In a
ceremony marked by "triumphant" and "joyous" celebration, Afghan
President Hamid Karzai
announced last week his country would hold
a run-off presidential election. The decision came after
reports confirmed that the previous election was rigged in Karzai's favor. Many have lauded Karzai's concession and
praised Sen. John Kerry for striking the deal and holding the country together. However, a number of international experts say the run-off, far from diverting a political crisis, will exacerbate problems in the country (as
hinted at by Dexter Filkins in The New York Times). Citing a laundry list of logistical and political problems, observers explain why the run-offs will be Afghanistan's kiss of death:
- A Corrupt Election Commission, warns The Economist: "Perhaps the biggest problem is the IEC [Independent Election Commission] itself, a body regarded as so
biased towards Mr Karzai and complicit in fraud that some analysts say
there is no point in running another vote under its auspices. Martine
van Bijlert, of the Afghanistan Analysts Network, a think-tank, says
that without big changes, voters will feel that the outcome will be
determined not by their votes but by the IEC. UN staff have called for
hundreds of IEC officials, particularly those who turned a blind eye to
fraud, to be sacked. But only the IEC can make such a decision. With
just a fortnight before the election, it is impossible for proper
reform to take place, particularly as the only man with the power to
hire and fire its commissioners is Mr Karzai himself."
-
A Security Nightmare, writes Rajan Menon, an Afghan scholar writing in the Los Angeles Times: "It's a sure bet that the Taliban, true to form, will warn voters to stay
at home during the vote on pain of death, and try to kill those who are
not intimidated. It has become a formidable force and is no longer
confined to its Pashtun strongholds in the south and east. This raises
the question of how the country can be made safe enough to ensure a
reasonable turnout."
- Will Incite Racial Violence, writes Tony Karon at The National: "A new round of campaigning would sharply
heighten tensions between ethnic Pashtuns (Mr Karzai’s base, but also
the Taliban’s) and ethnic Tajiks, the main support base of Dr Abdullah." Rajan Menon agrees: "The Pashtuns have dominated the country's
politics and will not meekly hand over the reins of power -- the stakes
are too high. Instead, they will resist, and Afghanistan's ethnic
divisions will deepen."
- Bad Weather forecasts
Hafizullah Gardesh at the Institute for War and Peace Reporting: "The challenges of organizing a new poll within a few weeks are
daunting, and it may ultimately prove impossible to carry out... With the onset of winter, travel in much of the north will become
extremely difficult, and many voters will be unable to get to polling
stations."
- A Genuine Farce, writes Steve Hynd at Newshoggers: "Despite every member of both the Obama administration and Gordon
Brown's government who has an opportunity to voice an opinion getting
ready to follow Richard Holbrooke's spin that there will be less 'irregularities' in the Afghan run-off election, none
really believe it. It's all about creating an illusion of
legitimacy around Karzai's inevitable win so that the troop escalation
and continued occupation can proceed. Not even the heads of the two
electoral bodies concerned with the election believe the spin... Karzai
had to be all-but dragged onto the podium to accept the run-off
decision."
- The Wrong Approach, writes Rich Lowry at National Review: "In the modern world, elections are how governments typically win their legitimacy. But on prudential
grounds, I'm not sure a new election would be my highest priority in
Afghanistan. I'm guessing most Afghans will judge the legitimacy of the
government more on how it delivers the most basic aspects of
governance—most fundamentally, security and some kind of justice free
of corruption—than on election returns. Given the choice, I'd have been
tempted to use whatever leverage we had over Karzai to get him to do
some things that will actually improve governance on the ground—better
governors, better cabinet ministers, etc.—rather than twisting his arm
on a run-off."
- Not What Afghans Need, writes Matthew Yglesias at Think Progress: "What’s needed in Afghanistan is not just a reasonably fair runoff
election, but a post-election national unity government in which Hamid
Karzai shares power with as wide a swathe of non-Taliban opposition as
possible. After all, a big part of the counterinsurgency concept is that the
theory that elements of the Taliban itself can be persuaded to switch
sides and engage in some kind of power-sharing."
