Font size: 
Karzai’s reelection, however, would not serve Afghanistan’s best interests. Instead, it would imperil much of the progress the new democracy has achieved in recent years. Therefore, for both his country and his own legacy, Karzai should withdraw from the presidential contest.
Karzai’s presidency has been less than stellar, and his character has often seemed even less so. The drug trade, mounting civil violence, poor public services – all have conspired with allegations of government corruption to envelop Karzai in a cloud of criticism.
Making matters worse, Karzai exacerbated Afghan antipathy toward him by moving aggressively to consolidate power in his executive branch, to the consternation of those whose support he desperately needs to make real the promise of peace and progress in Afghanistan. Legislators in the National Assembly, presidents of provincial and district assemblies, tribal leaders, religious clerics – he has managed to alienate all of them over the course of his presidency.
Before he was elected president in 2004, nearly everyone hailed Karzai as Afghanistan’s George Washington, a reference to the father of the United States, for whom country always came first. Congressmen and commentators alike saw in Karzai what early Americans had seen in Washington: a patriot whose national reputation would hoist him above the political fray and allow him to navigate the state and its citizens through troubled waters until Afghans could shake themselves free of their Taliban moorings, much like Washington had managed to keep Americans united as they forged their first steps toward nationhood.
Karzai took well to the comparison, proudly lining the bookshelves of his palatial presidential office with Washington’s collected writings. Yet years later, as he embarks on the last leg of his reelection campaign, Karzai could not have strayed any further from Washington’s enduring model of service and sacrifice in the national interest.
Perhaps the peerless Washington set an impossible standard that Karzai can never hope to reach. But surely we can hold Karzai to the standard he set for himself two years into his current mandate. Asked in a Fortune Magazine interview whether he would run for reelection, Karzai replied magnanimously: “I want to have this country stable and constitutionally strong. I want to leave this country with a stable environment of alternative leaders. And I don’t think it is good to be running all the time. Let other people get a chance to run.”
Neither before nor since has Karzai spoken wiser words. He would do well to follow his own counsel. Were Karzai to exit the presidential election, at least two salutary consequences would ensue. First, his departure from the race would immediately place its outcome in doubt. Little else is more important for an emerging democracy than to create both the perception and reality of competitive elections, conducted freely, fairly and transparently. Karzai’s incumbency makes this impossible.
Second, were Karzai to bow out, the race would turn toward Afghanistan’s future and away from its past. With Karzai as the front-running incumbent, the election has become a referendum on his record. The relentless focus on his failures, successes and missed opportunities deprives Afghans of the debate they really need to hear: how each candidate sees the future of the state and its citizens, and how each proposes to turn that vision into reality.
Karzai’s withdrawal would also accrue long-term advantages to Afghanistan. Running a truly competitive presidential election now, so early into Afghanistan’s transition to democracy, will leave the nation better positioned to entrench the democratic values that sustain liberal democracies: civic engagement, participatory political culture, free and fair elections, and the rule of law over the rule of man.
Karzai could bequeath no greater gift to Afghanistan than to stand down. Doing so would demand of him service and sacrifice of Washingtonian proportions. If it was hard for Washington to cede the powers of the presidency and to renounce the privileges of high office, it will be considerably harder for Karzai. But for Karzai, just as it was for Washington, it is the right thing to do, both for his country and his own legacy.
--
(Richard Albert is an assistant professor at Boston College Law School, where he specializes in constitutional law, democratic theory and comparative constitutionalism. ©Copyright Richard Albert.)
