Disambiguating Corruption in Afghanistan

Some observers on Afghanistan claim that ending corruption is key to a successful resolution of the Afghan conflict. However, ambiguity over what what constitutes corruption and which type of corruption is bad for Afghanistan can create empty statements and hazy recommendations. There are two types of corruption - political and economic - which we can further subdivide into local or central phenomena.

Afghanistan is a primitive economy with little legal framework and few institutions to regulate the way business is done. A contract to move goods for instance can be sealed over a cup of tea and a hand shake. This leaves a lot of room for corrupt practices such as pocketing money for personal gain, patronage, bribery and other impairments to "economic competitiveness". However, because of the weakness of governance, enforcing laws pertaining to economic transactions is difficult - neither is it necessary. A society can effectively function without complex legal contracts and procedures. Patronage, for instance, was a mainstay of the politics and economy of the Roman Republic and Empire throughout its history.

The U.S. government, in its attempts to help Afghanistan, is wasting its time trying to change local economic corruption. Yet there is still one aspect to be wary of here and that is how much international monetary assistance actually find its way into the hands of the enemy. By controlling territory, the Taliban and other insurgent groups have ironically the capacity to indirectly receive funding provided by the U.S. government (for instance, the U.S. will subcontract a trucking company, which then has to pay local insurgents duties to pass through territory they control). Given the economic situation of Afghanistan, some of this is unavoidable until the enemy is destroyed or reconciled.

The second category of corruption in Afghanistan is also economic but takes place at the top. Here, the problem is more important because the scale is bigger. It's also something the U.S. and the Afghan government can do something about.

Due to the same weaknesses we find at the local level, Afghanistan's resources can similarly be funneled to a handful of well connected cronies. Because the rich spend less of their incomes, and because it is easier at this level to take the money or profits out of the country, economic corruption at this level is worst.

Since this type of corruption affects international aid, the U.S. has the power to act on this and it should. In principle, international contributions are made to accomplish something. If that something is not fulfilled, then we have a failure of foreign policy. Big ticket items such as building roads, trucking contracts and construction projects should be handed out with greater accountability. Instead of supplying those services and goods through our own means (such as PACs), the U.S. government should continue to enable local elements. But they should break it down in smaller pieces (think micro-financing) and bypass the central government when it makes sense going straight to local endeavors. They can also use a tiny portion of the contribution money to hire a small army of American civil servants to monitor projects and see that things are being done.

To curb the problem of top economic corruption, the Afghan government could also heed the recommendations of Ashraf Ghani, an Afghan politician, and create an independent auditory body to monitor the financial transactions of government officials and members of their entourage.

The third category is local political corruption. This concerns the administration of the regions, tax collection, law enforcement and security. It is often what we call "governance" and it is of utmost importance. The amount of political corruption and the weakness of governance in the regions are the main reason why the insurgency has gained strength. Since I have discussed it before, I will not do so here. Suffice it to say that the root causes for local political corruption were a lack of legitimacy in local institutions administered by the central government and interference in tribal self-determination. The solution should be a move towards a de facto federative state granting more autonomy to the Pashtun tribal areas.

Lastly, let’s discuss political corruption in the central government. The latest example of that comes from the formation of the Karzai cabinet which was rejected initially by parliament at the end of December 2009. The progressive parliament wants an end to political appointees nominated for reasons other than technical merit, or open democratic appeal. There is no denying it: Karzai nominates cabinet members based on their ability to bring blocs of votes during the campaign as well as their capacity to deliver more broadly political support for the government. Afghanistan is not a democracy like we have come to expect in the West. Its internal situation is more akin to the international landscape of states vying for power in an anarchic environment.

While empowering progressive parliamentarians and reducing political corruption is a good objective, it should not be of immediate concern. In fact, the type of power broking and dealings that continues to take place is a necessary process that still needs to go a distance with the discontent Pashtun segments of Afghan society.

By and large, fixing corruption will not resolve the conflict in Afghanistan should therefore not be central to the solution. It is an impossible or incoherent task given the nature of the Afghan system. Moreover, corruption is primarily a problem within the Afghanistan that "works" - the one governed by the northern coalition of victors in 2001 and headed by Hamid Karzai. The Afghanistan that doesn't work is in "Pashtunistan". While recognizing that political corruption at the local level is the primary cause of the insurgency, fixing the corruption in the system is not the right angle. Instead, the U.S. should focus on supporting the right local actors therefore bypassing the problem of corruption or passing it on to the local actors instead of weak central government agents.

Resolving the economic corruption at the top would also have a positive impact on regional economics which would in turn keep young men away from insurgency, but it will not resolve the fundamental problems which are political and military in nature. The solution rests in negotiations and reconciliations with what Karzai called his "discontent brothers", and incorporation and representation for them within Afghan society and government. Alternatively - but also conjointly -  the means are to destroy the enemy that seeks no compromise.