Home
Recently I was thinking about the typical pathway to democracy. It seems to me the usual pattern goes something like this:
  1. A dictator rules a bunch of uneducated idiots.
  2. The dictator realizes he needs smarter citizens to compete with other countries.
  3. The dictator educates his citizens.
  4. The educated citizens get rid of the dictator.
  5. Democracy flourishes.
In Afghanistan, the literacy rate is about 26% in cities, and 9% in outlying areas. Not surprisingly, the recent Afghan presidential election didn't work out so well. I have a feeling that version 2.0 won't be a spectacular success either.

What Afghanistan needs is a dictator who values education for his own benefit, thus setting the stage for his own demise and the emergence of democracy. The Taliban aren't the right kind of dictators because they eschew education.

But I wonder if education is the one area in which the Taliban might be willing to negotiate, assuming there are moderates among them, in return for power. Suppose we agree to withdraw our military, leaving some hardly-noticed bases that we use for hunting terrorists, in return for the Taliban allowing the U.N. to set up non-religious schools, funded by foreign assistance, with mandatory attendance, including girls. We could agree to keep any political or controversial stuff out of the curriculum.

The Taliban could still teach religious absurdities to their kids on their own time, the same way we do it in our own country. We wouldn't like what the Taliban teach their kids, especially the parts about killing infidels. But in the long run, the Afghan education system would produce a citizenry that demands democratic reform. It might take 200 years, but that's not bad for a country that is in the Stone Age.

The risk, of course, is that once we leave, the Taliban beheads everyone who thinks education is a good idea, and spends all of their drug profits to set up Bed and Breakfast places for Al-Qaeda. I will stipulate that the beheading scenario is likely. My only point is that Afghanistan needs a pro-education dictator more than it needs a president who steals elections. Maybe we shouldn't be trying to skip steps.

 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +12
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
Nov 3, 2009
>"It might take 200 years, but that's not bad for a country that is in the Stone Age."< It's sentences like these that screw up an otherwise good post.

Think again, Scott, and this time don't get carried away with your own witty rhetoric. Is that country in the Stone Age? Really? The whole country? Do you realize that there's a difference between the Taliban and the common people of Afghanistan?

It's one thing to casually toss around loose statements like those in the comfort of your own home or other private space. But your blog is not one of those spaces, unfortunately, and statements like those will only serve in giving comfort to hard-headed bigots who read your blog, and strengthen their prejudices.
 
 
Nov 2, 2009
Scott,

I guess, you need to look up "eurocentrism" to properly understand where your line of thinking has taken the wrong turn. You are not alone at that, quite the contrary - quite a few people believe that education and progress necessarily cause the need in western-style democracy. However, this is very far from reality and this primitive determinism is upsetting in a provocative and smart person, such as yourself.

Note too, that this particular line of thought has been the very driving force behind fascism and national-socialism, the ultimate developments of eurocentrism. And you are going the same way, if you dare to look ahead.
 
 
Nov 2, 2009
Scott, you have an impressive following. 48 comments, none of which are too crazy in either direction. Some are misinformed, but it's not easy to get accurate information from media outlets competing with each other to attract attention. I must tell the guy who thinks we only recently started talking that I was in Afghanistan with the US army in 2003. We didn't shoot anybody, but talked to lots of people. One thing I learned is that religion is so ingrained into everything that we in the west just can't relate. Thus, the idea of a school with no religion is impossible. The law comes from religion. Judges are trained in what we would call a seminary. Keep that in mind when planning the "democracy" for Afghanistan.
 
 
Nov 2, 2009
You forgot steps 6 and 7.

