REGARDLESS OF what anyone thinks of Hamid Karzai’s performance as Afghanistan’s president, the course advocated by the Globe (“Give up on Karzai,’’ Editorial, Oct. 23) is reckless and counterproductive.
If Afghan elections are all about the government’s need for legitimacy, the case will hardly be helped by the United States’ endorsing a specific candidate, even in “indirect ways.’’ In the overheated and paranoid world of Afghan politics, a wink and a nudge would be widely and clearly seen as partisan intervention. Already, photos of President Karzai announcing his participation in a second round of voting while surrounded by Senator John Kerry and other international political heavies conveyed the international community’s deep involvement.
Partisan intervention could also backfire by providing an opportunity to play the well-worn nationalist card, not to mention providing the Taliban with another propaganda opportunity. Also, while “honesty and circumscribed ambition’’ may be desirable character traits, they are not sufficient attributes for a leader to succeed in Afghanistan’s turbulent tribal, regional, and ethnic politics.
While there is certainly a role for the United States and other nations in moving forward a political agenda in Afghanistan, a partisan intervention, concealed only half-heartedly, that selects one candidate over another subverts all notions of democracy and, more important, begs for trouble. A better policy is in encouraging a government to work together, not in playing politics and kingmaker.
Paul Fishstein
Cambridge
The writer is a research fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, concentrating in state-building and human rights in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
