The effort to implant a fully-formed government in Afghanistan, protected by Nato troops, has not succeeded. Is the alternative for Britain and America to buy their way out of trouble, handing out dollars in return for assurances of loyalty – or perhaps for promises not to attack withdrawing Nato soldiers?
The exchange of dollars for violence (or protection) may just be one of the worst-ever models of government. That's what we are faced with. Far better would be a civil, inclusive and stable patronage-based system of rule. Unfortunately, by failing to draw a distinction between legitimate patronage and corruption, Nato in Afghanistan has inadvertently helped corrupt those patronage systems that do function well.
The road out of this mess will be long and difficult. A starting point is to recognise how a more legitimate patronage system might work.
Reciprocity is the most basic feature of human society. It's the simplest rule that keeps families, communities, workplaces and governments functioning. In a law-bound, institutionalised system as in western democracies, we have made reciprocity an abstract virtue. Where the institutions don't function – as in Afghanistan – these personal transactions are what stops the country lapsing into chaos.
Read Full Article »