Wednesday
Aug262009
Afghanistan: Violence and Sham Votes
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 10:34
Afghanistan: Forget the Election, Let’s Have Some More Troops
The Latest from Afghanistan: The Election
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
As we live-blogged last Thursday on Afghanistan's Presidential election, we did so with a great deal of scepticism --- despite hope that the scepticism would be wrong --- about the process and, more importantly, the politics beyond it.
Unfortunately, events in the last six days have not eased concerns. To the contrary, yesterday was marked by a set of up to five suicide bombs in Kandahar that killed more than 40 people (eerily, we got a report of the first blast within a minute via Twitter). The other headline was the preliminary counting of ballots, which showed both President Karzai and his main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, each with about 40 percent of the vote. Even that news, however, was a climbdown: initially electoral authorities had said that the result from "most" of the ballots would be announced, and suspicions of fraud and manipulation, fuelled by the claims of Abdullah and other candidates as well as reliable reports, abound.
In that context, the forceful if depressing opinion piece in yesterday's New York Times by Jean MacKenzie, who directs the Institute for War and Peace Reporting in Afghanistan, resonates:
Afghanistan's Sham Vote
The dust had barely settled on the Afghan elections before the U.S. government, the United Nations and the European Union were hailing them as a success, commending voters for their heroism and election workers for their relative efficiency.
This would be laughable if it were not such a great shame. The elections were severely marred by violence and widespread fraud, and the results are unlikely to placate a population already frustrated by eight years of mismanagement and corruption.
The haste with which U.N. Special Representative Kai Eide held a press conference to say that Aug. 20 was “a good day for Afghanistan” merely served to underscore the central, if unappetizing, truth about the Afghan poll: It was never meant for the Afghans.
Instead, it was intended to convince voters in New York, London, Paris and Rome that their soldiers and their governments have not been wasting blood and treasure in their unfocused and ill-designed attempts to bring stability to a small, war-torn country in South Asia.
If last Thursday was, indeed, a “good day,” one would have to wonder what a bad day looks like. There were three explosions in Kabul by 8:00 a.m., and several more during the voting period.
Reporters calling in to our news bureau from the south were dodging rockets all day — we could hear explosions in the background as they filed their stories. By day’s end 14 rockets had fallen on Helmand Province, 17 on Kandahar.
At least 30 people died, and possibly many more. How many we do not know exactly, since the Afghan government imposed a news blackout on reporting violence during the elections.
Turnout was minimal. Even in Kabul, polling stations were half empty. During parliamentary elections in 2005, barely 36 percent of registered voters in the capital went to the polls. What I saw last Thursday fell far below even that modest threshold. Nevertheless, the Independent Election Commission is claiming the turnout was between 40 and 50 percent.
The figure is merely notional. For one thing, in a country where there are no voter rolls, there are not even approximate figures for how many voters there actually are. The I.E.C. can say with confidence that there have been about 17 million voter registration cards issued in Afghanistan since 2004. But many voters have multiple cards, or have lost their old ones and acquired replacements.
Media sources claim that 7 million people voted last Thursday. What they actually mean is that 7 million ballots were cast. This is far from the same thing. Voting requires merely the number of a voter registration card. There are no signatures, no thumbprints. Tribal leaders (who in many cases were administering polling stations) have been collecting and copying voter registration cards for weeks, telling villagers that it was necessary in order to register them for material assistance.
All that was needed on election day was a low voter turnout. If by day’s end, for example, 100 people had voted, but there were actually 500 registered cards in a district, the polling center administrator could cast up to 400 ballots for the candidate of his choice.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on what is, essentially, a charade. But that is not the real tragedy of these elections. What the international community has done is demonstrate to Afghans that democracy is a sham. Trust in these elections has been very low among Afghans from the outset.
President Hamid Karzai will most likely receive more than 50 percent of the vote in the first round, leaving the international community in a bit of a quandary. “We cannot just let him walk away with it,” fumed one foreign diplomat.
But what choice is there? For weeks the E.U., the U.S. Embassy and other international players have been predicting that the vote will go to a second round. The only way this can happen is if the Electoral Complaints Commission disallows enough votes to bring Mr. Karzai under 50 percent.
Then there will be a runoff, most likely between Mr. Karzai and his main rival, former Foreign Minister Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, in early October. And then Mr. Karzai will win, since Mr. Abdullah is unlikely to appeal to a majority of the voters, given his mixed ethnicity and Northern Alliance background.
“That will look more like democracy, won’t it?” said one international observer.
Over the next three weeks or so, the Electoral Complaints Commission will vet complaints and make recommendations. Only then will we know what happens in Act Two.
“No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there,” President Barack Obama said.
He was not discussing Afghanistan, of course: He was speaking to the Parliament of Ghana. But his words ring just as true in Kabul.
