I keep learning bits about Afghanistan

[Craig234]

I've talked about things I see about topics like the Afghans' diverse views, their not feeling support for a corrupt US-backed government and so on. I just saw this from the Guardian, less than 5% of Afghans voted in the last election (my bolding)...

Before westerners succumb once again to labeling rural Afghans regressive for indifference or support of the Taliban, we must acknowledge how disrespect for the sanctity of life across Afghanistan’s countryside helped generate this sentiment.

When analyzing the US and the Ghani administration’s failures and the Taliban’s success, it is critical that we understand rural Afghans’ victimhood at the hands of US and Nato forces. These forces maimed, tortured and killed rural Afghans, their limbs collected for sport. They went so far as to define innocent, teenage boys as “enemy combatants” to justify their crimes and falsify statistics.

But in addition to understanding the US and Nato forces’ war crimes, we must understand why capital and democratic processes rarely reached rural Afghans. This will allow us to understand why it was that they could so easily undermine the Ghani administration’s legitimacy.

Ghani did not represent Afghanistan – 923,592 Afghans, that’s 2.5% of the population, voted for him. Only 4.75% of the population felt engaged and/or safe enough to even vote in the last election.

Furthermore, Kabul and other Afghan cities are not representative of where Afghans live – 28 million of the total 38 million Afghans live in rural areas. The urban elite are not representative of Afghans – 80% of Afghans rely on rain-fed agriculture and cattle-grazing for their incomes.

Appalling levels of economic, social and political inequality persist between urban and rural Afghans. This inequality is a known fact; it only took the Taliban, in a manner similar to communists in the 1970s, to exploit it and overthrow Ghani’s administration.

As we reflect on the war in Afghanistan, it’s crucial that we incorporate the urban-rural divide, which considers class, ethnicity and other socio-economic factors, into our understanding and assessment of the current state of Afghanistan – the Taliban already do.

 

[ataraxia]

I've talked about things I see about topics like the Afghans' diverse views, their not feeling support for a corrupt US-backed government and so on. I just saw this from the Guardian, less than 5% of Afghans voted in the last election (my bolding)...

The idea of democracy is really an odd and foreign concept in highly religious societies like Afghanistan. Democracy presupposes that fallible human beings can have legitimate differences of opinion which can be sorted out through rational discussion, negotiation, and compromise. It assumes that we can come up with useful concepts that are not already in the holy Scriptures. The religious worldview presupposes that there’s God’s way, and then there are infidels and heretics.

So when faced with differences of opinion, the religious person is thinking : “who here represents the Will of God, and who’s is the heretic who needs to be shut up and killed?” They are not thinking “what are some interesting new ideas and insights in this person’s position here? What parts of this do I agree with? What parts of it am I willing to compromise with?, etc…

This type of mindset an approach to governance is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. You can see how that does not predispose to much of a mindset of open-mindedness to new ideas, or new ways of doing things, negotiation, honest and rational debate, compromise, or other critical components of modern democracy as dreamed up by thinkers of the European enlightenment and their progeny, the founding fathers of this country.

This is why the idea of democracy is so foreign in places like Afghanistan or the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is also why democracy is becoming so increasingly precarious here in the US with the rise of Evangelical Christians since the 1980s. This type of more modern, post scientific and enlightenment approach is precarious enough even here in the west. It’s completely alien in places like Afghanistan and Iran. For them to accept and adapt it, it would require fundamental and massive changes in culture and mindset, and this cannot happen in a few short years, or even in a few generations, if ever.

“Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last Centuries in favor of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others, a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government & Religion, neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a Coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger can not be too carefully guarded against. And in a Government of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness & stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical & Civil matters is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all Sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law was right & necessary; that the true Religion ought to be established in exclusion of all others; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true Religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of Sects dissenting from the established Sect, was safe and even useful. The example of the Colonies now States, which rejected Religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom. And a continuance of their example since the Declaration of Independence has shewn, that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent Country. If a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States which have abolished their religious Establishments. I can not speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia, where it is impossible to deny that Religion prevails with more zeal, and a more exemplary priesthood, than it ever did when established and patronized by Public authority. We are teaching the World the great truth, that Governments do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson, that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government…

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.... During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”
-James Madison

 

[Craig234]

The idea of democracy is really an odd and foreign concept in highly religious societies like Afghanistan. Democracy presupposes that fallible human beings can have legitimate differences of opinion which can be sorted out through rational discussion, negotiation, and compromise. Assumes that we can come up with useful concepts that are not already in the holy Scriptures. The religious worldview presupposes that there’s God’s way, and then there are infidels and heretics.

I think what you say is correct in ways; but too broad a brush. Many people in those societies are not only very compatible with democracy, but better at it IMO than many or even most Americans. You mention the Islamic government of Iran; but Iran had democracy ok before the west overthrew it, supporting those Islamic forces. Even when the Shah was overthrown, the two competing groups for power were Islamists and communists. They could do democracy.

