The facade of unity regimes

Enlarge Image

Altaf Qadri / the associated press A worker stands near a stack of ballot boxes before loading them onto trucks at the Independent Election Commission compound in Kabul, Afghanistan. (CP)

There are plenty of good reasons to do this. Holding an election in Afghanistan is a challenge at the best of times, and with little reliable security and impending winter weather, one could argue that the Nov. 7 election will be nearly impossible to pull off. Not to mention, Afghans can hardly be blamed for declining to risk their lives to vote a second time. Instead, it is hoped, Karzai and Abdullah can solve their differences, share power and save everyone a big headache.

Sounds good, doesn't it? In theory, yes. And in the short term, this is quite possibly the case. Yet, while "unity government" has been the mot du jour for many politicians and analysts, it is a concept with significant shortfalls.

The idea of unity government came to prominence in the violent aftermath of the Kenyan elections of 2007. To solve the crisis, President Mwai Kibaki (the incumbent who, it is alleged, rigged election results in his favour) and opposition leader Raila Odinga were urged to negotiate. After lengthy negotiations, an agreement was reached. Kibaki retained the presidency, Odinga took on the newly established post of prime minister, and 44 others joined them in a Grand Coalition cabinet.

The arrangement secured peace and most Kenyans were supportive of the coalition. After 100 days in office, a poll found that 65 per cent of Kenyans supported it. It seemed that the internationally mediated unity government was the solution to Kenya's problems, democracy was safe, and peace restored.

Since then, however, the unity government has been a dismal failure. A year after it was founded, a second poll discovered that 70 per cent of Kenyans thought the unity government had achieved "nothing." While the coalition has not accomplished anything, there is also talk of rampant corruption and little has been done to address the violence of 2008. Meanwhile, the cost of maintaining a bloated cabinet (up to 44 members from 17) has taken a significant toll on Kenya's treasury.

There are now reports the same groups that caused so much strife in 2008 are re-arming in preparation for the 2012 elections. Rather than being a long-term solution that promoted good governance and peace, the unity government has served as a Band-Aid solution that failed to address the underlying problems that resulted in violence.

Another prominent unity government can be found in Zimbabwe. Once again, a ruling president, Robert Mugabe, used a unity government as a guise to maintain power after apparently being defeated by opposition leader Morgan Tsvangerai.

Again, there have been some apparent benefits for the people of Zimbabwe. No longer is the nation quite the pariah on the international stage it once was. Moderate reforms have eased the economic crisis for some Zimbabweans. The very real threat of violence against Mugabe's opponents has subsided somewhat.

Yet, similar to Kenya, other than luxury "get-to-know-you" retreats at Victoria Falls, the new government has done little to improve the lives of many Zimbabweans.

The list goes on. Recent coups in Madagascar, Guinea, and Honduras have established, offered, or attempted to negotiate unity governments. Need to legitimize an illegitimate regime? Not a problem. With the quick addition of a few posts to your cabinet you gain respectability. Can't rig the election quite convincingly enough? No worries, a unity government will keep you in power.

These stories provide several reasons why Afghanistan (or its North American friends) should think twice before promoting a unity government. Unity governments tend to work very well for those who are in them (the cars, houses and pay cheques that come with a ministry position are definitely a perk) but do not seem to do much for people in the countries they ostensibly serve. An Afghan unity government would benefit Hamid Karzai, Abdullah Abdullah and a few of their closest friends, but do little for ordinary Afghans.

Secondly, unity governments make a mockery of the democratic process. It seems now that all you have to do is rig results and you automatically become the perfect candidate to continue ruling with some bones thrown to the candidate you "defeated." No repercussions, no strings attached. If the goal is to promote the long-term health of democracies, throwing democracy out the window if the election result doesn't work out quite right seems dangerously short-sighted. Why bother holding elections at all, if the real results are to be settled through negotiations behind closed doors?

Given the tremendous challenges in Afghanistan, there are important issues about the feasibility of the Nov. 7 vote that need to be addressed. There are obviously particularly challenging issues to be faced in Afghanistan. Merely papering over these problems by getting Karzai and Abdullah to form a united government, however, will likely not help Afghanistan in either the short or the long term.

Stefan Epp is research associate in the department of environment and geography at the University of Manitoba, and has a master's degree in history from Queen's University.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition October 25, 2009 A10