Poppy calls Momentum “The Big Mo,” and son W. has this ephemeral quality … for the moment. So now what about “The Big D”?

Hard-core sports fanatics like Bush One and Two use that phrase to speak of the key role of Defense -be it zone or man-to-man (or maybe missile shield) – in the games they play. That’s fine and, mostly, harmless. Recent events in America and Afghanistan have reminded us that sports are not the worse form of fanaticism.

Here in Spain, however, The Big D is Democracy, largely because of a horrendous Civil War within living memory. Spain has first-hand experience of political chaos, and so its fans of democracy are vigilant guardians, fanatics in the best sense: endlessly discussing, arguing knowledgeably, voting in great numbers, and ensuring that their precious votes are actually counted and counted properly. (Think of that …)

But things in Spain went too far this week at the drafting of a “Manifesto in Support of the Afghan People.” To my historical amazement, this statement insisted on “the immediate restoration of democracy in Afghanistan.”

Como? Say again? Restoration of civil order, fine. Restoration of education for girls, great. But restoration of democracy? One can understand the euphoria in response to last week’s Afghan Unity accords in Bonn. But how can you restore a democracy that never existed? Let’s check both the rhetoric and the record.

Rhetoric features the Constitution of 1964: proposed by then King Mohammed Zahir (aka Zahir Shah which means “King Zahir”), drafted by a duly appointed committee, reviewed by a Constitutional Advisory Committee, discussed in the embryonic but active Afghan media, written in both Persian and Pashto, and finally ratified by a 452 member Loya Jirga representing the Afghan people as a whole.

This 1964 Constitution, according to rhetoric, was not only “representative” but “democratic.” It enfranchised all Afghan adults – males and females – as well as guaranteeing their legal rights. It provided for a bicameral legislature. It specified that members of the royal family could neither participate in political parties nor occupy top government positions. The late Louis Dupree, encyclopedic scholar (and inveterate booster) of Afghanistan, called this constitution “the finest in the Muslim world.”

This tajrooba-i-democracee, or “Experiment in Democracy” lasted for 10 years from 1964 until the king was overthrown in 1973. It is back to this decade that democracy rhetoricians hearken with their talk of political freedom, representative government, and gender-neutral suffrage. It makes great talk. Sadly, the talk didn’t walk.

What follows may seem a cruel litany, so I preface it with this personal note: I defer to no one – save Louis and his still active, much venerated widow Nancy Dupree – in terms of Afghanophilia. As with them, Afghanistan has been a central refrain in my life. Like them, I keep going back. Still, reality is reality. Only by recognizing hard truths can Afghanistan – and its friends – go forward from here. Seven hard truths about the country’s Decade of Democracy:

With literacy probably less than 10 percent and suspicion of government widespread, people dodged the polls in droves. Estimated turn-out of eligible voters: less than 20 percent.

While the lower house of parliament (Wolosi Jirga) was popularly elected, voters chose only a third of the upper house (Mishranoo Jirga).

The Provincial Councils Law – which would have enabled another third of the upper house to be popularly chosen – was never formalized.

The Political Parties Law – which would have foregrounded parties and platforms over individuals and individual agendas – was never formalized.

The king was empowered to dissolve parliament for any reason at any time.

The Press Law (1965) required all publications to be licensed by the government and to provide up-front “security” money, which the government could expropriate in case of “unconstructive” expression.

Women, while in theory enfranchised, seldom voted save in the main cities. Less still were they voted for. The first (1965) elections sent only four females to the 300 member combined legislature. No woman won a seat in the second (and last) elections of 1969.

These are seven hard truths, not Seven Deadly Sins. The point here is to be truthful, not to castigate. Even in its heyday, Afghan democracy was more good intention than actual practice. As a member of the U.S. diplomatic staff in Kabul (1972-73), I recall American frustration at royal half-measures. They made great press … and ominous politics. And so, after this illusory Camelot, came the 1973 republican coup and the 1978 communist coup and the 1979 Soviet invasion. None of these, you can be sure, featured democracy.

Then came the Holy War (1979-89) and the Holy Warrior triumph (1992) and the ascendancy of even Holier Warriors (1996-2001) whom we came to know as the Taliban. Their constitution was the Shariat (codified Muslim Law) whereby power resides with God (and His sanctioned servants like Mullah Omar) rather than with the people.

There is also this great and hopeful irony: Democracy may never have taken hold nationally, but on a local level Afghans are among the world’s most democratic people. They (the male “they”) sit for hours in a circle, and discuss, and debate, and ever so slowly resolve disputes by consensus. As an anthropologist over the past quarter century, I’ve sat in these circles and marveled at politicians as democratic and as local as Tip O’Neill.

Afghanistan’s task, way down the line, will be to build nationwide democratic institutions as solid as these time-honored local councils. So far none exist, and let’s not pretend that they do. The much vaunted Loya Jirga (like the previously mentioned jirgas, a natively Pushtun phrase) has never done more in Afghan (mostly Pushtun) history than ratify an already done deal. Nation-wide democratic institutions will take a long time. Last week’s Bonn agreement – its process as well as its product – was a significant beginning.

So let’s get behind Bonn and the Afghan leaders it empowered. Let’s not wait on some Western semblance of the Big D. Democracy can wait. Peace can’t. Worry not about making Afghanistan safe for democracy … but about making it safe for Afghans.

How best to do so in the hopeful aftermath of Bonn? Well, what about a Bush-Putin Plan for the reconstruction of Afghanistan? Make it like the Marshall Plan which rebuilt Western Europe after World War II, and thus laid the foundations for half a century of European peace. But this time let there be a pair of prime sponsors in Central Asia, giving in mutually co-operative tandem.

Putin’s Russia destroyed Afghanistan. And then our United States, after “fighting to the last Afghan” on this critical Cold War battlefield, abandoned his widow and his orphans.

Both our countries – Russia and the United States – owe Afghanistan big-time. Much could be gained by honoring this debt.

Dr. Whitney Azoy, a cultural anthropologist and former U.S. diplomat in Kabul, has worked for 30 years with Afghanistan and the Muslim world.