In many countries in the Middle East, they were quite able to do democracy, but the west prevented it, installing dictatorships, using Islamists as forces to kill 'leftists', which included democracy or human rights advocates.

The 'they can't handle democracy' claim is an easy one for anti-war supporters to grab onto, but it's not as right as they think IMO. Democracy is a worthwhile goal, but can take care to establish. Too often, the US is its enemy, even if installs faux democracies claiming to support democracy.

What you describe better fits parts of Afghanistan; the rural Afghans, and the Taliban, who are often illiterate old boys and young men who know nothing but their indoctrination.

 

[ataraxia]

I think what you say is correct in ways; but too broad a brush. Many people in those societies are not only very compatible with democracy, but better at it IMO than many or even most Americans. You mention the Islamic government of Iran; but Iran had democracy ok before the west overthrew it, supporting those Islamic forces. Even when the Shah was overthrown, the two competing groups for power were Islamists and communists. They could do democracy.

In many countries in the Middle East, they were quite able to do democracy, but the west prevented it, installing dictatorships, using Islamists as forces to kill 'leftists', which included democracy or human rights advocates.

The 'they can't handle democracy' claim is an easy one for anti-war supporters to grab onto, but it's not as right as they think IMO. Democracy is a worthwhile goal, but can take care to establish. Too often, the US is its enemy, even if installs faux democracies claiming to support democracy.

What you describe better fits parts of Afghanistan; the rural Afghans, and the Taliban, who are often illiterate old boys and young men who know nothing but their indoctrination.

Of course there are large segments and both Afghan and Iranian societies that can do democracy. But they’re not the majority. Another example that came to mind right now for me was Turkey. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, back in the period after World War I, tried to get religion out of politics there and institute secular Democracy. That worked but not even for a full century. Now there is a reactionary backlash against it there.

Ir look at Israel. Back when Israel became a country in the 1940s, leaders like Moshe Dayan and Golda Meir had a very secular vision for the government of Israel. When Israel captured Jerusalem after the six day war, the rabbis were very eager to destroy the Islamic Dome of the Rock. It was the secular leaders and military generals who ordered the soldiers to stand down and make sure no harm was done to the structure. It would have been an absolutely catastrophic move, both politically and militarily. But at the time, this created great tension with the religious leaders. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed and the secular leaders won, and the mosque was not harmed.

But with the rise of the orthodox Jews now in Israel, It is not at all clear that the loyalty of the Israeli soldiers today would allow them to listen to the secular leaders over their religious ones anymore. If there is a difference of opinion today between the religious and secular leaders, it is not at all clear with whom the loyalty of the Israeli soldiers would lie. There was an article in Time magazine several years ago about this developing split loyalty in the Israeli army and its potential dangers in any future conflict.

Not only are such ideas of modernity like democracy rather alien in majority areas of countries like Afghanistan, Iran, and Turkey today, they are coming under increasing siege even here in the United States. The momentum is with the conservatives and reactionaries.

Why is this happening? The rise of modern secularism, the scientific mindset, rationalism, and secular democracy only happened in a few short centuries. It created massive changes in societies and cultures around the world in a very short period of time. Any sociologist can tell you that such rapid changes are sure to create strong resistance and backlash. This was a great book I read a few years ago about this phenomenon of the rise of reactionary fundamentalism in the world in response to the rise of modernity since the late 1970s. It traces the rise of fundamentalism everywhere from the Islamic revolution of Iran to the rise of the orthodox Jews in Israel, to the rise of Evangelical Christianity as a political force here in the United States. It’s a fascinating read if you’re interested in this subject:

The Battle for God: Armstrong, Karen: 9780345391698: Amazon.com: Books

The Battle for God [Armstrong, Karen] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Battle for God

www.amazon.com

The momentum is with them. It remains to be seen whether the pendulum will swing back and the project of the enlightenment and American democracy can be sustained. It is under siege,and seems to be in a precarious place right now all around the world, including right here at home.

 

[Craig234]

The momentum is with them. It remains to be seen whether the project of the enlightenment and American democracy can be sustained. It is under siege,and seems to be in a precarious place right now all around the world, including right here at home.

It's a good post, but I disagree with one thing. I think societies *can* change more, that the idea that because something is very old it has much more durability is exaggerated. For example, France adopted to change pretty well after centuries of absolute monarchy. Culture, in one sense, is no older than what people now learned. Put an ISIL Taliban baby into a secular New York city home, and they won't grow up Islamist because of history.

I'm not saying it isn't very hard generally. You might have seen a recent thread I did how it's shocking how a simple idea that can be said in a sentence on what homosexuality is, took decades of progress in the US to sink in and change views.

