Many critics of democracy promotion point to Hamas winning elections in Gaza as Exhibit A-Z for why elections are bad. I don't get that view. It isn't democracy if it is one vote used to justify a dictatorship of the winner. If Hamas rigs new elections or doesn't allow another election, that is not democracy and does not invalidate the pursuit of democracy.
And if Hamas wins a largely free election, it strips away the excuse that the people of Gaza bear no responsibility for the actions of Hamas.
Lately, the Afghan elections have been up for severe criticism. There was rampant vote fraud, mostly carried out by President Karzai's supporters:
U.N.-backed fraud investigators on Monday threw out nearly a third President Hamid Karzai's votes from the country's disputed August election. The findings set the stage for a runoff between him and his top challenger.
It was unclear, however, whether the Afghan-led Independent Election Commission would accept the findings of the fraud panel and announce a runoff. Karzai's spokesman said it was too soon to make a judgment based on the figures released by the panel.
Some have argued for pushing Karzai out as punishment for the fraud. Others for accepting the rigged result for the sake of "stability."
Patience, oh skittish ones.
We should do neither. We cannot strip away the legitimacy of tne next ruler, whether Karzai, Abdullah, or someone else, by making him seem like the choice of America. And that is exactly what we'd do if we push out Karzai because of the fraud or validate his rule despite the fraud.
Let the election process proceed under Afghan law despite our impatience. We should use our influence to make sure the laws are followed and not for getting the "right" result.
And don't hold our troop and strategy decisions hostage to election results. That signals to Afghans that the result and not the lawful process is the most important thing about democracy.
Sending more US troops will take time. By the time a new runoff election is held and finalized, our troops will only start to arrive in strength even if we decide today to send more troops.
Besides, I don't think we should focus so much on the central government as the sole source of governing legitimacy. I fear this entire issue is just an excuse to run away from the war.
Rule of law can take time, and a ruler with damaged credibility because of the fraud that delayed results is better than a ruler installed now with no credibility. The very act of identifying fraud and acting to correct it is a fine signal to send to Afghans in a world of sham elections. That is worthy of our military support.
UPDATE: There will be a runoff election:
Afghanistan's election commission Tuesday ordered a Nov. 7 runoff in the disputed presidential poll after a fraud investigation dropped incumbent Hamid Karzai's votes below 50 percent of the total. Karzai accepted the finding and agreed to a second-round vote.
The announcement came two months to the day after the first-round vote and follows weeks of political uncertainty at a time when Taliban strength is growing.
Karzai said final results showing the need for a runoff were "legitimate, legal and according to the constitution of Afghanistan."
Good. We can't expect perfection. But we can insist on legitimacy, legality, and constitutionality. That emphasis on rule of law is a sound basis to go forward.
