" Democracy is not being, it is becoming. It is easily lost, but never finally won."

Word comes today about the ongoing crisis in Afghanistan:

WASHINGTON, Oct 24 (Reuters) - Abdullah Abdullah, Afghan President Hamid Karzai's rival in next month's run-off election, said he would not join Karzai's government if the incumbent won.

Asked in a CNN interview about comments by Karzai that he would welcome his rival in his government, Abdullah said he had "absolutely no interest in such a scenario."

Abdullah, a former foreign minister, said his intention in seeking the presidency was to bring change to the impoverished country, not to be "part of the same deteriorating situation."

So much for that idea. As Afghanistan desends into a possible coup and a constitutional crisis the young democracy doesn't need, Abdullah vows he will have nothing to do with any sort of power-sharing agreement that would give both men a role in the government of Afghanistan.

Without this power-sharing agreement, what will have to happen instead is a costly runoff election that will likely not decide anything and leave the country in the same perilous state it is in today.

Okay, you'd think that Afghanistan would have maybe learned something from the mature western democracies that have been operating militarily in the country since 2001. The Government of Canada is doing its best to try and build democratic institutions and a culture of smooth power transitions that are key to a successful and peaceful Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the country is falling into tribal barbarism and uncertainty over who the leader will be and who's in bed with whom.

But wait, are we sure this is the way the narrative actually reads? Maybe the Afghanis did learn from Canada. We also had a man in opposition vowing that he under no circumstances would form a coalition government. What happened? About 45 minutes after the election the same Stephane Dion tried to form a coalition government.

Meanwhile our buddy Abdullah also "said his intention in seeking the presidency was to bring change to the impoverished country, not to be 'part of the same deteriorating situation.'" Again, this is directly out of the Michael Ignatieff playbooks circa August 2009. You remember... "Mr. Harper your time is up and all that jazz. Now only 10 weeks later its a different tune... again.

Afghanistan might have to hold a runoff election to abate a constitutional crisis? Dude, we've had two of those in the last three years. With a few minor yet significant details changed, the Afghan situation and the Canadian situation have a lot in common. Just look at what I wrote above:

Without this power-sharing agreement, what will have to happen instead is a costly runoff election that will likely not decide anything and leave the country in the same perilous state it is in today.

Doesn't that aptly describe how Canada has been every since Iggy talked big about forcing another election?

I'm not saying Afghanistan is a mature democracy like Canada's or America's yet, but if you're watching recent politcal events over there and shaking your head perhaps you should grab the nearest mirror.