Even in Afghanistan, an election needs at least two candidates
Daniel Korski 6:12pm
Just when the US administration thought it had turned a corner in Afghanistan by persuading Hamid Karzai to allow a run-off in the presidential elections, things look uncertain again. Having returned from a trip to India, President Karzai's election rival Abdullah Abdullah looks set to announce he will boycott next week's second round of voting. Such a decision could either be the prelude to a resolution of the crisis, or set the stage for political crisis. It is more likely going to be the latter.
Before Karzai was persuaded to allow a run-off, some diplomats I spoke to were suggesting that a power-sharing arrangement could be put in place or the President would be offered a deal: Karzai would acknowledge problems with the first round of voting, something he had until then doggedly denied, while in a quid pro quo Abdullah would withdraw from the race for the sake of national unity. The two ideas could also be merged, I was told: Karzai would accept a run-off, Abdullah would beg off and the two rivals would join forces in a power-sharing deal, Kenya-style.
But if this looked like a good idea a few weeks ago, the shine is coming off the wheeze. For Karzai had to be dragged kicking and screaming towards a run-off and none of the changes needed to make this poll a little more fair -- and allowed Abdullah to leave the race -- have been implemented.
Though the full list of demands formulated by Abdullah for a second poll may have been excessive, replacing Azizullah Ludin, the head of the Independent Election Commission, was the least that could have been done to secure a fair electoral process. Back in March I came back from Kabul and warned about Ludin’s appointment. His statements since his appointment, initially on the quality of the first round of voting and the likely outcome of a second round –- that Karzai would win –- showed where his loyalties lay and should have disqualified Ludin from the post. But President Karzai has refused to make even this modest concession to fairness.
With only one candidate willing to participate in a second round of voting, it is not certain what the right course of action should be, constitutionally. Many analysts have suggested that, in the event of a candidate withdrawing, the run-off must still go ahead with just the one remaining candidate. The government-run Independent Election Commission has said as much. But such a run-off is likely to garner and even lower turn-out than the first round and any “win” by Karzai would be tainted from the start.
In the spring, I wrote the following about elections:
“In the worst-case scenario, the presidential election is rigged and President Karzai declares himself winner in the face of protests by the opposition and criticism by observers. The international military and civilian presence would then be left propping up an illegitimate government, which would struggle to deliver services or to engage the insurgency.”
After a few weeks of post-election tension, this scenario looks as likely as it did in earlier in the year. In the Asia Foundation’s 2009 Afghan Public Opinion Poll 42% of Afghans thought the country is moving in the right direction down from 64% in 2004, while 29% thought Afghanistan was going in the wrong direction.
Previous
porkbelly
October 31st, 2009 7:30pm Report this commentThe parallels between the Karzai and Ngo Dinh Diem are uncanny.
logdon
October 31st, 2009 8:02pm Report this commentAbsolute waste of time or far more importantly, British lives.
Lyse Doucet's been doing her happy clappy al-Beeb thing all week and if you believed her spin, all is well if only.......
The if only's are actually impossibilities and anyone in their right mind could see it.
In a foot shooting competition these people would win, to use another limb analogy, hands down, those who have the full pair, that is.
Obama is renaging on his 'just war'. Dithering like a Brown, marking time and you can bet your bottom dollar McChrystal will not get his 40,000 extra troops.
Time to move on. This idea of a Pc war is madness anyway. And has anyone any idea why we're still there? The AQ excuse, securing British streets is total hooey. AQ are now infecting Somalia, do we wade in there also?
Governing the ungovernable is Brown at his Bonkazipam pill popping control freak nadir.
Manufacture some excuse of over to you, Karzai and let him deal with it.
Norman Dee
October 31st, 2009 8:15pm Report this commentKarzai must know that if the Taliban come back he is going to be the first head on the block, so why don't we threaten to pull out, and mean it ! unless he gets his act together. Pull back let Pakistan worry about it for a while, and if they don't, then India will nuke them both anyway. Then if the Israelis nuke the Iranians, we can get to a low carbon fuel regime even quicker than we were expecting
daniel maris
November 1st, 2009 2:27am Report this commentLogdon - You are a real comedian. AQ excuse? What - are you saying AQ didn't have its HQ there and didn't plan 9-11 from there? And are you saying that there is no connection between AQ-Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan and terrorism in the UK?
So you want to hand this base back to Osama bin Laden and say "Sorry old chap. Big misunderstanding. Carry on as before..."
Should we go into Somalia? Of course we should. It's a war for survival. Of course we should go in there, stop the piracy and enable them to have a functioning government.
Only this time, let's not make the mistake of using "local power structures". This time, please let's do it with a revolutionary democratic strategy.
Rhoda Klapp
November 1st, 2009 10:29am Report this commentDaniel, who says Al Q planned 9-11 from there. It was planned in Hamburg. Should we bomb Hamburg again? Al Qaeda doesn't seem to be a rigid organisation with plannig from the top. It would appear more like the Arts Council. It accepts funding requests. If a proposal looks like a good wheeze, it releases funding with loose oversight. The applicant takes the money and uses it to further the loose aims of the movement. Al Q doesn't need any sort of fixed HQ. It does need to work where there is free movement of the kind of people they get mixed up with, but most places in the middle east will do. Having to move is only an inconvenience.
Do you seriously propose to put Somalia back on the list? Do you think we can give our forces a free hand? Do you really think that democracy can be bought to tribal lands anywhere without decades of struggle and 'collateral damage'?
Duramazwi
November 1st, 2009 11:59pm Report this commentSo... It's for this shambles that 204 British soldiers lives have been lost..!
Unbelievable!
Cuffleyburgers
November 2nd, 2009 8:05am Report this commentKorski - as a euro-federast, what the hell would you know about elections?
Chris W
November 2nd, 2009 11:43am Report this commentDon't you all realise that it's ok? Gordon Brown has been on the telly to explain that Abdullah Abdullah stood aside in the interests of Afghan National Unity!! Our leader must have spoken with him on the phone, and saved the world again.
Some may remark that if there is a trend being set for standing down, the the great leader should follow suit...
Back to top