Elections do not make good democracies, elected officials do

As the world watches to see the results of the first free election in Afghanistan, there are questions concerning how the outcome will affect the nation’s stability. Will there be election fraud? Will the Taliban try to disrupt the ballot counting?

Will the election disputes be satisfied, or will there be violent infighting between political factions? The response to these questions is that, no matter the outcome, the people are responsible for their candidates.

When a country declares it has sovereignty and creates a government to lead its people, the only way sovereignty can remain legitimate is if the government respects the spirit of its people. It does this by passing just laws, taking just actions, and leading by the example the people agree upon.

A democratic republic attempts to do this by directly engaging the people in the process of governance. Ultimately though, whatever actions are taken are ordered by elected officials, who in doing rightly will fulfill their oaths to serve not just some but all of the people.

The United States has instituted a democracy in Afghanistan that is holding elections. That does not mean, however, that a democracy actually exists there. When people are dominated by another entity, whether it is the Taliban’s occupation or the United States’ occupation, the spirit of the entire people is not served.

When the Taliban cuts off the fingers of voters and bombs public places in the name of its insane ideology, it is attempting to dominate the people and convert or kill them. Even if there is an election, it does not necessarily mean the people will be served.

For instance, Iran’s government thinks of itself as an Islamist republic, a religious free state (even though this is in itself an oxymoron). Though it held an election this summer for the presidency, the results were heavily disputed. In a true republic, these disputes must be resolved peacefully, and must happen with the spirit of the people in mind.

Iranian citizens who protested the election were beaten, imprisoned and killed, thus proving the government was serving its own interests to stay in power. The government’s elected officials denounced the protestors as foreign-backed interlopers, and declared everything was legitimate. All the while the government was cutting every line of communication to the outside world to hide its crimes and obscure the truth.

At one time Afghanistan was a thriving, beautiful and surprisingly egalitarian place. It can be that way again, so long as its people are capable of electing officials who can envision it. It might happen that this election will yield a valid and respected ruler who is in touch with his people, or it might be that it produces a buffoon.

If the country accepts that ruler, it accepts the wisdom of that person’s judgment. For the past eight years the United States was viewed as a pigheaded, lethargic and foolish nation. It served the spirit of the times, and it had the appropriate official behind the steering wheel. While the jury is out on Afghani democracy, that country has the capacity to be great again. It can change, after all, we did.