Flawed Afghan poll may undermine government legitimacy

Last Thursday’s presidential election in Afghanistan was marred by serious irregularities, but most analysts consider it credible while the country’s voters are drawing plaudits for defying Taliban threats of violence to cast their ballots.

Election observers and democracy assistance groups detailed a list of abuses, including ballot-box stuffing and phantom voter lists, especially in southern and eastern Afghanistan, where incumbent President Hamid Karzai is strongest. Afghanistan’s Free and Fair Election Foundation reported widespread “lack of impartiality of election staff at the local level” and recorded many cases of underage, proxy and multiple voting.

The low turnout in the Taliban-threatened south and allegations of ballot rigging by officials loyal to Karzai “could undermine the legitimacy of the next government”, observers suggest.

The National Democratic Institute said the vote “involved serious flaws that must be addressed in order to build greater confidence in the integrity of future elections.” But coming up with a clear national picture is difficult, says Ken Wollack, NDI president. “If there is any trend in what we are witnessing, it is a lot of different types of elections. So that is going to be the challenge — looking at how all these areas voted and analyzing the results.”

The International Republican Institute had observers at 250 polling stations during the vote which IRI’s Richard Williamson described as well organized despite serious problems, including poor security and “alarming” abuse of state resources on behalf of Karzai.  Threats of Taliban violence meant that “the merchants of fear have had some success,” he conceded.

Election observers were operating in a “very difficult” environment, said Eric Bjornlund of Democracy International.

“The disproportionate effects of poor security conditions, widespread cultural opposition to women in public life and a number of attacks clearly aimed at deterring women’s activities all created significant obstacles,” the European Union observer mission reported.

The focus on security issues distracted attention from low voter turnout providing space for electoral manipulation. Many voters were denied their constitutional right to cast a ballot.

But disenfranchisement “takes on a different meaning” in Afghan circumstances, said NDI’s Wollack, since it is “not the work of partisan actors, but the result of those trying to disrupt the elections.”

But others highlight the resilience and courage of Afghan voters who defied Taliban threats of violence to cast their votes.  “If somebody told me I would have my right index finger cut off if I voted, it would certainly impact me,” said John Manley, Canada’s former foreign minister, who monitored the election with the NDI delegation. “These are courageous people,” he said.

The election was a repudiation of anti-democratic jihadi Islamism and a blow for those demanding withdrawal from Afghanistan, says former British foreign minister Denis MacShane. “Afghan citizens queued in their millions to vote,” he writes. “They defied the Taliban and took an even bigger risk in defying the British, American, European and Islamist wiseacres who are urging a precipitate withdrawal.”             

But the electoral irregularities “will hurt the credibility of whoever is elected president,” claims Prakhar Sharma, an analyst with the Center for Conflict and Peace Studies in Kabul. “If Karzai wins, however, he is a great deal-maker and he might be able to cut deals with some of the disillusioned candidates.”