A couple of decades ago U.S. foreign and security policy began placing considerable new emphasis on "nation-building," or a process by which the employment of military force against an enemy would often culminate in an effort to revamp the target country's political system into a democracy (if it was not so before). The end stage of that has often been presumed to be the holding of "free and fair elections." There's nothing wrong with that effort, in fact for one simple reason I'll return to in a moment, it makes good sense for both world peace and U.S. security.
But there are some caveats. As Paul Collier points out in the Washington Post today, for example, holding elections does not in and of itself guarantee a democratic outcome, because the candidates (or one candidate) may very well figure out a way to manipulate the system and "steal" an election. In fact, holding an election is a lot like planting a tree when the fruit we hope for is democracy. The tree may thrive, or it may not; it will have almost no chance if we just toss a seed on the ground without some preparation -- removing the biggest rocks, choosing a place near water, maybe even nurturing the seed into a sapling before planting it. And its chances will improve if more time is spent preparing the ground - loosening the soil, fertilizing, watering.
Ideally, democratic institutions must come first. A country with no tradition of democracy won't be used to the idea that the election results are accepted without protest and the opposition waits until next time to push its agenda. A country traditionally ruled by warlords, or one with strong tribal traditions, is unlikely to be able to overcome its regionalism or ethnocentrism to form a government that works for everyone. A President, once elected, may use his power to discriminate against his opponents, or against another tribe or region unless there are checks and balances of power that can effectively counter his effort. Collier also suggests that the economy of a country determines whether or not elections will lead to democracy but I believe it only appears that way because the countries that have few or no democratic institutions happen to be those that have poor economies.
It's this process, the creation and strengthening of democratic traditions and institutions, that is the only lasting basis for a well-functioning democracy. Unfortunately, it's also the hard and time-consuming part, requiring our involvement far beyond the limits our budget, or our national patience, imposes on us. In approaching decisions about Afghanistan now, the administration needs to be aware (and I think they are) of the trade-off between a long engagement and a successful end.
Is it worth the candle? It may be. Although elections per se don't necessarily lead to peace in troubled areas, as Collier asserts, it has been demonstrated that real, functioning democracies are less likely to threaten their neighbors or cause regional conflict than other types of government. Democracy -- solidly based democracy -- does make for a less dangerous world, even if elections might not.
Comments