Democracy and the "rule of law."

While it is indeed possible that the state - building as the U.S. has been doing in various parts of the world to date is based on democracy and the rule of law, it might be reasonable to mention at this point the "rule of law" language could be overdone just a bit by policy makers.  Here's why:  In the utilitarian world, that is, the world espoused with utopian goals along the lines of what we know essentially to be modern or neo - liberalism even along hegelian lines, the rule of law is reduced to and atomized into the norms we all learn as individuals in school and in our experience in society on the one hand.  On the other hand, the rule of law as a principle that is elevated to overriding deity status for those who believe there is the law and only the law as enforcing the edicts of the international state and its rules and norms as pushed out to media, other states and their statesmen, and other, interested parties.  This again, is a strictly liberal view and one of systemic totemism, and the author here contrasts the global utilitarianism behind this principle with the overall conservative belief in the functions of the state in our own village as rule - maker and rule - enforcer among other things - bicameral legislature, a judiciary based upon principles such as the Bill of Rights and human rights, and a chief executive that is elected (for starters.)

 

I might be citing some high - school history book without really knowing it here, but the normativeness and the relativeness that are sometimes bred into the state as adopting above all the principle of the rule of law do engender meta - juridical functions in society and in the state in which judicial officials can abuse the overall legal considerations - those of business, culture, the arts, economics and finance, science and so on, even sports and entertainment - between society and the state as built - up that discourage proper legal procedure and action in what we see as appropriate within our scope of people living in a free society.  The unbounded legalism of the former soviet union is one such example of improper administration as brought about by the institution of utilitarian socialist superstructures, especially the judicial.  There are other, less obvious examples and though the principle of upholding the morals and norms of society has great merit, the concentration of any state administration on legal(istic) principles and practices throws it out of balance; sort of like when Beria was at the head of the party in one way or another in soviet times. 

 

Many of the difficulties in the open conflict in Afghanistan at this time call for diffusing the apparent and glaring administrative / political issues that prevent the government there from gaining more legitimacy among its people.  There are issues as well like making sure the police are properly trained to handle terrorist situations, and diffusing again the influence of the Taliban in many places.  There is also the international relationship with Pakistan and Afghanistan that has U.S. politicians worried about the stability of both countries.  Efforts so far have been to try to win hearts and minds with U.S. personnel taking the lead, though terrorism continues to be a fearful danger to everyone there and in neighboring states right now.  The Taliban as well continues to engage in violence while summarily avoiding truces and alliances with the Afghani government or provincial governments under Kabul, much less do the Taliban take part in peaceful fine - tuning as it should be at this point.  All of this might be avoided in some way or another through the recognition of some traits in Afghan society by its leaders and some cession on the topic of territoriality and provincial groups (not the Taliban here) to Kabul might be in order. 

 

The nightly news features Western - style photo opportunities for Afghani leaders, something that might be irksome to their sometimes ultra - liberal citizenry in some places, and the influences of the Western powers in the present administration there are palpable and might be annoying as popularized as well - this attempt to bring some decent organisation to the chaos in the country that has reigned for so long, even from before the soviet invasion in the 1970's, is highly commendable, though to some Afghanis the values and culture(s) of the country's society might obviously conflict with the type of legalism introduced into their system by the presumably foreign allies under our latest polity.  Another difficulty is the U.S. policy - makers up to this point have only too well understood the issues of the Middle East and Central Asia as they have been there for a long time, and through the lens of the policy - making of our own governments, the Afghanis are only too quick to point out the fissures and faults.  This has resulted apparently in an over - reliance on security forces and legal proceedings that are not equipped nor prepared on a domestic front to support the level of criminal activities that take place there, including the terrorism.  Another sub - plot in the story of the "Frog and the Scorpion," and / or the social and societal pains of state - building in foreign places where some of the citizens might not actually be interested in the "Federalist Papers" or Western norms and rules, and not out of simple ethno - centrism or cultural refutation.