| The spread of democracy has been an integral part of Western foreign policy agendas for some time now. Certainly since the beginning of the 20 th century, there has been a fairly consistent trend towards democratisation throughout the globe. This has occurred both through grassroots pressure (the orange revolution in Ukraine, democratic revolution in India, and the end of apartheid in South Africa) and through Western meddling, most notably in the current era, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. The democratisation projects of late have seen varying degrees of success. What pertinent' features states must possess in order to successfully democratise, and whether these, or any impeding characteristics, are present in Afghanistan, I aim to outline in this paper. I will then question whether democratisation is a desirable foreign policy objective, and whether such a strategy is the most appropriate for addressing the most pressing issues in Afghanistan: security and development.;The latter part of my question is perhaps slightly more controversial than the former. The spread of democracy, having been a consistent feature of Western foreign policy for decades, has drawn many academics to question the means by which this policy is pursued. Only more recently has the question of whether democratisation ought to be pursued at all arisen. Throughout the Cold War, the ideological battle between the superpowers forced states to ally with one of the camps --- that is, democracy or communism. The end of the rivalry saw democracy triumph, supposedly legitimising the unrelenting vigour with which the U.S. sought to spread its ideology. The pseudo-democratic governments that were supported under this policy backfired on many occasions however, drawing criticism to this approach. Afghanistan's precarious democratic situation leads me to question whether democratisation is the most appropriate strategy for this state. In particular, I aim to look at the so called 'War on terror', and scrutinise the ability of democracy to eliminate or reduce the terrorist threat emanating from Afghanistan.;I will start my discussion by looking at the requisite features of a functioning democracy, in order to lay the foundation for later arguments.;I analyse 4 variables that determine a states' readiness for democracy. The first is the road to democracy; how the transition occurred, and what the state's situation was prior to the regime change. The time frame and method of democratisation can give us an insight as to the diligence with which the government was installed, and consequently its likely success. The second variable is elections. This is the most important logistical component of a functioning democracy, and is absolutely indispensable to the legitimacy and integrity a democratic government enjoys. Thirdly, I will look at the issue of identity. Democracy, being a system of government that requires participation by the people, must invoke a sense of national identification with the government; without such sentiment, a government's legitimacy will be shallow and democratic in name only. The last variable I identify as important to a genuine democracy is an adequate infrastructure. In particular, I will be looking at media and communication channels as a means of expressing the electorate's opinion. This, again, is crucial to a democratic government that adheres to the people's will. Once I have established how and why these variables are important to proper democratisation, I will apply them to Afghanistan, and pass judgement on the prospect of successful democratisation here. |
