The Afghan election is looking awfully good
■"Plan for Investigation Into Afghan Election Eases Dissent: Despite irregularities, a high turnout and minimal violence," by Amy Waldman, New York Times, 11 October 2004, p. A3.
International organizations ponied up $200 million to finance the elections in Afghanistan, and the consensus of observers seems to be that it paid off. Not much violence, no more irregularities than your average election in Florida, and 13 of the 15 candidates accepting the outcome without serious complaint. Yes, some investigations will follow, but you have to admit, this was an amazingly successful event for a country in which warlords still call most of the shots.
Does this make Afghanistan a democracy? Hardly. But just going through the paces counts for a whole lot at this stage of their development. Yes, the U.S.-favored candidate won and he won because the warlords wanted him to win, and that does sound an awfully lot like a one-party state.
But one-party states are not the problem per se in the Gap, so long as they rotate their leadership with a decent regularity (every four to six years), and so long as broadband economic connectivity takes root between average citizens and the global economy beyond the nation's borders. Well, one out of two for now ain't so bad, because you're unlikely to get much of the latter if you can't pull off some decent semblance of the former.