Greg Sanders

A new President wouldn't make the difference in Afghanistan, a powerful parliament might

I'm generally a fan of Slate military Analyst Fred Kaplan, but I think he misses an option in his recent article "Has Karzai Gone Crazy?" First, here's his accurate summary of recent news:

On April 1, [Afghan President Hamid Karzai] accused the West of trying to rig last fall's Afghan presidential elections (which, in fact, he had so blatantly rigged himself) and criticized the Western military coalition (which is all that's separating him from a rope and a lamp post) as invaders who are legitimizing the Taliban as a movement of "national resistance."

When it was clear that the objects of his attack were not amused, Karzai phoned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to apologize for any misunderstandings that his remarks might have caused. Then, over the weekend, he escalated the rhetoric… [And so on]

Given the criticality of local government efforts to a counterinsurgency, this is obviously deeply disturbing. Kaplan argues, reasonably, that President Karzai thinks that we needs and thus he can do what he wants. One common proposal is to try working at the provincial level:

Gerard Russell, a former U.N. official in Kabul (who is now at Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy), said in a phone interview Monday that the Western coalition is pursuing this approach to some extent. The ongoing military operation in Helmand province has elevated the power of some independent Afghans there, at the expense of Karzai's people.

However, Russell added, there are risks to going around Karzai as the centerpiece of a strategy. "Karzai is very good at this sort of thing," Russell said. "He could undermine these regional governors if they get too powerful."

I'd like a bit of elaboration here. It seems to me as if given that the government revenue comes from the West, shifting distribution to a provincial level rather than reorganizing the way it flows down from the central government would be a way to deal with this problem. On the other hand, this would leave the coalition effectively playing the part of the central government of a confederal system and if that's a model that might work in Afghanistan that's not a role that appeals to me.

Kaplan concludes:

It is now clearer than ever that the strategy's success or failure is, in large measure, up to Karzai. If he hasn't proved to be a reliable partner by [the end of 2010] then, it's time for us to back someone else—or leave.

I don't think backing another Afghan President is a practical option, impeachment issues aside. President Karzai's last win was nebulous, his main opponent isn't of the majority ethnic group, and any replacement is likely to come in with less legitimacy then the fairly low level the President enjoys at the moment. We don't need to replace the man, we need a new institution. The Afghan Parliament has been pushing back against the President, Joshua Partlow reports that the lower house, the Wolesi Jira, recently defeated his proposal to take additional control over investigations of voter fraud after earlier in the year rejecting many of his cabinet nominees. Flowing funding through Parliament would not necessarily sideline President Karzai but it would mean that the President, or any emerging Parliamentary leadership, would be dependent on Afghan coalition-building and not their relationship with U.S. and European leadership.

More on race to the top, local buy in as an influence, not a veto

While the Washington Post editorial argues for, in my words, paying attention only to quality of the ideas in education reform proposals and ignoring whether it will be possible to effectively implement them, the note also has some useful data on how the scoring system works. It turns out that 45 of 500 points are assigned based on getting teacher's buy-in. Florida had come in fourth with 431.4 points compared to 454.6 for Delaware and 442.2 for Tennessee.

Full detail on the scoring for the multi-round distribution of $4 billion in awards is available on a specialized page from the Department of Education.

From that scoring, I found that 8% of of local teachers union leaders endorsed this proposal as compared to 100% for Delaware and 93% for Tennessee. That is to say, despite having almost no teacher buy-in, Florida still got to fourth place and within 10.8 points (2.16% of 500) of getting into the winner's circle.

I think the details support my contention that the system reflects the influence of teachers on outcomes rather than giving them a veto.

Race to the Top Education grants acknowledge that implementation is the tough part

The Race to the Top education grants have really impressed me. In short, they’re Federal education grants that states can apply for by submitting a range of possible reforms that are scored based on education policy best practices. Much like the prize model for research and development they have a multiplier effect, they inspire change and work even by those that don’t win the prize.

Nick Anderson has a good article in the Post on one innovative inclusion in awarding the grants: buy-in by teachers. Deleware and Tennessee beat out Flordia and Louisiana in part because the winners got buy in from local unions. Not surprisingly, an analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Fredrick Hess, found this objectionable, “I’m worried that it gives a fundamental veto, or at least a lot of influence, to the least reform-minded participants.” I’d dispute that teachers unions are the main problem in education, after all the schools aren’t the best in South where states have anti-labor laws. Laying that argument aside though, I think Hess and a Washington Post [editorial] gets it backwards, the grant doesn’t give influence to the teachers, it acknowledges their influence.

It’s a widely accepted, indeed a conservative, that innovative or pure ideas in a reform matter less than the quality of the implementation. Bureaucracies and interest groups are inherently capable of resisting and slow rolling most any proposal. Thus, proposals with substantial buy-in are likely to outperform more innovative ideas that will be fought tooth and nail by the people putting them into practice. Not to mention the fact that it's wise to work with practitioners in any event.

I don’t see any evidence in the article or the op-ed that goes against Delaware Governor Jack A. Markell’s assertion that "In Delaware, you don’t have to choose between consensus and bold [action]." If I had to choose between a milquetoast reform proposal and a controversial one that had been solidly thought through, I'd take the latter.

I personally tend to think a core problem in the U.S. education system is that school district tends towards segregation on class lines and that middle class and rich parents often reinforce that dynamic. Nonetheless, I think any effort at reforming this will require assuaging the fears of parents for they do have a legitimate role in the process as legal representatives of the interest of their children. As with teachers, this isn't to say that parents should be given a veto over reform, integrating schools required literally facing down some parents with national guard troops, but good ideas that are accepted by PTAs would be more successful than great ideas facing stiff opposition.