I think I'm on your side as well in that I think Americans largely don't appreciate 'cultural' issues like Islamist Afghans' views of women; they simply disagree and think the Taliban should change their views, simple.

I think a huge problem has been less the people in the countries, but rather US incompetence if not malevolence in its 'democracy projects', whether Vietnam, Iran, Iraq Afghanistan, or elsewhere. It's hard to think of where the US made a real effort to actually install democracy well, perhaps except in Japan after WWII I'm not very familiar with. But they changed from a culture whose whole history was based on an uninterrupted claimed 5000 years Emperor succession.

 

[ataraxia]

At this point, forgot the rest of the world. Secular democracy is under serious siege now right here at home. This whole weird little experiment of the European enlightenment with democracy has been a rather contingent and odd little development, and not at all guaranteed to prevail in the long term- here or elsewhere.

But I hope you are right and it does. There’s clearly a lot more work to be done to try to get there.

 

[Craig234]

At this point, forgot the rest of the world. Secular democracy is under serious siege now right here at home. This whole weird little experiment of the European enlightenment with democracy has been a rather contingent and odd little development, and not at all guaranteed to prevail in the long term- here or elsewhere.

But I hope you are right and it does. There’s clearly a lot more work to be done to try to get there.

The topic is far more complex than any easy discussion. In my opinion the key difference has nothing to do with long history or religious issues, but rather, is the huge change from the massive increase in wealth and inequality since the industrial revolution, and the advances in communication, mass media, advertising.

It simply makes things apples and oranges trying to draw lessons between sociological issues from 150 and more years ago and modern situations. Of course, this doesn't much affect rural Afghans who do live a lot like they did for hundreds of years. The issues of democracy and hierarchical societies are rather timeless, though. We agree what a 'historical accident' democracy is.

 

[cpwill]

I've talked about things I see about topics like the Afghans' diverse views, their not feeling support for a corrupt US-backed government and so on. I just saw this from the Guardian, less than 5% of Afghans voted in the last election (my bolding)...

1.6 Million out of 9.7 million registered voters voted, despite Tailiban violence against those who did so, and promises to attack polling stations.

That's about 16.5%; which isn't great, but, is several times the number given by the author you cite, who is, apparently, either unaware that children can't vote (the average age in Afghanistan is 18.4), or is willing to deceive his audience by suggesting a larger denominator than would be correct.

 

[TheParser]

1. Kabul was an outlier when it came to a semblance of Western social mores.

2. Most of Afghanistan is populated by people who are perfectly happy with religious rule.

3. Just heard that some kidnappers have been publicly hanged.

4. And one Taliban official says that amputations will soon start again.

5. The United States made a horrible mistake by staying there after it dispatched the mastermind of 9/11.

6. Afghanistan is Afghanistan. It will never change. Can a leopard change its spots?

7. Most Americans have no doubt already forgotten about that country. Wise decision!

 

[Craig234]

1.6 Million out of 9.7 million registered voters voted, despite Tailiban violence against those who did so, and promises to attack polling stations.

That's about 16.5%; which isn't great, but, is several times the number given by the author you cite, who is, apparently, either unaware that children can't vote (the average age in Afghanistan is 18.4), or is willing to deceive his audience by suggesting a larger denominator than would be correct.

It looks like you're both guilty.

It appears there that while there are 9.7 million registered voters, there are over 20 million adult Afghans. So he understated it by including all Afghans, and you overstated it by ignoring all the adult Afghans who are not registered to vote. It looks like less than 8% of adults voted, half for Ghani not counting any fraud. So his point was substantively right, but exaggerated by counting everyone.

 

[cpwill]

It looks like you're both guilty.

It appears there that while there are 9.7 million registered voters, there are over 20 million adult Afghans. So he understated it by including all Afghans, and you overstated it by ignoring all the adult Afghans who are not registered to vote. It looks like less than 8% of adults voted, half for Ghani not counting any fraud. So his point was substantively right, but exaggerated by counting everyone.

If you are looking for electoral participation, registered voters is the salient base. By the same math, as he uses to make his "point", Biden only won the support of about 24% of Americans, and is therefore also not representative? How much do you think he would have gotten if local republican offices were assassinating people for putting up Biden signs, and shooting up urban polling stations? Betting, "fewer".

 

[Craig234]

If you are looking for electoral participation, registered voters is the salient base. By the same math, as he uses to make his "point", Biden only won the support of about 24% of Americans, and is therefore also not representative? How much do you think he would have gotten if local republican offices were assassinating people for putting up Biden signs, and shooting up urban polling stations? Betting, "fewer".

He was looking for the answer to the question, what percent of Afghans had shown support for Ghani by voting for him? The answer to that question would include both those who voted against him, registered voters who did not vote, and Afghans who were not registered to vote in the denominator.