The Lesser of Two Evils? A Struggle in Afghan Election Approaches

The second Democratic election in Afghanistan has culminated in allegations of fraud and a debate between UN representatives about how to remedy the situation.

Download pdf: The Lesser of Two Evils? A Struggle in Afghan Election Approaches

By Sue Gloor

NEW YORK, Sept. 20 -- In the month since Afghans went to the polls in their second national election since the ouster of the Taliban, the extent of the corruption and intimidation involved has clouded the result and seriously undermined a new American strategy aimed at bringing political stability and security to the country’s 32 million people.   

The less-than-desirable circumstances are a result of multiple factors: disagreement among UN officials as to how to proceed in Afghanistan; a raging Taliban-led insurgency; the US’s conflict of interests; the lack of an especially promising candidate; and the geographical constraints of a prompt runoff election have all come into play.

These factors have severely hindered any progress toward democracy and stability in Afghanistan, and the combination of them will likely keep any positive development from occurring in the region anytime soon.

First, even if fraud is proven, the offending ballots discarded and a runoff election ordered, UN officials will still contradict one another about the best course of action with regard to the election. The two senior United Nations officials in the country disagree profoundly on the way forward, and one of them has left the country in protest.

One of them, Kai Eide, has proceeded cautiously, recommending that Afghanistan’s own institutions examine and rule on the vote. Eide “wants the law to be followed and has repeatedly asked all parties and the public to allow the Independent Election Commission and the Electoral Complaints Commission to do their job and deliver the results that are acceptable, credible and reflect the will of the Afghan people,” said Aditya Mehta, spokesperson for the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA).

But Peter Galbraith, the UN’s other special representative, told the Washington Post that he “had disagreements with [Eide’s] policy line,” though he neglected to elaborate.

The major disagreement appears to revolve around whether international institutions should rigorously pursue Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the vote’s provisional victor, for allegedly stuffing ballots, or instead try to formulate a political compromise.

Mehta, the UN spokesperson, stressed that “it is in nobody’s interest to circumvent the due process and, prematurely, declare a winner. Yet each country has its own suppositions about what the “due process” should entail.

So in addition to the divisions among UNAMA officials, different members of the international community are at odds with how to proceed as well.

The situation has proven particularly stressful for the United States, which has been involved in the fight against the Taliban since October 2002 and was on the cusp of a major strategy change in the country..The Obama administration has said the US’s work in Afghanistan, like military training and counter-terrorism operations, can carry on in the meantime without an immediate resolution to this political conundrum. But that patience that may be tested. A runoff election, should it be ordered, may have to wait until next spring.

Other officials of western countries are hoping for the compromise between Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah, his main contender and a former foreign minister, which would result in a sort of president/prime minister division of power.

“There will be a lot of talk about compromise and forming some kind of national coalition to head off paralysis,” predicted Barbara Crossette, United Nations correspondent for The Nation and former New York Times correspondent for South Asia.
Either scenario, however, will leave Afghanistan’s factional, ethnic and religious divisions unhealed.

“Right now there are no real alternatives to Karzai,” Crossette said. “Abdullah Abdullah is not a national figure any more than Karzai.” Crossette explained her suspicions about Abdullah in The Nation, citing his former connection to Ahmed Shah Massoud of the mujahedeen, a repressive and violent coalition in Afghanistan.

So though Karzai is criticized across the west for his fraudulent practices during the election, Abdullah also has a dodgy history—one of terrorist sympathy.

“What has to be remembered about Afghanistan is that these candidates are backed more by tribal and ethnic groups than anything resembling a political party, and they can play very dirty,” Crossette said. Therefore, the normal party loyalties that can be referenced by voters in western elections do not apply.

But even if an overwhelming favorite could be identified among the Afghan candidates, within the US a conflict of interests has developed so no overriding opinion can be attributed to the whole country. The US is divided, rightly so, between polishing its image among international actors by declaring a successful and progressive election and investigating the alleged election fraud committed by the candidate that it has previously openly supported. Thus the dilemma motivates Washington to press for compromise and a type of coalition government as well.

Writing in Foreign Policy, Daniel Markey, senior fellow for South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations, brands the US’s attempt to persuade the Afghan candidates to unify as one of “superficial appeal” and the “path of least resistance, even though this option is, at least for now, deeply unpopular among the contenders and their respective backers.”

Add to these predicaments the very practical constraint of the weather inhibiting a potential runoff election until the snow melts, and the global community finds itself in a tangle of inconveniences.

Though the US and many global institutions approached the election with high hopes for an improvement of democracy in the war-torn country, it is clear that the Afghan election cannot be addressed through a democratic lens. The country is not a fully-functioning democracy with parties and party leaders—not yet. The candidates have ulterior motives and many international actors have a stake in the election’s outcome. So while Eide has developed a course of action through UNAMA, and Obama’s administration is dead set on its plans to hold Afghan election officials accountable, all actors must accept that their influence over the situation is severely limited.

The most promising strategy now is to recount quickly; later, the next step will be to sow the seeds of the party system in Afghanistan, with the hope that in four years the candidates will represent more to their constituencies than a desire for power and a hidden past.