By: Kevin-Chris
Gründel
From:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/world/asia/afghan-police-chief-escapes-attack-that-kills-4-civilians.html?ref=world
An assassination attempt on the 27th of
August on the chief of the police force of Kandahar Province by the Taliban
failed, but took four innocent lives. The target, Gen. Abdul Raziq, is conducting an offensive against
the Taliban in the south and already faced several attacks on his life. The locals of
Kandahar province respect Gen. Raziq, as his archaic crudity has resulted in improved security in the region.[1]
While Afghanistan`s official title is the “Islamic Republic of Afghanistan”, it is questionable how realistic the
democratic part of the hybrid regime is. Therefore we skip to analyze
the Islamic aspect of the hybrid regime and focus on the democratic part of the
title. A Republic is not synonymously a Democracy, but both contain core
elements which are found in a democratic ideology, which is here shortly
verified.
Theoretically, a democracy is not single ideology, but
it implies ideas that make it a significant classical system of governance.
This system influenced and combined ideologies from the Antique until today.
The core aspect is the “rule of the people”, so the regime in Afghanistan must
at least follow four principles to be in the range of the democratic ideology
factors. First, the sovereignty of people must be ensured which forces the
authorities to gain their power by the legitimating of their ruled people via
elections. This implies that the authorities must represent the will of the
people. Secondly, this includes ruling of the majority of the people. Thirdly,
their public issues must be solved effectively by voting. Fourthly, every
citizen must have an even chance to get elected as an authority, which ensures
political equality among the people.[2]
Herein we compare the theory with the real situation
in Afghanistan by using this news article. Following the first principle, clear
elections ensure an authorized ruler to represent the will of the people. This
is not the case in Afghanistan as people are threatened with violence to vote
at all.[3] This leads to the failure
of the second setting of a democratic ideology, the reign of the majority.
There are even cases in which the winners list is published before the
elections in Afghanistan are started.[4] The question of the third setting is thereby answered,
as well. Voting does not solve public issues, as free
and peacefully voting cannot be ensured at all. In addition, issues are
often “solved” by the use of force. This point is strengthened by the
fragmentation of the state itself.[5]
The last aspect is therefore not ensured, as
well. There is no political equality between the citizens, which is underlined
by the obligatory financial bribe in the voting procedure to win elections.[6]
This clearly shows that the theoretical ideology ideas, combined in
democracy, are not realized in the political practice
of Afghanistan. Even though the state is called a Republic, it is only this way
on paper.
By these factors, the part of “Islamic” isn’t analyzed
at all, which would question the title of republic even more as Afghanistan is theoretically a not workable hybrid regime of democracy and religious
fundamentalism.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario