by learning baseball. Also, the U.S. military has gone through several hundred years of design to be right for the U.S. It doesn't translate that easily to other nations.

Just as military structures don't always translate well, neither do political structures. The American system of government works in America because of the specific cultures and history found in the U.S. It can not simply be transported to another country with a far different background like Afghanistan and be expected to work. Democracy has to be contextualized. Afghanistan's specific cultures will influence how democracy eventually works there. Which may result in many more laws some in the West may find abhorrent.