Where Politics are personal, relationships matter

Where Politics are personal, relationships matter --   

Meeting with litigants outside an Afghan provincial court to gauge their reactions after a hearing

An online article on the upcoming turnover of diplomats at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul in Foreign Policy caught my attention this morning.  It talked about the fact that this summer, at a critical juncture in the U.S. relationship with the Afghan government, almost all of our diplomats with Afghan experience will be leaving, replaced by Foreign Service Officers who have little to no experience with the Afghan government.  This is a huge problem, and points to issues that I've been seeing in most post conflict environments -- the absence of continuity among development professionals and the inability of U.S. government officials to actively engage with their host nation counterparts.

Politics are personal everywhere you go, and especially in governments that are organized around tribal, familial, ethnic, and religious affiliations.  In these places, power sharing arrangements are negotiated between individuals based on relationships that are nearly impossible to discern from the outside.  There is a trust (and mistrust) component to every political deal.   As a result, to conduct effective development within the local context, it is essential that outside interveners get in and engage on an equally personal level.  One’s ability to influence the governance system is dependent on one’s ability to build a trust relationship with host nation counterparts.  Only then will they begin to share some of the hidden details of why things work the way they do, and what risks are involved if reform is to occur.  Close collaboration is everything, and if one is to be an effective adviser and development partner, one has to one must have the kind of nuanced understanding that can only be achieved through sustained presence and intelligent empathy. 

Unfortunately, there are several factors that are making this nearly impossible to achieve.  Personnel rotation policies favor quick-in/quick-out in order to mitigate the impact of separation and discomfort for our personnel abroad.  Within the military, deployment rotation cycles move key individuals in and out of a theater of operations in a matter of months, not years.  Within the civilian community, the problem is even worse.  Labor agreements ensure maximum consideration for working conditions, with minimal consideration for operational impact.  Furthermore, in the post-Benghazi environment, our tolerance for security risk is nil.  Embassy personnel are rarely allowed to leave protected compounds or headquarters unless security can be guaranteed.  The result is that we now have islands of diplomatic and development professionals who never see the reality of governance and rule of law in action in the countries that need effective development assistance the most.

I saw this firsthand when I returned to Afghanistan in January to conduct independent research on the future of the Afghan National Police.  I have been working on Afghanistan issues for five years and never before encountered so many key U.S. and international officials who were operating in a complete vacuum of personal experience and observation.  None of the individuals with whom I met had any meaningful contact with Afghan leaders on their “home turf.”  They had never seen an Afghan governing body in action, never seen a court in session, never observed police performance outside that of the customs and immigration officers at the international airport, and never had the opportunity to talk with Afghans who were trying to access justice or other government services.  And yet these were the people who were making policy recommendations, programming decisions, and evaluating resource strategies for development.  It was startling, and even a bit shocking.  The Afghan officials with whom I also met were aware of the problem, and resentful.  After all, they pointed out, they were the ones who suffer the impact of ill-conceived,  ill-informed, and poorly evaluated development.      

I understand the security and personnel concerns.  But the bottom line is that that governance and rule of law development is a participative and collaborative process.  If we say this is an important U.S. strategic objective, then our own bureaucratic decisions must enable relationship building and allow the necessary trust to be established.  Our personnel must accept inconvenience, separation, and assume a certain degree of intelligent risk, and they have to be empowered to do so.  If we’re unwilling or unable to build the relationships necessary to effectively engage in partnered development, then frankly, we might just as well go home.

Turmoil v. Freedom of Expression: Community Policing into the Fray

Turmoil v. Freedom of Expression:  Community Policing into the Fray -- Watching the spiraling violence that surrounded the protests in Ferguson, Missouri this week, I was reminded of a discussion that I had with a friend of mine from Freedom House (http://freedomhouse.org/  Look them up -- they do great work!) about the importance of freedom of assembly as a fundamental right.  We were talking about Burma (aka “Myanmar”) which frequently uses its Peaceful Assembly and Peaceful Procession Law as a way to arrest and imprison political and human rights activists.  The Burmese Parliament amended the law in June, but the changes have been criticized as cosmetic, and Burmese police continue to arrest those who are protesting against government actions.  As my friend and I explored development options (how do you change a culture of repression and control?), we realized that we had a growing list of countries that have been unable to strike a balance between freedom of expression and the need to maintain public order and safety.  It further reminded me of the discussions that my French Gendarmerie Deputy and I used to have in Afghanistan about the balance between policing as a security function for the government, and policing as a tool to ensure that individual rights are protected and dissenting voices are heard.

With this in mind, I watched the escalating violence in Ferguson and its increasingly militarized policing response over the past four days.  Until last night, it appeared as though nothing short of calling out the National Guard was going to quell the unrest.  And then, into the fray, stepped Missouri State Police Captain Ronald Johnson, the highway patrol official appointed by the governor to take control.  Captain Johnson ordered troopers to remove their tear-gas masks, and in the early evening he accompanied several groups of protesters through the streets, clasping hands, listening to stories and marching alongside them.  It worked.  The situation deescalated, and news this morning showed residents and protesters hugging Captain Johnson, and applauding his community policing-centric approach.   

Not all protesters have peaceful intent, of course, and there are always bad actors who will use public assembly as an excuse to incite violence and other criminal activity.  Crowds frequently get out of hand  (Recall the pro-Palestinian protests in France recently, which led to attacks on Paris Synagogues and Jews.) and when I was in Afghanistan, military commanders frequently opined that community policing techniques were irrelevant given the level of violence and instability.  But community-centric approaches do work.  They remind the public that the police are a part of the fabric of the community and not merely the face of the government.  They validate individual concerns, and the importance of individual rights.  They allow voices to be heard and frustrations to be aired. 

There are important discussions ahead about the increasing militarization of police in America, and the ability of police to demilitarize in unstable or repressive regimes abroad.  But what events in Ferguson illustrate is that it’s not an either/or proposition.  Community policing is as relevant in high tension and conflict as it is in peace.  And regardless of context, it can and does work.