TEMA EXPORT DEMOCRACY AND MILITARY INTERVENTION: THE CASE OF AFGHANISTAN Text of the debate: the debate: "Afghanistan and not only that democracy exported variable geometry", Rome, Monday, February 14
Di Francesco Martone
"Say democracy has become a prime example of the lack of meaning. By dint of representing the entire political virtuous and the only way to ensure the common good, the word has come to absorb and dissipate any problematic character, any possibility of questioning ... The word democracy means everything, politics, ethics, law, civilization, and then says nothing. "
Jean Luc Nancy
"Democratie, Etat dans that?", Editions La Fabrique, 2009
" What is happening in Egypt today is a global condemnation of the order, so far as that represented by Egypt "stable" (...). In a time when state-building is central to the doctrines of security, and in which the foreign military presence in Afghanistan is based on a scientific approach to the legitimacy and governance systems, the events in Tunisia and Egypt remind us that social order and political legitimacy are more the result of unpredictable alchemy that the product formulas exact .
World Politics Review, February 2011
----------------------
These two observations provide useful ideas to try to understand what are today, ten years since the war in Afghanistan, the contradictions inherent in the practice of democracy-building at the table, and what are the critical points on which insist on trying to build an alternative paradigm to the existing one.
essential prerequisite for this exercise is to analyze the concept the export of democracy in close correlation with the processes and choices that underlie the political and military, and first clarify the concepts of "state building" and "nation building".
According to the definition made by Francis Fukuyama in his " Exporting democracy - the Empire State Building and World Order in the XXI century " the two concepts have substantial differences.
a. "state building" is the creation of institutions Government
b. "nation building" concerns the political power exercised by the occupying authorities or directly to local governments.
These two objectives often come into conflict with the risk of cutting an autonomous process of democratization. On the one hand the lack of democratic institutions to prevent the "nation building" and other institutions can not function if the warring parties do not accept the status.
In principle, this contradiction is highlighted by several cases in support or "export" democracy.
There is the case of countries that have governance structures, institutions established, think Iraq, in which the decision to invade the country has led to the collapse of each structure of the state. In this case the two practices of state-building "and" nation-building "is a corollary to the military choose to invade a country, taken apart and then build a case for democracy" perfect "and Western-style military protectorate.
Or the case of Haiti, or Somalia, which according to the jargon of those are considered "failed states, failed states, which no longer have the appropriate structures for ensure the management of public affairs, stability or the service of fundamental rights of their peoples. In this case the decision to determine if no state is "failed" or not is all done according to criteria developed in the capitals of the world minority, without trying to listen to the needs and demands of those populations that would suffer the effects of a failed state.
The discovery of the failure of a state, opens up the possibility of 'humanitarian intervention, justified the categorical imperative to intervene where the government of that country is failing in the enjoyment of fundamental rights of its citizens, The international community then decides or less to respond to the imperatives of order "ethics and morality" and act "on behalf" of those communities under threat following what is called "responsibility to protect". And then help rebuild the state and the political system. Again the realpolitik and "ethical foreign policy" will cross over and blend depending on what is perceived to be the national interest of those who decide to practice and humanitarian intervention. Can be seen in these cases some common elements, namely the conflict between realpolitik and ethical principles, the definition of the populations addressed the effects of external intervention benefits supposedly not intended as key players in the processes of reconstruction of public affairs and democratic systems, and the strong correlation between state-building, nation-building, humanitarian intervention and security doctrines and military strategies.
And if we come to Afghanistan.
In Afghanistan the "nation building" of the quota assigned to ISAF troops or U.S. military is being pursued through tactics of counter-Insurgenta rather than through the strengthening of the principle of legality and the reconstruction of the state, society and economy. The objective of strategy of counter-Insurgenta is to create the conditions for security and control of the territory by the presence of occupying forces.
The "state building" instead is assigned to a corrupt regime without legitimacy, established with sham elections, as demonstrated in the recent parliamentary elections. Even the illusion of being able to create a central authority and centralized in Kabul with the conformation of ethnic clashes in the country instead respond to a decentralized model and quasi-federal administration.
From the perspective of the Afghan people, there is no established sense of belonging to a single nation, and instead increases the level even armed resistance of local communities that do not bear the foreign military presence. Not at random according to U.S. intelligence most Afghan fighters today are not resisting the Taliban but local military presence in their territories. Some observers even envisage a scenario similar to that of Vietnam where the Viet Cong were able to administer and govern the territories under their influence and control, with a parallel system than the "official" government.
What kind of democracy is possible in a country where those who should build the state has no popular legitimacy, who should do "nation building" is in fact a troop of foreign occupation, where they are producing alternative and parallel systems of state-building "and" nation-building "by the Taliban, in public facilities where war criminals are recycled, and where the centralized state model is entirely inconsistent with the history of the country?
Add to this a further consideration. The history of these ten years of war in Afghanistan has been characterized by a continuous transformation of the political and military itself. Started as a reprisal attack on the Twin Towers art. 5 of NATO, then the goal of freeing the people of Afghanistan by the Taliban regime then again there with the objective of stabilizing and rebuilding the country, then flush with the aim of al Qaeda and fight the Taliban Insurgenta, now with the twin objectives of stabilizing the country and to prevent Pakistan from falling into the hands of fundamentalist forces Islamic.
This "rolling process", the only element of continuity continues to be the predominance of military strategy than the policy of reconstruction of a state that can ensure respect for the rights and dignity of his people. Consequently, the only relationship that exists between the government and its citizens is based on force, a situation in which the prospects for democratization are increasingly remote.
That said, if democracy is a system that resists and strengthens the extent to which people believe in it, and is therefore based on the example and persuasion rather than imposition, then it should be, ten years after 'beginning of the war a profound and radical change of direction.
First, make a "demilitarization" of the political process: as long as it does not break this deadly embrace, there can be no process of self-determination for the Afghan people. This means that the withdrawal of the NATO could take over a police contingent possibly formed by international troops from countries not participating in the conflict and with a clear mandate of the UN. It means that a strategy of counterinsurgency strategy will be replaced by a redistribution of power and social inclusion and policy, and explore the possibility of support systems of government inspired by the community structures and local political and administrative decentralization.
Second, you should support the proposal made by large social sectors of Afghanistan, a program of transitional justice that will serve to rebuild the social fabric through a process of truth and justice on human rights violations committed by all parties during the conflict and before it, the warlords, the Taliban occupation forces; In the history of commissions of truth and justice have played the central task of listening to the victims, including restitution of dignity, bringing to light the collective truth, as precondition of the transition to a system based on rights and justice. The judicial system today it does not guarantee the right of access to justice especially in rural areas, the county courts are inefficient, and local government non-existent.
Third, development cooperation will be reconsidered by focusing on meeting the basic needs of the population. Today, development cooperation is virtually in the hands of central government and the military and a tiny fraction of the funds should be dedicated to the territory to meet the basic needs of the population such as water, education, health, electricity. Was perceived as a provider of essential public services can strengthen their legitimacy in the local population,
Fourth, and the central premise of all possible activities in Afghanistan: the supposed "beneficiaries" of the Afghan people must be regarded as the central subject and not "subject to protection." Will therefore be sustained process of self-processing practices of participation from below, and assertion of rights and justice, because without citizens and citizens there can be any form of democratic government or a better way "Afghan" democracy.
