Afghanistan Democracy
camO_o
Join Date: 2004-04-19 Member: 28028Members
Join Date: 2004-04-19 Member: 28028Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">excellent article</div> There's an excellent article on the washingtonpost.com site detailing some concerns involving the recent election in Afghanistan, centering on the Afghan village of Dehnow. It's a very nice read, and it brings up a lot of issues probably everyone has been concerned about, but aren't very popular topics of discussion, with the Presidential debates and all.
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20892-2004Oct9.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...2-2004Oct9.html</a>
In short, it highlights the problem of the inability of many Afghans to make informed political decisions, instead depending on village leaders to decide their vote for them; secondly, several problems involving the election process, ala Florida style. In the village of Dehnow, at least, nearly all the citizens have a less-than-frank understanding that they will be all voting for Hamid Karzai, who the U.S. has been heavily favoring.
Other problems include security issues - a number of Taliban owned rockets aimed at election centers, for example, and Afghan's very own "butterfly-ballot" problem - many voters were overwhelmed by the enormous list of 18 names, and many voters, when they sought help with their ballots, were directed to vote for Karzai.
Finally, the article discusses whether or not the seemingly successful execution of the election is really indicative of an emerging Democracy in the Middle East, or whether it is simply the silence before the storm.
Even if you didn't read the article - that should be enough for you to have a fairly good understanding of the topic. Post away.
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20892-2004Oct9.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...2-2004Oct9.html</a>
In short, it highlights the problem of the inability of many Afghans to make informed political decisions, instead depending on village leaders to decide their vote for them; secondly, several problems involving the election process, ala Florida style. In the village of Dehnow, at least, nearly all the citizens have a less-than-frank understanding that they will be all voting for Hamid Karzai, who the U.S. has been heavily favoring.
Other problems include security issues - a number of Taliban owned rockets aimed at election centers, for example, and Afghan's very own "butterfly-ballot" problem - many voters were overwhelmed by the enormous list of 18 names, and many voters, when they sought help with their ballots, were directed to vote for Karzai.
Finally, the article discusses whether or not the seemingly successful execution of the election is really indicative of an emerging Democracy in the Middle East, or whether it is simply the silence before the storm.
Even if you didn't read the article - that should be enough for you to have a fairly good understanding of the topic. Post away.
Comments
And as far as the Afghanistan election, it'll be a cold day in hell before you get me to believe that this 'democratic process' is anything but a rigged installation of yet another U.S. puppet. Karzai is winning by a landslide. The U.S. backs Karzai. Is anyone surprised? I know I'm not. It's the old U.S. method of 'we control the world because we say so' all over again. Invade, conquer, 'democratize'...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And as far as the Afghanistan election, it'll be a cold day in hell before you get me to believe that this 'democratic process' is anything but a rigged installation of yet another U.S. puppet.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even a puppet can move in undesired ways, seperate from the puppet-master's wishes. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
On a side note -- OH EM GEE, Google does NEWS now?! <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And as far as the Afghanistan election, it'll be a cold day in hell before you get me to believe that this 'democratic process' is anything but a rigged installation of yet another U.S. puppet. Karzai is winning by a landslide. The U.S. backs Karzai. Is anyone surprised? I know I'm not. It's the old U.S. method of 'we control the world because we say so' all over again. Invade, conquer, 'democratize'... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strange since it's the EU that's running the election. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And as far as the Afghanistan election, it'll be a cold day in hell before you get me to believe that this 'democratic process' is anything but a rigged installation of yet another U.S. puppet. Karzai is winning by a landslide. The U.S. backs Karzai. Is anyone surprised? I know I'm not. It's the old U.S. method of 'we control the world because we say so' all over again. Invade, conquer, 'democratize'... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strange since it's the EU that's running the election. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So does that mean that the EU is really a puppet of the US. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Kazaria is probably the only name that most of the people recognize, hence the landslide. You need to lay off the conspiracy theories, not everything is an evil conspiracy.
That sux and all, but last time I check Saudi Arabia was its own soverign nation. We have no more say in their election process than we do in Frances. Women were allowed to vote in Afghanistan, so how is your little jab there relavent?
That sux and all, but last time I check Saudi Arabia was its own soverign nation. We have no more say in their election process than we do in Frances. Women were allowed to vote in Afghanistan, so how is your little jab there relavent? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So now a nation's sovereignty is a guaranteed shield against our intervention, even when its non-democratically elected leadership demonstrates itself to be barbaric to its population?
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Iraq and Afghanistan are meant to have elections so they too can be . . . uh . . . sovereign? And if they <i>do</i> become truly sovereign, and the population elects officials who decide that they like what they see in Saudi Arabia, who will we be to stop them?