6. Success causes public to become lazy and ignorant.
7. Country behaves stupidly and slides into ruin
 
 
-2 Rank Up Rank Down
Nov 2, 2009
I doubt this. I guess it's my own opinion

<a href="http://pathghana.com">Tour Ghana</a> <a href="http://getlyris.com">Mobile Computing</a>
 
 
Oct 31, 2009
6. Powerhungry leaders/elites find themselves in charge of a smart democracy.
7. Leaders/Elites of the democracy see that the people are too smart to be controlled.
8. The leaders set out to stupidify the electorate and make them dependent/subservient to the leaders.
9a. Tha alekterite gits dumber-er.
9b. The elites and leaders take over.
10. A dictatorship ensues. Return to step 1.
 
 
Oct 30, 2009
Excellent post, Phantom II
 
 
Oct 30, 2009
You're too young to remember. . . as a matter of fact, so am I. But I do recall from history what happened to the British Empire. Colonialism, the enlightened westerners around the time of WWII thought, was the height of evil in the world. Those countries who had colonies began to be forced to divest themselves of their charges, regardless of what the effect of that divestment would be. I recall a story which may be apocryphal, of Churchill and Roosevelt talking while Roosevelt was working on his stamp collection. He mentioned to Churchill that he had a stamp from one of the colonies. Churchill inquired as to which one it was. Roosevelt replied, "One of the last."

So there was a rush to grant independence to countries in all stages of their development, or lack thereof. Some, like India, pushed for independence, while others were simply granted it. Some, like Australia and Canada, stayed loyal to the Crown but became independent. It can be argued that the longer the country was under British rule (there were 146 British Colonies, altogether) , the more effective they were at forming a government and successfully establishing some form of democratic government.

Fast-forward to Afghanistan. This is a country that is largely tribal, said tribes having little allegiance to the central government. They identify more with the tribes of north Pakistan than with the government in Kabul, and what ties them together more than allegiance to any government is their religion. This is why al-Qaeda has virtually free passage between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

We have to face what we have there: a no-man's land where terrorists reign. Leaving Afghanistan would be like going back to pre-9/11 and saying, "OK, guys, go ahead and hit us again."

We're there to protect western civilization from attacks by Islamic extremists. We need to prop up the Karzai government (or whomever wins; it doesn't really matter to us) and then crush the Taliban and force them to run to the hills of Pakistan; then, support and push the Pakistani government to continue and increase their offensive against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. We can catch them in a pincher and effectively remove them as effective adversaries.

That's what General McCrystal wants to do. That's why he's asked for more troops. President Obama knows what he has to do, campaign rhetoric aside. And that's what he will do, because to do otherwise is to give up all the gains we've made in blunting terrorist threats against the west.

So the question of 200 years of Afghani progress is secondary. What we have to concentrate on now is making sure that our enemies understand our resolve is firm and that we're not going to cut and run. Obama can do that by sending the troops McCrystal has requested. If the Taliban and al-Qaeda see that even a far-left president like Obama is going to do what it takes to protect this country and the west, they may begin to realize that they have a lost cause. What's keeping them going now is their belief that the US doesn't have the stomach for a prolonged conflict. If they start to doubt this central tenet of their recruiting pitch, that is, that they can outlast us, then they'll start to fall apart.

This is a prime moment in history. It will be, as the Chinese curse says, interesting times.



 
 
Oct 30, 2009
As an interesting aside, have you tried applying your list of questions from the last post "Decisions With Incomplete Knowledge", to the decision to invade Afghanistan? Now let me see...

How much experience do the experts have with this question?
Hmmmm....

Does the expert have a conflict of interest?
- Bingo!

What's the worst thing that could happen?
Hmmmm......

How easy is it to switch course if you choose wrong?
- Well....

What information can you find on the Internet?
- Oooh, loads.

Who has made this choice before? Were they satisfied?
-Russia, Britain. Let me ask........no.
 
 
Oct 30, 2009
@luddite: has US run schools in the US led to a peaceful and productive population there?
 
 
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 30, 2009
It would be more efficient to just do this ourselves. Establish US-run schools, and brainwash all the kids into being peaceful and productive. In 30 years, Afghanistan would be just like the US. Granted, this would be very expensive.
 
