Presidential elections are a major test, but daunting challenges still remain.
As Afghanistan takes its next steps down the path of democracy tomorrow with its second presidential election, the world's fourth poorest nation will travel a road pockmarked with dangers and pitfalls equal in gravity to the explosive traps set by the Taliban to deter votes.
Eight years since the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan's central government remains weak and corrupt, and the failure to develop functioning state institutions has caused some to fear Afghan democracy is being built on a foundation of sand.
While all agree the elections are a crucial rite of passage towards entrenching Afghanistan's nascent democracy, some are now suggesting a renewed focus on local government is needed to deliver services and make Afghans buy in.
Contrary to popular belief, Afghanistan was once a functioning democracy, says Afghanistan's new ambassador to Canada, Jawed Ludin. From about 1963 to 1973, under the watchful eye of Afghanistan's final king, Mohammad Zahir Shah, a vibrant, if turbulent, parliamentary democracy flourished.
Following the ouster of the king by a princely cousin 1973, however, Afghanistan's national nightmare began. During the 30 intervening years of civil war and foreign occupation, Mr. Ludin says, his country experienced a "very deep and fundamental disfiguration of political culture."
Afghan democracy was resurrected following the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. A series of loya jirga, or traditional Afghan "grand councils," and the return of the elderly king, "meant there was a reconnection to that old history," he says.
A former spokesman-turned-chief of staff to President Hamid Karzai, Mr. Ludin says the current president's high standing at the jirgas allowed him to handily win Afghanistan's 2004 presidential election. He believes this first election did much to legitimize the constitution and its processes, and Afghans were deeply impressed both that they had the chance to vote, and that Afghanistan finally had a leader who had come to power by peaceful means.
But while Afghanistan's first election had important symbolic value, Mr. Ludin says, "the second one is vital."
"To hold the election as promised in the constitution proves the constitution is not just a piece of paper," he says. "It means this whole thing is not actually empty words and we mean what we say; that this is a meaningful process."
"That's why we had to really push for this election: because not having these elections would put the whole past eight years, and the future, in doubt," he says. "People would just say, 'Well, it was just another exercise. It did something symbolic a few years ago, but at the end of the day, not much has changed and this is not really the new Afghanistan that we hoped to see.'"
Mr. Ludin says successful elections will deal a major blow to insurgent morale, and he hopes they will push some moderate Taliban to realize they are on the wrong side of history and join the political fold.
"This is a thousand times more effective than all of the military forces we have used in the past eight years put together," he says.
If Mr. Karzai wins, as is widely expected, "the whole reconciliation process will take a huge impetus," Mr. Ludin says. Bringing the Taliban into Afghan politics will be a major goal for next year's district elections, where many are expected to run for elected office.
"The most important thing is to get Taliban into the process at the district level," he says.
Foundations of Sand
Ahmed Rashid is one of the world's leading experts on Afghanistan, authoring books such as Descent into Chaos and Taliban.
While Mr. Rashid acknowledges that Afghanistan will undergo a crucial rite of passage with this week's presidential elections, he says the institutional foundations that support democratic government remain weak and underdeveloped.
"The building of democratic institutions, which is far more important than elections, hasn't taken place," he says by telephone from Lahore, Pakistan. "We haven't seen the strengthening of the parliament, the judiciary, of the police, of the rule of law, of all the institutions that back up civilian democracy."
Mr. Rashid says the United States appears to view elections as a panacea, and has generally neglected institutional state building.
The Taliban, and the inability of Afghan and international forces to provide security, are the biggest hindrances to democratic development, he says. A failure to kick-start the Afghan economy and provide jobs and investment in basic fields like agriculture have also caused people to lose faith in the government.
Ultimately, he says, maintaining Afghan democracy depends on education, the economy, jobs, security and fighting corruption.
"If the insurgency continues, if jobs are not provided, if the economy does not take off in any meaningful way," he says, "then we're going to go back to warlordism and...all the rest of it."
Mr. Rashid says he believes that democracy has taken root in Afghanistan. But while successful elections have taken place, a peaceful transfer of power—what many consider the true test of a democracy—has not.
"Every single leader since 1973 has been killed or deposed violently," he says. "You need a peaceful transfer of power to take place without people reaching for their guns."
Better Think Local
A major problem in nation building is that Westerners wish to impose Western-style governance on others, says Mark Sedra, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation whose work focuses on Afghanistan. But building a Western democratic system in a few short years is simply not feasible, he says, and the results are unlikely to remain stable in the long term.
Mr. Sedra says that throughout Afghanistan's history, central governments have tended to be weak, and viewed with suspicion. Instead, local governance and judicial structures have been pre-eminent in the lives of Afghans, with disputes being settled and consensus built at village councils and shuras, or "consultations."
While local governance structures are counted on to swiftly deliver their own homegrown brand of justice, he says, the national government has lost legitimacy by not providing for the people.
"That's the problem today: the only interaction most people have with any central state institution is through corrupt police or a corrupt local official sent from Kabul," Mr. Sedra says. "The people don't see the benefits of reconstruction, so why should they support the central government?"
Mr. Sedra says local leaders are not elected, but derive their support and legitimacy from their elder status, and a community consensus on their leadership. These local bodies should be supported, he says, as a way of extending the reach of the state and making it more effective.
"I think there should be more emphasis on encouraging or empowering local communities through quasi-democratic traditional structures like the shura and the jirga system, and building those into the democratic process," he says. "The formal system can work with informal structures to build a more culturally sensitive, legitimate and effective system in Afghanistan."
While Mr. Sedra admits that this "hybrid" governance system would likely not be as democratic as Western systems, he warns that Westerners should keep their expectations in check, and not expect Afghanistan to become Switzerland overnight.
Afghanistan's community-based nature will also manifest itself in the presidential elections, he says. Communities can be expected to vote as blocks for candidates chosen by local elders for some time to come.
What Could Go Wrong
Ahmed Rashid says he fears this election will not go as smoothly as the previous one, and outlined a number of potentially destabilizing outcomes.
A very low turnout of below 30 per cent could be "hugely detrimental," he says, as the losers would likely then demand another election. Similarly, he says, if ongoing fighting prevents the Pashtuns of the south from voting, President Karzai could himself demand a re-vote, as he looks to this area for support.
Meanwhile, if Mr. Karzai wins the election in the first round, the losers could band together and accuse him of rigging the election. If Mr. Karzai fails to win 50 per cent of the vote and a run-off in October is required, Mr. Rashid says, it would open an "extremely dangerous" two-month window of opportunity for Taliban disruption.
But the biggest threat of all, Ambassador Ludin says, is that one of the 38 presidential candidates will be killed.
"Before the elections, if a candidate gets killed, then by law, the elections will have to be postponed," he says. "That's the biggest fear."