Azam Ahmed is a Times correspondent in Kabul. This week he wrote about Ashraf Ghani, Afghanistan’s new president, and his surprisingly to-the-point style of governing. Azam compares President Ghani to Hamid Karzai, the man he replaced.
It’s still early days for the new Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani. After months of deadlock, boycotts and the threat of fracturing the country, he was inaugurated less than a month ago under a cloud of fraud.
In the face of that, what is striking is how aggressively he’s been projecting momentum. He signed the long-term security agreement with the United States and its allies at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He reopened the investigation into the Kabul Bank fraud, an emblem of the corruption that has gnawed at this country for more than a decade. He even publicly introduced his wife, a progressive move in a country where women’s rights is still very much a fragile enterprise.
But what was more interesting were the micro efforts he appeared to be making. He has turned up at police stations to check attendance. He has visited the military hospital in the middle of the night, to verify promises that staff was on duty at all hours. He has scared public officials with his spontaneous approach, an unusual use of time for a president, especially in a country with as many challenges as Afghanistan.
The approach is reminiscent of the New York Police Department’s broken window theory in the 1990s, when Police Commissioner William J. Bratton went after quality of life crimes in an effort to deter more serious crimes. In this case, it appeared as though Mr. Ghani was doing something similar: by cracking down on small things that touch the daily lives of hundreds of thousands of Afghans.
It’s far too early to tell where this is heading. Many hope it will prove to be the sort of antidote to a government kleptocracy that few Afghans trust. Others worry that by forcing change at this pace, Mr. Ghani is risking a backlash from entrenched interests that benefited mightily from the past way of business. If he’s not careful, these people warn, and if he can’t check his notorious temper, Mr. Ghani could find himself with no allies to help him push through his agenda.
Some question whether Mr. Ghani’s approach is style over substance, a curated persona meant to project force with sensationalism. A real fear is that he is racing into the future without knowing whether there is open road before him or a giant obstacle.
“This guy is racing 100 miles an hour on a road filled with potholes,” said one observer, musing on the president’s strategy.
Mr. Ghani appears to be speaking to two distinct audiences he desperately needs at the moment: the West and the common man. His predecessor, Mr. Karzai, soured relations with Western donors to the point that many had considered simply leaving. Rebuilding those bonds, by showing a willingness to do the sorts of things Western donors like (go after corruption and nod toward women’s rights), is critical to maintain the support his country needs in the coming years.
As for the common man, Mr. Ghani must also cater to this group because he does not have a natural, national base of support. To push through some of his objectives he will need a groundswell of good will to withstand pushback from the system.
Mr. Ghani has taken pains to break with his predecessor, engaging the West and outlining plans to tackle corruption. But he is also different in his focus on institutions over politics, unlike Mr. Karzai, who while highly adept at winning allies largely ignored the governmental systems that have in many cases failed to deliver services.
As for reporting on Mr. Ghani, the jury is still out. He only recently appointed a spokesman to head up his media operation. During the early weeks of his presidency, many reporters here complained they had no point of contact to deal with on questions. It’s unclear, as of yet, whether those wrinkles have been fully ironed out.