The Latest from Afghanistan: The Election
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
As we live-blogged last Thursday on Afghanistan's Presidential election, we did so with a great deal of scepticism --- despite hope that the scepticism would be wrong --- about the process and, more importantly, the politics beyond it.Unfortunately, events in the last six days have not eased concerns. To the contrary, yesterday was marked by a set of up to five suicide bombs in Kandahar that killed more than 40 people (eerily, we got a report of the first blast within a minute via Twitter). The other headline was the preliminary counting of ballots, which showed both President Karzai and his main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, each with about 40 percent of the vote. Even that news, however, was a climbdown: initially electoral authorities had said that the result from "most" of the ballots would be announced, and suspicions of fraud and manipulation, fuelled by the claims of Abdullah and other candidates as well as reliable reports, abound.
In that context, the forceful if depressing opinion piece in yesterday's New York Times by Jean MacKenzie, who directs the Institute for War and Peace Reporting in Afghanistan, resonates:
Afghanistan's Sham Vote
The dust had barely settled on the Afghan elections before the U.S. government, the United Nations and the European Union were hailing them as a success, commending voters for their heroism and election workers for their relative efficiency.
This would be laughable if it were not such a great shame. The elections were severely marred by violence and widespread fraud, and the results are unlikely to placate a population already frustrated by eight years of mismanagement and corruption.
The haste with which U.N. Special Representative Kai Eide held a press conference to say that Aug. 20 was “a good day for Afghanistan” merely served to underscore the central, if unappetizing, truth about the Afghan poll: It was never meant for the Afghans.
Instead, it was intended to convince voters in New York, London, Paris and Rome that their soldiers and their governments have not been wasting blood and treasure in their unfocused and ill-designed attempts to bring stability to a small, war-torn country in South Asia.
If last Thursday was, indeed, a “good day,” one would have to wonder what a bad day looks like. There were three explosions in Kabul by 8:00 a.m., and several more during the voting period.
Reporters calling in to our news bureau from the south were dodging rockets all day — we could hear explosions in the background as they filed their stories. By day’s end 14 rockets had fallen on Helmand Province, 17 on Kandahar.
At least 30 people died, and possibly many more. How many we do not know exactly, since the Afghan government imposed a news blackout on reporting violence during the elections.
Turnout was minimal. Even in Kabul, polling stations were half empty. During parliamentary elections in 2005, barely 36 percent of registered voters in the capital went to the polls. What I saw last Thursday fell far below even that modest threshold. Nevertheless, the Independent Election Commission is claiming the turnout was between 40 and 50 percent.
The figure is merely notional. For one thing, in a country where there are no voter rolls, there are not even approximate figures for how many voters there actually are. The I.E.C. can say with confidence that there have been about 17 million voter registration cards issued in Afghanistan since 2004. But many voters have multiple cards, or have lost their old ones and acquired replacements.
Media sources claim that 7 million people voted last Thursday. What they actually mean is that 7 million ballots were cast. This is far from the same thing. Voting requires merely the number of a voter registration card. There are no signatures, no thumbprints. Tribal leaders (who in many cases were administering polling stations) have been collecting and copying voter registration cards for weeks, telling villagers that it was necessary in order to register them for material assistance.
All that was needed on election day was a low voter turnout. If by day’s end, for example, 100 people had voted, but there were actually 500 registered cards in a district, the polling center administrator could cast up to 400 ballots for the candidate of his choice.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on what is, essentially, a charade. But that is not the real tragedy of these elections. What the international community has done is demonstrate to Afghans that democracy is a sham. Trust in these elections has been very low among Afghans from the outset.
President Hamid Karzai will most likely receive more than 50 percent of the vote in the first round, leaving the international community in a bit of a quandary. “We cannot just let him walk away with it,” fumed one foreign diplomat.
But what choice is there? For weeks the E.U., the U.S. Embassy and other international players have been predicting that the vote will go to a second round. The only way this can happen is if the Electoral Complaints Commission disallows enough votes to bring Mr. Karzai under 50 percent.
Then there will be a runoff, most likely between Mr. Karzai and his main rival, former Foreign Minister Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, in early October. And then Mr. Karzai will win, since Mr. Abdullah is unlikely to appeal to a majority of the voters, given his mixed ethnicity and Northern Alliance background.
“That will look more like democracy, won’t it?” said one international observer.
Over the next three weeks or so, the Electoral Complaints Commission will vet complaints and make recommendations. Only then will we know what happens in Act Two.
“No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there,” President Barack Obama said.
He was not discussing Afghanistan, of course: He was speaking to the Parliament of Ghana. But his words ring just as true in Kabul.
tagged Jean Mackenzie, New York Times in Afghanistan
Jean Mackenzie, New York Times in Afghanistan