I refrain from commenting too much on Afghanistan because lots of other people who are more knowledgeable than I am write about it frequently.  However, I have been reading a fair bit about whether or not the Taliban can govern and I think I add value to this question, so I will put in my two cents.  Whether the Taliban can govern is the wrong way to ask a good question.  The better question is whether the Taliban can get compliance from people who do not support them.  As anyone who has watched The Godfather will know, the answer is yes.

The logic is simple.  When the Taliban shows up in your village they basically offer two choices.  Cooperate and we will allow you to live or don’t cooperate and we won’t.  Whether or not people will cooperate is based on the credibility of the threat.  The Taliban has shown over and over that the threat is credible.  Thus, people have an incentive to cooperate even if they do not particularly like the Taliban’s style of justice.

When International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) soldiers show up in a village, they ask for cooperation and promise security from the Taliban in return.  Sounds like a good deal if you don’t like the Taliban.  The question is whether people who do not like the Taliban will cooperate with ISAF soldiers.  The answer to the question depends on whether the promise to provide security from the Taliban is credible.  In the past it has not been.  Instead, ISAF soldiers have tended to clear the Taliban out of a village and leave.  Once they leave however, the Taliban return and make good on their promise to retaliate on those who cooperated with ISAF troops.  Thus, it is rational for Afghans not to cooperate with ISAF and cooperate with the Taliban even if they like ISAF more than the Taliban.

The essence behind the counter-insurgency strategy ISAF is designing is clear, hold, and build.  But we can state it more clearly: a credible threat to provide security from the Taliban.  If they can provide it, they can gain cooperation from the Afghans as long as they like ISAF forces more than the Taliban.  ISAF doesn’t need to be popular to gain cooperation if its promise to provide security is credible, just more popular than the Taliban.

Violence erupted following the announcement that Ali Bongo, son of the late former President Omar Bongo, won last Sunday’s election in Gabon.  Omar Bongo ruled Gabon for 41 years, from 1967 until his death last June, and was the world’s longest serving president.

Most people watching the election expected that violence would occur because few believed it would be free and fair.  The main opposition candidates, Pierre Mamboundou and Mba Obame have both claimed the election was fraudulent as well.  There is widespread evidence they are correct.  First, while only 50% of Gabon’s population is over voting age, the total number of registered voters accounts for 60% of the population.  One government official even admitted that they had registered dead people.  Second, African Union election observers reported major irregularities at polling stations, including unsealed ballot boxes, security forces improperly entering polling stations, ballots that did not list all candidates, and poll workers refusing to allow registered voters to cast their ballots.

Ali Bongo has “won” the election.  Now the hard part starts.  Gabon, like the US, uses plurality rules for its presidential elections.  This means that the person who receives the most votes wins, regardless of whether that candidate obtains a majority.  According to the official results, Bongo received 42% of the vote and turnout was very low, between 30% and 40%.  This means that in the best case scenario – a free and fair election did occur – close to 60% of voters cast their ballot against Bongo.  Since evidence suggests the election was rigged in Bongo’s favor, in all likelihood the actual percent of Gabonese who support him is far, far lower.

For a while I have been interested in the violent protests that are a daily occurrence in South Africa.  The subject has caught my attention not only because of their frequency, but also because of the targets and methods protestors employ, for example killing elected officials.  When I was in South Africa a few weeks ago, municipal employees protested by dumping garbage in the street and vandalizing government property.  These demonstrations fascinated me because government employees protested by creating unpleasant work for themselves when they returned to their job.

Today’s protests top the ones I have mentioned above.  In Pretoria, South Africa’s capital, approximately 1500 to 2000 members of the South Africa National Defense Force held an illegal march, destroying government and private property.  The most interesting part for me was the standoff between the police and the soldiers:

The protest turned violent when marchers arriving at the Union Buildings [the office of the President] were not allowed access to the property. According to media reports, police fired rubber bullets at protesters who refused to disperse after handing over a memorandum of grievances.

You know you have a serious governance problem when the police fire rubber bullets at soldiers who are protesting illegally and violently.