Lindsey Knight Knight 1
Honors Government
Mr. Comer
10/12/14
Precis: A Shaky Step Forward in Afghanistan
The peaceful transition of power from one leader to the next is an accomplishment that many nations have not achieved. Especially in the Middle East where terrorists are rife with a jihadist drive, this handover of leadership is feat of victory when it occurs peacefully. Recently, after a Democratic vote, Afghanistan decided to elect a president and a prime minister under him. The Editorial Board of the New York Times, a group of 19 journalists who publish articles based on the voice of the board, posits that the recent election of a new president in Afghanistan, though peacefully done, is a risky “step forward” (Times).
The Board employs three rhetorical devices to bolster their point about Afghanistan’s unstable political atmosphere. First, they utilize a metaphor to compare the new government situation to “rocky” ground (ibid). Just as an unkempt road, full of rocks and debris can be “disastrous” to a foot traveler or carriage, so too does the potential “unrest” and “violence” that the Taliban and dissenters pose to Afghanistan could possibly disrupt the smooth change of power (Times). The purpose of this metaphor is to connect the idea of an unbalanced and unstable road to the current position of the country. In addition, the Board uses an anecdote to support their position on the Middle East and establish a sense of justification for making these claims. They describe the instance of the “governor of Balkh Province in the north, Atta Muhammad Noor, who was among those urging Mr. Abdullah [the new Afghan President] to not concede” to sharing of power with another candidate, Ashraf Ghani (ibid.). Because of the “fraud-plagued” election on June 14th, the nation decided to elect Mr. Abdullah as the President of Afghanistan and allowed his competition, Mr. Ghani to act as a prime minister under the president (Times). The purpose in including this specific dissenter, Mr. Noor, is to highlight that there are those that disagree with the new power positions in the Afghan government. Finally, the group of Times writers employs pathos to specify their point about the frenzy of chaos in this newly organized country. They talk about the new placement of a president into power after a “bitter fight” that gave the government a “fighting chance” to “mend the nation scarred by decades of war” (ibid.). By recalling these saddening images of a nation ruined by war, the Board is making the claim that the stability of the country will be hard to achieve. However, they qualify that through a passionate fight, the Afghans may possibly achieve their goal of ridding the terrorism from their midst. These rhetorical devices contribute to the negative tone of the article and don’t allow much room for hope.
The Editorial Board of the New York times utilizes a pessimistic tone when discussing the possible new age of democracy in Afghanistan. To achieve this, they employ downcast diction with the use of sulken words. The Board shares that former President Hamid Karzai, “whose years in power were tainted by tolerance of corruption and… antagonism toward Washington… deepened anxiety in Afghanistan unnecessarily” (Times). Syntactically, the Board employs many complex sentences to juxtapose different things like the present and the past, order and disunion, and agreement and dissent. For example, the conditional statement in the form of a complex sentence proves this: “For the deal to hold, Mr. Abdullah and Mr. Ghani will have to formalize the details of an agreement that is subject to interpretation on many fronts” (ibid.). The purpose of this article is to inform the American public about the current political state of Afghanistan. The combination of uncertainty and needed conditions contributes to the pessimistic tone.
I disagree with the Times’ argument. I believe that any sort of step towards a democratic government in the Middle East is beneficial, despite the possible minor pitfalls. The New York Times shares that “the change of leadership… is dampened by serious concerns over whether the power-sharing deal will prove durable” (Times). True, the Afghan government is not perfect. It probably won’t be perfect for a great deal of time. However, if the step towards a free democratic nation is the goal, one small step in the right direction begins the process of reform. Afghanistan is bombarded with terrorist groups, weak leadership, and an unfree society. Perhaps the government may not be on solid ground yet, but the institution of an elected President with a peaceful change of power is groundbreaking. If this “works, [it] will mark the first peaceful transfer of power in the country’s history” (ibid.). This is something to be celebrated, and though pessimists might try to cast doubt on this situation, it is truly a good thing for this country that is so in need of peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment