Afghanistan’s former Foreign Minister and a presidential candidate in the current elections, Abdullah Abdullah, perhaps broached one of the most troubling posers for Afghan as well as international opinion when he said: ‘ The government has failed to stabilise Afghanistan to the extent that eight years down the road, we would have been able to see less troops rather than more.’

Herein lies the conundrum which Afghanistan presents. Eight years after the former US administration launched the loudly-trumpeted ‘war on terror’ and sought to bring stability to Afghanistan by militarily neutralising the Taliban through a massive influx of Western troops to the country, Afghanistan remains a chronically conflict-ridden state. In other words, the ‘war on terror’ has failed to achieve its aims and political normalisation is remaining a bleak prospect, although the country could be said to be going through the motions of an electoral process.

The Taliban is remaining at large in Afghanistan and its obdurate survival over the years is added proof that the military option alone just would not prove effective in situations where much more than military muscle is needed to put things right. The rising human toll in the Afghan theatre makes a mockery of the contention that more and more Western troops in the country, coupled with the best of military hardware, could bring the militant resistance of the Taliban to heel. For instance, UN sources were quoted saying that the number of Afghan civilians killed in the conflict increased by 24% during the first six months of this year in comparison to the same period last year. Besides, NATO and US forces are believed to have suffered ‘record losses’ this summer with 75 troops being killed in July. Meanwhile, British troop casualties in Afghanistan have reached the 200 mark.

Nevertheless, the US would prefer to showcase Afghanistan as being on the road to political normalcy. Said US envoy to the region Richard Holbrooke: ’Afghanistan has never had a contested election, so this is a remarkable experiment in democracy and something Afghanistan needs to give legitimacy to the new government.’

The West is not erring in backing efforts to put into motion even a semblance of the democratic process in Afghanistan, but it is a matter for pondering whether such moves would prove superficial, disjointed and fragmentary as long as Afghanistan is not free of foreign troops and of external interference in the running of its affairs.

A comprehensive programme of political normalisation would involve the conduct of presidential and legislative elections in a violence-free environment and the installation of a broadly representative government which would make Afghan self-government a reality. Simultaneously, there would need to be a progressive withdrawal of foreign troops from the country. Needless to say, this is hardly the case, and as long as this is so, one wonders whether Afghanistan could indeed be paraded by the West as a state where self-rule and democracy has been substantially achieved.

However, in this its second presidential election since 2001, some qualitative improvements could be said to have been incorporated into the political process that has been put in motion. For instance, some 30 presidential contenders were initially in the running, when the electoral process got off the ground. Of these, two were women.

For a country where oppression of women has been an everyday reality, this is a remarkable ‘first’. The appearance of women contestants for the highest political office indicates that the political process in Afghanistan – whatever its limitations – is beginning to be inclusive to a degree and that women are becoming increasingly aware of their inalienable rights. Apparently, more and more women are beginning to question the validity of institutions and practices that have over the decades had the effect of effacing and stifling their dignity. All this would eventually add to the vibrancy of the democratic process in Afghanistan.

However, if it is political legitimacy for incumbent President Hamid Karzai that is being sought through the electoral process, then, it is open to question whether this could be achieved in full under current Afghan conditions. The biggest stumbling block in Karzai’s path seems to be the rampant public sector corruption he is presiding over. Apparently, the substantial funds that are flowing into the country are being embezzled with impunity by state-sector Mandarins and other personnel who have a vested interest in the current sorry state of affairs in the country. Worse, Karzai is seen as doing nothing about it.

The proliferation of public sector corruption, moreover, is a stinging indictment of the US and Karzai’s other foreign backers. For, the conclusion is inescapable that the latter are doing nothing about the growing anomalies in the Afghan body-politic. To the extent that corruption thrives under Karzai, to the same degree could the US be said to be winking at bad governance.

How, then, could legitimacy be obtained for the current administration in Afghanistan? Currently, Afghanistan has been placed 176th out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s Annual Global Corruption Perception Index. What more evidence would one need to prove that the situation regarding bad governance has reached alarming proportions in Afghanistan?

If the West means well by Afghanistan it would need to help the country in ushering good, accountable governance. If it doesn’t, one could only conclude that such commendable motives are farthest from the minds of the West. It would then seem that the West is merely intent in maintaining a military presence in South-west Asia out of geopolitical considerations; one of these being to have a firmer grip on the region’s strategic and energy resources.