Obama’s Endorsement Could Cheapen the Democratic Process
The U.S. government’s stance on the recent presidential election in Afghanistan between Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah could easily delegitimize the Afghan democratic process. When the people of Afghanistan originally voted on Aug. 20, Karzai was instantly announced the winner, and the U.S. government applauded his re-election. But as evidence surfaced that the election results had been tainted by governmental fraud, the Obama administration changed its standpoint and pushed for a second election. However, after the runoff, Obama still praised Karzai’s re-election as a success. This sudden attitude shift and his support for such a sketchy election arouse suspicion as to whether Obama just wants to maximize American influence like all the past politicians he’s criticized, and cheapens the world’s perception of Middle-Eastern democracy. Other leaders and media outlets around the world have taken a critical stance on the election. The New York Times questioned whether the democratic process in Afghanistan could proceed at all, considering a fair election was never truly held. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown criticized Karzai as an obstacle rather than a solution to Afghanistan’s corruption. If the U.S. wants to promote democracy, it must stick to unwavering ideals. And if the Western world stops caring about freedom in Afghanistan, the people of Afghanistan will have little democracy left to cling to.
Karzai’s Secured Presidency Is at Least a Step Toward Stability
Once Abdullah dropped out of the race, the choice to declare Hamid Karzai president was necessary to Afghanistan’s progress. A single-candidate election would have been a mere formality. Whether or not there was a consensus that Karzai was the best candidate for the job, he would have remained president regardless of the outcome of such an election. The onset of Afghanistan’s harsh winter — which often complicates communication and traveling — and the Taliban’s threat of violence against polling places made holding the election problematic to begin with. Its cancellation came as a relief to election organizers. On Nov. 10, the U.N. General Assembly deemed Karzai’s victory legitimate. The U.N. accepted that Afghanistan still has obstacles on the road to democracy, but that Afghan authorities are now working hard to ensure a fair process. Obama’s support, as well, may just be just the push the Afghan democracy needs to secure future credibility. With the tumultuous election settled and a stable Afghan administration in place, Obama can finally move forward with his declaration to deploy more troops. He’s currently considering sending about 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, who he hopes can bring new order to the unstable region. Obama ultimately wants to see an Afghan government that can control internal conflict and terrorism — and the U.S. government’s support of the election results (questionable or not) may help push the country in that direction.
Eager U.S. Support for Karzai Reeks of Hidden Agenda
Obama’s congratulation of Hamid Karzai on his reelection indicates a very real possibility of ulterior motives linked to his upcoming deployment of additional troops. It is widely assumed that Karzai, who is currently serving his fifth year as Afghanistan’s president, was hand-picked by the United States. The Afghan president expressed his close relationship with the U.S. in a 2008 interview when he said, “If I am called a puppet because we are grateful to America, then let that be my nickname.” Yet the resignation of Matthew Hoh, the top U.S. official in the Zabul province of eastern Afghanistan in September, demonstrated that even government higher-ups have grown weary of the war. “My resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end,” Hoh said in a statement. One possible reason to continue the Afghan occupation may be to get a hand on the virtually untapped oil and natural gas reserves. It is not uncommon for a nation to back a leader militarily in order to secure a self-indulgent deal. Karzai will make it happen, and the U.S. could provide troops in exchange for cheaper resources. But convenient as negotiating with a president who’s willing to comply with our every request may be, that leader isn’t worth much if he’s not popularly elected — and for that to happen, serious reform is called for in Afghanistan’s electoral system.
