Graft and threats of violence cloud hopes for Afghan vote
1 of 10. A burqa-clad Afghan woman walks past an electoral poster in Herat, western Afghanistan September 6, 2010.
Credit: Reuters/Raheb Homavandi
KABUL |
KABUL (Reuters) - Taliban threats, shuttered polling centers and warnings of widespread fraud are clouding hopes for Afghanistan's September 18 parliamentary election, a key test of an already fragile democracy, observers have warned.
With the poll less than two weeks away, the U.N.-backed Electoral Complaints Commission said it has already received 1,503 complaints, ranging from public resources being given to preferred candidates to interference by government officials.
Early signs for a smooth and fair process are not promising.
"Things are getting worse. Many (politicians) are just after making themselves rich and working for their own interests," said Azizullah, a 32-year-old Kabul civil servant.
"I do not want to vote, because I have lost my trust in the government, parliament and election under the current situation," he said.
The election is a litmus test of stability in Afghanistan before U.S. President Barack Obama conducts a war strategy review in December that will examine the pace and scale of U.S. troop withdrawals from July 2011.
Graft and cronyism are major concerns ahead of the vote after last year's fraud-marred presidential election in which a third of the votes for President Hamid Karzai were tossed out as fake.
According to the government-appointed Independent Election Commission, preliminary results should be available four days after the vote but final results may not be out until October 31.
Those dates depend on the number of complaints received, which promises to be high given the number already lodged and that 2,500 candidates are vying for 249 seats in the Wolesi Jirga, or lower house of parliament.
WARLORDS, MILITIAS
Seventy-six candidates have already been disqualified, according to the IEC, for offences ranging from improper registration to links with warlords and private militias.
"The parliamentary elections (have) to be a step forward, and my fear is that we might miss this opportunity once again, and it might turn into a curse," former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah said on Sunday.
At about the same time Abdullah was speaking, the Taliban further clouded an already grim picture by issuing its first explicit threat to disrupt the poll, vowing to target foreign troops and then Afghans who take part.
At least four candidates have been killed so far, according to the United Nations and government officials, and dozens of campaign workers wounded. Some of the attacks have been blamed on the Taliban and other insurgents.
The Taliban mounted about 130 attacks against last year's election. While failing to disrupt the process significantly in much of the country, but voter turnout was low in the ethnic Pashtun south, where the Taliban are strongest.
The threat of poor security has already forced the IEC to close 938 out of 6,835 polling centers across the country, potentially disenfranchising thousands of Afghans even though they will be able to vote in other centers.
There are almost 150,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan but they will play a background role during the election, with security to be provided by Afghan police and soldiers.
Still, violence is at its worst since the Taliban were ousted by U.S.-backed Afghan forces in late 2001, with military and civilian casualties at record levels.
Despite the threats, Abdullah urged Afghans to vote.
"Giving up on the democratic process will not get us anywhere, and the international community will not achieve any of their goals," he said.
(Additional reporting by Sayed Salahuddin; Editing by Paul Tait and David Fox)
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
The U.S. plan to “build” a democracy has been flawed from the beginning. Before democracy can flourish, the issues of corruption, poverty, low educational levels, dark age feudalism, and religious fanaticism – Afghanistan’s primary gross national products – have to be addressed. That’s why we’ve been there for nine years and counting, conducting solid military operations within a cauldron of instability.
In the future, the U.S. State Department needs to assess a country’s existing structures and determine, in advance, whether or not to proceed with political change. If a country, like Afghanistan, is deemed ungovernable, then we should go in, conduct military operations, and depart – period.
You can’t build something from nothing no matter how many nails you hammer into the walls. If the foundation isn’t in place, the structure will eventually sag and collapse, with the minions scrambling to steal away the scraps.
The collapse of Afghanistan is a guaranteed prediction.
Strong governments are likely to have their own agenda. The Iraqi oil will flow whether or not the civilian government ever sits down again. The contracts have been signed and civilian adviser will always be there to guide the Iraq government.
A better prediction – and somewhat contrary to appearances – is that the US will never leave either country and will try to establish an even stronger hold on the area by way of Iran. The last 50,000 troops in Iraq would be handy, and a lot can happen in a year.
And the US will become more overtly militarist and will become more and more a country governed by and for elites. So many people believe that is always the case anyway. The two countries run more or less as well as the US wants them too.
We may find the same political ineffectiveness here and that will suit the big corporate interests just fine. They don’t really need countries. All they really like are investors and consumers. Citizens with rights are a nuisance to their interests. And they can create an effective world government as long as one is part of them and votes their interests.
If that isn’t good enough for the polity, the major corporate interests will call for military rule. The more the countries interest are defined by the need to keep foreign territories subjugated, and the more desperately the country clings to them, the more the domestic voters will be seen as deluded, stupid and unworthy to vote. That rational allowed many South American countries to live under military rule for decades. Civil unrest – in an aging society with a smallish percentage of young people, isn’t likely to kick up too much fuss. But whop much would be required for martial law to be a rule of American life?
And the longer the country has to live with a sense of militancy – the easier it will be to accustom the people to being ruled with military priorities the dominant priorities – but understated so as not be too obvious.
The most important people in the country now – rule money. When the powers that be – want more popularity – they can open the spigot and aim precisely at those they wish to seduce and make them loyal to them.
Just figure imperial roman practice – without an overt emperor but with a thoroughly compromised and corrupt legislature – that will never call itself a monarchy or plutocracy, but will not allow anyone else to challenge it.
That’s what’s likely to happen. Or already has.
Follow Reuters