| James N. Markels | ||||
|
|
Personal
Information Constitutionalist
Party Political/Policy
Writing Creative
Writing Resume |
by
James N. Markels What’s the difference? Ultimately, very little. From Haiti and Somalia to Bosnia and Kosovo, the idea of nation-building has been to try to mold a turbulent nation into our own democratic image through military occupation. The problem is that other cultures simply refuse to be forced into political structures that we find preferable, and the only way to sustain a semblance of peace is through perpetual occupation. Just like with Imperialism. America’s founders were exceptional nation-builders themselves, insightfully noting things like, “Governments . . . deriv[e] their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,” and that the governed should base their government “on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Their approach predicts that the success of a government will depend on whether it matches the cultural norms and meets the needs of the people it rules. But nation-builders think that the governed are the last people to listen to when it comes to the future of the nation, effecting the motto: “Governments are derived according to our consent based as should seem to us most likely to effect our safety and happiness.” What if the nation-to-be-built balks at our decrees? Former chief nation-builder in Bosnia, Carlos Westendorp, put it best: “Do not worry: I will do it for you. If you don’t agree systematically, worry not again: I will liberate you from this duty.” See? We’re liberators! Shut up and be liberated! The underlying problem is that many people are under the impression that democracy is some kind of magical cure-all for messed-up countries. It works for us, why not for others? Somehow, we reason, if uneducated and impoverished people mired in a culture and history of oppression are given the right to vote, they’ll suddenly elect enlightened representatives who aren’t part of the old oppressive guard and will dutifully protect human rights. Unfortunately, that’s just not how it works. Without a substantial change in the basic culture of the governed, their votes will merely wind up imitating the political norms in the old government. Take Russia, for example, where the right to vote has resulted in the Communist Party having the most seats in the Duma compared to any other political party and the election of an ex-KGB officer to the presidency. (Perhaps Russians have been feeling a pang of abandonment when they look back and realize that nobody’s following them.) Or consider Haiti’s efforts at democracy, which have made the recent voting process in Florida look like pure professionalism. Violence, harassment of the media, the “accidental” removal of opposition candidates from the ballot, and other occurrences are a regular part of that unfortunate nation’s electoral process, whereas the same things (without the “from the ballot” part) occurred before “democracy” was pushed in. Elections in Kosovo have been especially violent as well, with leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army literally gunning for votes, usually at potential voters. On October 24, prospective Afghan leaders gathered at a meeting in Pakistan sponsored by the exiled king of Afghanistan, Mohammed Zahir Shah (His 40-year reign was summed up by one former subject as: “He didn’t do much for Afghanistan, but at least there was peace.”), who is interested in regaining power and currently has the favor of the United States. The meeting degenerated into squabbling, with mutual distrust and hunger for authority derailing plans for a post-Taliban government. Zahir Shah lost credibility with Afghans when he announced a pact with the Northern Alliance—a group we have been working with militarily against the Taliban—because the Alliance is remembered by many Afghans as being at least as violent and dangerous as the Taliban itself. But as much as Afghan political groups are wary of each other, they distrust intervening political powers even more. Afghans see America’s chummy relations with Zahir Shah and the Alliance as signs that we intend to decide their country’s government unilaterally. And since Afghanistan lies between Russia, China, Iran, and Pakistan, Afghans rightly fear that potentially all of these countries will try to remold a new government into one that suits their best interests. “We want peace, stability, and an Islamic government,” said one Afghan elder from Konar. “If the foreign powers leave us alone, we Afghans can unite and bring peace.” Any foreign power that tries to interfere will likely only encourage Afghans to unite against their meddling in a violent fashion. Does it really matter what kind of government the Afghans create? Columnist Michael Kelly gets it right, I think, when he wrote that America “simply wants Afghanistan to be run by people who will not use it as a base for terror against the United States.” What’s best about this desire is that it can actually be achieved. Wiping out a government that sponsors terrorism tells the successors what not to do in the strongest possible fashion, and that’s the important thing. What form of government the Afghans settle on—so long as it heeds our warning—is not. Yes, we’d prefer a republic with equal rights for all, but between Zahir Shah, the Alliance, existing Afghan culture, and the multitude of other would-be leaders, it’s not going to happen soon, no matter how much threat we employ. But don’t lose hope; Somalia eventually pieced together its own republican form of government without our help after our troops had left. Somalis chose to make the change. Afghans someday may do the same, along with the people in Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. I hope they do, but it will have to be on their terms, not ours. |
||
