“Democracy” in Afghanistan - the Afghanistan Research and ...

Deconstructing “Democracy” in Afghanistan
2. Democratisation Efforts in Afghanistan
Modern democratic institutions—and more
specifically, bodies of elected representatives and
the polls held to select them—were not established
in Afghanistan for the first time post-2001. Indeed,
there is a considerable history of attempts to
“modernise” politics according to democratic
principles: a parliament was established in the late
1920s under Amanullah Khan, sets of consecutive
elections for parliamentary seats took place in
the 1960s, and elections of a kind were held
under the Soviet-backed People’s Democratic
Party of Afghanistan in the 1980s. 25 The successive
parliaments of 1965-1969 and 1969-1971 functioned
in a very similar manner to the way in which the
current parliament operates, as the Constitution of
Afghanistan formed during the post-Taliban Bonn
Process was built around the 1964 Constitution
of Zahir Shah’s “era of democracy.” As such, it is
wholly incorrect to assume that the so-called Bonn
Process took place against a blank slate, and many
of the institutions that have emerged during the
formation of post-Taliban Afghanistan are in fact
continuations or developments of much earlier
versions.
A new rhetoric of democratisation was promoted
to underpin the state-building initiatives
driven by international actors after the 2001
military invasion. These initiatives involved the
establishment of a transitional and then interim
government headed by Hamid Karzai, followed by
the country’s first presidential elections in 2004.
Coordinated by the Joint Elections Management
Body (JEMB) and largely an internationally-run
exercise, these elections were hailed as a great
success at the time, with a turnout of almost 80
percent across the country. 26 While the official
declaration of a free and fair election was not
25 For a full listing of elections in Afghanistan and the history
of democratic institutions see Anna Larson, “Toward an Afghan
Democracy” (Kabul: AREU, 2009), 5-8.
26 Joint Electoral Management Body, “Final Report: National
Assembly and Provincial Council Elections 2005,” http://www.
jemb.org/pdf/JEMBS%20MGT%20Final%20Report%202005-12-12.pdf
(accessed 17 June 2006).
entirely consistent with the perceptions of many
Afghans, who were first-hand witnesses to the fraud
that occurred, 27 the achievement was nevertheless
impressive. Parliamentary and provincial council
(PC) elections followed in 2005, once again
with a relatively high turnout. The inauguration
of parliament in November 2005 marked the
conclusion of the four-year Bonn Process, which
from the outset was specified to be “a first step
toward the establishment of a broad-based, gendersensitive,
multi-ethnic and fully representative
government.” 28
Since this time, the Wolesi Jirga (lower house of
parliament) has completed a first full term and a
new parliament has recently been inaugurated.
These events have been accompanied by a plethora
of short-term, donor-funded programmes. Often
implemented before or after an election, these
have attempted to provide technical assistance to
promoting various aspects of a “democratisation”
agenda encouraging the strengthening of civil
society, the promotion of women’s rights and
gender equality, the consolidation of political
parties and attempting to establish mechanisms
of subnational governance. However, these have
remained largely superficial engagements, and have
been undermined in many ways by international
actors’ preference for dealing with the executive
over and above elected bodies. 29 In one respect,
their character emphasises how the international
community’s stated commitment to promoting
democratisation was not accompanied by
27 Various interviews, comparative experiences of elections.
28 “Agreement on Provisional Arrangements in Afghanistan Pending
the Re-Establishment of Permanent Government Institutions”
(Bonn Agreement), http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/
Documents/Bonn-agreement.pdf (accessed 21 April 2011).
29 Interestingly, having promoted a highly centralised system in
Bonn, international perspectives appear to be shifting. For example,
Charles L Barry and Samuel R Greene of the US Department of Defenseaffiliated
National Defense University seem to put forward the case for
decentralisation as a way forward for international democratisation
programmes. See Charles L. Barry and Samuel R Greene, “What Democracy
for Afghanistan? An Analysis Utilizing Established Norms and five Non-
Western Cases” (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University, 2009), vi.
9