 
Oct 30, 2009
The Taliban does not trust the UN (or the US) enough to believe we are doing this for any reason other than their destruction. What you would need is an Islamic state to act as an independent 3rd party, someone like Saudi Arabia. There also has be something in it for the Saudi's, like a cut of the Emerald mines that are located in Afghanistan.

The Saudi's can teach hard line Islamic law, so long as they teach the other fundamentals too. Inevitably, the youth of the nation will discover other view points while they surf the web for !$%*! and thus the revolution begins. I am pretty sure this is how it happened in the US back in the 1700's.

Note: I am not an expert on the Islamic religion and the Saudi's might be a completely different sect or branch from the Taliban, but you get the point.
 
 
Oct 30, 2009
I think you leave out a step (or two):

1. A dictator rules a bunch of uneducated idiots.
2. To prop up his rule he needs strong central control
3. Strong dictators bring stability
4. Stability brings about investment and economic growth
5. Economic growth brings about a middle class
6. The middle class either demands an education system or pays for it
7. Citizens become educated
8. The dictator educates his citizens.
9. The educated citizens get rid of the dictator.
10. Democracy flourishes.

I think economic prosperity has more to do with overthrowing tyrants than education, but they are linked together.
 
 
Oct 30, 2009
you mean that if we promote GOOD education - with attractive salaries for teachers, modern methods, and the like, we will get an electorate that's educated which will improve the country for all?

Great idea - maybe we could try that in the US....
 
 
Oct 30, 2009
I don't think you realize how bad religion is. Those people are in deep doo doo for at least another century.
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 30, 2009
@rbgos:
> Iran has a pretty good education system. I have a few very well eductated Iranian friends,
> male and female (although they were all smart enough to emigrate to Scotland!!)

What this educated 'elite', the same people who rebelled in the streets of Teheren, ignore, is the fact that outside of Teheran, there is little education and much more religion. There are several sources who say that, while it is likely that the elections were manipulated, the result would have been the same without it. This is no different from the US, were many do not have the opportunity to vote.

> It also has a very young population, which is another good factor for initiating political change.

Young population also means people die early, means they have other things to worry about that politics.

Look at China. They have the same problem over there, very harsh conditions and few rights for workers. But you can see how the developing centres of the nation are dominating the picture and adhere much more to western philosophy, even including capitalism.
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 30, 2009
There's an interesting section in Superfreakonomics about how the introduction of television into rural India drastically improved equality for women where other measures failed. Maybe we should stop sending Marines and start sending Seinfeld reruns.
 
 
Oct 30, 2009
I think we should invite the Taleban back in, get all the smart and good people out, have robots walking in burkas to lull them into believing they still women their, then turn the place into glass. Then move back and export glass in a few hundred years to make Televisions for the masses.

-----------------
"I'm sorry we had to defend ourselves against an unwarranted attack. I'm sorry that [you Taleban were] stupid enough to [to attack the United States], including ... people [of your own religion]. And I'm sorry I waited as long as I did before I blew them all straight to hell! [pauses] As with everything else, it's the thought that counts. "
 
 
Oct 30, 2009
Could someone remind me, what's the aim of the war in Afganistan?

Is to bring peace by imposing an obviously corrupt goverment? If so, then WTF is the point in that? Lets all just quickly f.u.c.k off back home and leave them to it.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 30, 2009
Iran has a pretty good education system. I have a few very well eductated Iranian friends, male and female (although they were all smart enough to emigrate to Scotland!!). It also has a very young population, which is another good factor for initiating political change.

It does have a democracy, of sorts. But the choices of the electorate are pretty limited and are controlled by the unelected religious leaders, there is widespread belief the recent election was rigged, so it's not really working too well. It also demonstrates that, just because a country is a (sort-of) democracy, doesn't make it not dangerous/hostile to America!

I do like your theory, Scott, but Iran suggests that education is not enough on its own to create what we would recognise as an effective, free democracy.
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog