A Government For Afghanistan
There's a discussion going on at Fredrik Norman's place that is interesting in spots. Several of the respondents are considering what might be the best government for Afghanistan, with a proposal for federalism, a proposal for American-style government broadly, and a rejection of the same.
Aristotle gave some simple, but sage advice, to those who would design constitutional systems in suggesting that a constitution must fit its people. From a "new institutionalist" perspective, imposing an exact replica of American institutions on a people wholly ignorant of the American tradition could be disastrous. But how to tailor a constitution for Afghanistan?
I'm certainly no expert on Afghanistan, but it would seem obvious that bringing the various ethnic groups into the political system is imperative. That need not be done via federalism, which is a useful mechanism when there are already well-established parochial or regional governments, or when certain political-geographical conditions prevail (i.e. a handful of ethnic groups each scattered about distinct geographic areas). Indeed, a simple parliamentary system with proportional representation might be a better fit for Afghanistan, since such a system would force cooperation and the formation of coalitions, building trust in the process. A unicameral system might work best, or there might be geographical concerns that one would want to represent in a second chamber, perhaps elected by territory. It might be wise to have a nationally elected President, so that there is at least one official elected by the nation as a whole. And so forth.
Fortunately, a number of scholars have done some good work in constitutional design, and this is one area in which they can provide some useful insight. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.
[Posted at 20:53 CST on 02/13/02] [Link]