So, the jab is relevant, because we're supposed to be encouraging . . . you know . . . Democracy. And I'm thinking of the long term success for these sort of elections in the region. This is the <i>first</i>. You can't clap your hands and claim, "Swell! That's solved, they're gonna be a Democracy forever now!"
Certain elements in Afghanistan would be encouraged by what they see in Saudi Arabia.
That sux and all, but last time I check Saudi Arabia was its own soverign nation. We have no more say in their election process than we do in Frances. Women were allowed to vote in Afghanistan, so how is your little jab there relavent? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So now a nation's sovereignty is a guaranteed shield against our intervention, even when its non-democratically elected leadership demonstrates itself to be barbaric to its population?
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Iraq and Afghanistan are meant to have elections so they too can be . . . uh . . . sovereign? And if they <i>do</i> become truly sovereign, and the population elects officials who decide that they like what they see in Saudi Arabia, who will we be to stop them?
So, the jab is relevant, because we're supposed to be encouraging . . . you know . . . Democracy. And I'm thinking of the long term success for these sort of elections in the region. This is the <i>first</i>. You can't clap your hands and claim, "Swell! That's solved, they're gonna be a Democracy forever now!"
Certain elements in Afghanistan would be encouraged by what they see in Saudi Arabia. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we should invader Saudi Arabia and force them to allow women to vote? And you have no problem with Iraq, because their people can freely vote for whomever they want?
I just want to clear this up, because that is what I am interperting you are saying.
That sux and all, but last time I check Saudi Arabia was its own soverign nation. We have no more say in their election process than we do in Frances. Women were allowed to vote in Afghanistan, so how is your little jab there relavent? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So now a nation's sovereignty is a guaranteed shield against our intervention, even when its non-democratically elected leadership demonstrates itself to be barbaric to its population?
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Iraq and Afghanistan are meant to have elections so they too can be . . . uh . . . sovereign? And if they <i>do</i> become truly sovereign, and the population elects officials who decide that they like what they see in Saudi Arabia, who will we be to stop them?
So, the jab is relevant, because we're supposed to be encouraging . . . you know . . . Democracy. And I'm thinking of the long term success for these sort of elections in the region. This is the <i>first</i>. You can't clap your hands and claim, "Swell! That's solved, they're gonna be a Democracy forever now!"
Certain elements in Afghanistan would be encouraged by what they see in Saudi Arabia. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we should invader Saudi Arabia and force them to allow women to vote? And you have no problem with Iraq, because their people can freely vote for whomever they want?
I just want to clear this up, because that is what I am interperting you are saying. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't invade your allies, but some cooperation would sure be nice.
That's why I used the more generic term, 'intervention', not 'invasion'. We could always dust off that little trick called "Diplomacy". If <b>I</b> may now venture between the lines, 'invasion' was the first and only solution which occurred to you? Odd, that.
However, my point is that it's sad that our 'allies' are <i>apparently</i> making this decision, at this time. It would be nice if we could kindle a diplomatic effort to bring them around--after all, according to the unnamed source, it's an <i>administrative</i> issue (of course, if you believe that one . . .).
I think it's a blow to what we're apparently trying to accomplish, and short of reversing the decision, it'd be nice to at least voice our sincere displeasure, lest we start some goose-gander tension in our fledgling Democracies.
And regarding Iraq, I wouldn't count that election in the win coloumn as an accomplishment just yet. However, while I certainly don't agree with the invasion, it's in our best interests (and our responsibility) to do this <i>correctly</i>.
Almost missed this one:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even a puppet can move in undesired ways, seperate from the puppet-master's wishes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, sometimes we've been known to back the <a href='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ahmed+chalabi' target='_blank'>wrong horse</a>.
Its true that (if you believe that democracy is the right form of government for Afghanistan) that this is a step in the right decision, but the process of political development is slow and often painful. Let's not let our leaders convince us that the battle is over just yet.
Its true that (if you believe that democracy is the right form of government for Afghanistan) that this is a step in the right decision, but the process of political development is slow and often painful. Let's not let our leaders convince us that the battle is over just yet. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But which of them has said "Put ur feet up boyz, jobs done"? Not many - its all about "the long road ahead" and "this is the first step in the right direction".
We have kinda nationbuilt before. Japan was Modernised but by no means democratic before the US took over in 1945, so this sorta thing HAS been done before, just never against such opposition.
Care to qualify that random statement?
Care to qualify that random statement? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He means the idea that individuals and local communities will be taking control of their own lives while their national governments determine how best to tie them together.
They will be bound by their laws, not their weapons. At least, if they pass the test.
The election concluded without any real complications. There was 1-2 rockets fired at one location. The factions that originally contested Karzai's win have now decided to back him and there was an estimated 74% voter turnout.
edit: Ahh didn't see Marine01 also posted this information.
Perhaps a few of you should loosen your tinfoil?
When one arguement (that the independantly monitored elections are rigged by the US) fails, Give a nonsequiter so people will be diverted from the real topic of discussing what is happening in Afghanistan.
edit: just to clarify. I think the elections in Saudi Arabia are great. They are holding the first free local elections since I don't know when. It is a start (85 years ago we didn't allow women to vote either). However it is a travesty that they do not allow women to vote. We should put political pressure on them. The Saudi elections probably deserve their own discussion thread is all I am saying.
When one arguement (that the independantly monitored elections are rigged by the US) fails, Give a nonsequiter so people will be diverted from the real topic of discussing what is happening in Afghanistan.
edit: just to clarify. I think the elections in Saudi Arabia are great. They are holding the first free local elections since I don't know when. It is a start (85 years ago we didn't allow women to vote either). However it is a travesty that they do not allow women to vote. We should put political pressure on them. The Saudi elections probably deserve their own discussion thread is all I am saying. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't recall ever backing that initial argument, and I believe that I offered enough support for my statement to show how it can have an effect on what we're trying to accomplish in Afhganistan. The first statement may have been a non-nonsequiter, but you should probably read the posts that followed.
We didn't free a nation of democratic individuals, who are now ready to re-adopt their preferred system of government. Do you honestly believe that the ultimate fate of elections in Afghanistan isn't influenced by its neighbors-- particularly those who happen to be our other allies? Saudi Arabia <i>isn't</i> setting a bad precedent?
Although, I may be a bit misinformed-- is Afghanistan now operating in a vacuum?
I don't think the U.S. <i>intentionally</i> rigged the election for karzai, but it's obvious that he has some major american support. Ink or no ink, scandal or legitimate, this is a move in the right direction for Afghanistan.
You're right reasa, it's better than poland anyway.
This is a true test of Jeffersonian democracy.
Care to qualify that random statement?
He means the idea that individuals and local communities will be taking control of their own lives while their national governments determine how best to tie them together.
They will be bound by their laws, not their weapons. At least, if they pass the test. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, you hit the nail right in the head spooge, but left out one crutial part. Jefferson in essance believed that everyone is ready for democracy anywhere at anytime. Iraq will either prove that to be true or false.
Personally, I'm skeptical.. We will have to wait and see.
You talking to Jefferson or me? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Hasn't that already been proven false? Most post-independance sub-Sahara African nations were left with functioning pseudo-democratic institutions, but none of them has emerged as a one stable multi-party democracy. Democratizing Russia would lead to a political breakdown, and futher push the Russian people into poverty.
I don't recall many European powers that once colonized that area leave back democratic institutions. Most just packed up and left.
Democratizing Russia started back in the early 90's. Democratization had nothing to do with its economic collapse. Its economic collapse was a result of its purely socialist system competing with a capitalistic system. Its undoing was speeded up by Star Wars.
Check your facts. The origins of many post-colonial African democratic institutions are in fact colonial. For example, Ghana's parliament was formed 7 years before its independence by British colonial leaders. That same parliament exists today. Also, Ghana's constitution is based off of the British Westminister system. The same influence Britain had on Ghana is visible for the influence European governments had on the institutions of the African countries they colonized.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Democratizing Russia started back in the early 90's. Democratization had nothing to do with its economic collapse. Its economic collapse was a result of its purely socialist system competing with a capitalistic system. Its undoing was speeded up by Star Wars.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice I didn't say that democratization was the cause of Russia's poverty (though a very good argument could be made for it!). I was merely critiquing this idea:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Jefferson in essence believed that everyone is ready for democracy anywhere at anytime. Iraq will either prove that to be true or false. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Russia is not ready for the consequences of democracy. Putin is not simply a power-hungry leader with aspirations of dictatorship; he realizes that to bring Russia out of its current economic woes, American- or European-style democracy won't cut it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Check your facts. The origins of many post-colonial African democratic institutions are in fact colonial. For example, Ghana's parliament was formed 7 years before its independence by British colonial leaders. That same parliament exists today. Also, Ghana's constitution is based off of the British Westminister system. The same influence Britain had on Ghana is visible for the influence European governments had on the institutions of the African countries they colonized.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Point taken.
I should of been more detailed with my post as i have done with others.
I would take the time to discuss this with you, but I think it would be more efficient just to give you a link..
<a href='http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7970/jefpco12.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7970/jefpco12.htm</a>