Is Flawed Democracy Better than Any Form of Authoritarianism?

The drama of the Afghanistan Presidential elections is not over yet. The results are expected to create unrest among the supporters of defeated candidates. It remains to be seen how the international community will react to outcome of the elections allegedly marred by reports of fraud and rigging. The political process may be referred to as ‘democratic’ but the quality of democracy and freedom remain doubtful for many.
Hundreds of people could not cast their votes in Zazi Maidan district of southeastern Khost province as the polling stations ran out of ballots papers, voters complained.
The polling station at Lashkar Gah in the Helmand Province was hit by rockets barely five minutes after opening.
In the traditional Afghan society the lack of female officers at the polling stations made it difficult for scores of Afghan women to venture out for voting.
What was surprising to me was the swiftness with which the two candidates- Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah- claimed victory in the elections. Their assertion of victory is an explicit approval of the election process. The post-result disagreement will not be a disapproval of the democratic process but merely an expression of dislike for the opponent.
There are two faces of the elections in Afghanistan: one that holds that a flawed democracy is better than any form of authoritarianism and the other which emphasize on socio-economic pre-requisites of democracy more than the formal process of voting.
