Afghanistan's Abdullah rejects election result as 'coup' against people

KABUL Mon Jul 7, 2014 3:31pm EDT

1 of 2. Afghan presidential candidate Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai smiles during a news conference in Kabul June 26, 2014.

Credit: Reuters/Omar Sobhani

Related Topics

KABUL (Reuters) - Afghan presidential contender Abdullah Abdullah's camp rejected preliminary results of last month's run-off election on Monday as a "coup" against the people, putting him on a dangerous collision course with his rival, Ashraf Ghani.

The Independent Election Commission on Monday announced that Ghani won the June 14 second round with 56.44 percent of the vote, according to preliminary results. The tally might change when the final official numbers come out on July 22.

Abdullah's camp responded angrily, saying the result was invalid as it did not throw out all the fraudulent votes.

"We don't accept the results which were announced today and we consider this as a coup against people's votes," said Mujib Rahman Rahimi, a spokesman for Abdullah's campaign.

His rejection sets the stage for a possible bloody standoff between ethnic groups or even secession of parts of the fragile country, which is already deeply divided along tribal lines.

Abdullah, a former anti-Taliban resistance fighter, has long alleged widespread fraud in the messy and protracted vote and insisted results should be delayed until all problematic poll stations have been audited.

Son of a Pashtun father and a Tajik mother, he draws much of his support from the Tajik minority in northern Afghanistan and is capable of drawing massive crowds who are likely to be equally enraged by Monday's announcement.

Ghani, for his part, has strong support from Pashtun tribes in the south and east. In the southern city of Kandahar, hundreds of people took to the streets late on Monday to celebrate.

Officials warned this was not the final result, however.

"The announcement of preliminary results does not mean that the leading candidate is the winner and there is possibly the outcome might change after we inspect complaints," IEC chief Ahmad Yousuf Nuristani told reporters.

The United States echoed the view.

"We have seen today’s announcement of preliminary results and note that these figures are not final or authoritative and may not predict the final outcome, which could still change based on the findings of the Afghan electoral bodies," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement.

"Serious allegations of fraud have been raised and have yet to be adequately investigated."

The deadlock over the vote has quashed hopes for a smooth transition of power in Afghanistan, a concern for the West as most U.S.-led forces withdraw from the country this year.

Earlier on Monday, rival camps tried to find a last-minute compromise to keep Afghanistan from sliding into a protracted period of uncertainty.

Nuristani said the commission had received a request from Abdullah's camp to review ballot papers from more than 7,000 polling stations on suspicion of fraud - which could significantly alter the result if recounted.

"We announced preliminary results today and it is now the complaints commission's duty to inspect this case," he said. "We are ready to provide any assistance until the end of the process.”


The vote to pick a successor to Hamid Karzai was intended to mark the first democratic transfer of power in Afghan history, a crucial step towards stability as NATO prepares to withdraw the bulk of its troops by the end of the year.

Western powers, particularly the United States, had hoped for a trouble-free process that would show that 12 years of their military involvement in Afghanistan were not in vain and contributed to the country's nation-building.

But the process has been fraught with accusations of cheating from the start.

Without a unifying leader accepted by all sides, Afghanistan could split into two or more fiefdoms along tribal fault lines, or even return to the bloody civil war of the 1990s.

Abdullah has accused Karzai, also a Pashtun, of playing a role in the alleged rigging in Ghani's favour and says he would accept the vote only if he saw firm evidence that fraudulent votes had been thrown out and the final result was clean.

Taliban insurgents remain a formidable security risk after vowing to disrupt the election process. On Monday, they killed a district police chief in the western city of Herat and attacked a check point in northern Afghanistan.

(Writing by Maria Golovnina; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (7)
carlmartel wrote:
This offers the best possible outcome. The “side” that the US supports will split and fight a civil war in which US troops may be viewed as opponents to be shot and killed. The Taliban will continue to be the enemy that will shoot and kill US troops. We will continue to have “red on blue” shootings of US troops by our old enemies, the Taliban, and we will gain a second, and possibly a third, source of “green on blue” shootings of US troops. We can have as many as four groups of troops shooting at US troops in the same war: the Red on Blue Taliban, the Green on Blue Taliban, the Green on Blue Ahmadzai supporters, and the Green on Blue Abdullah supporters.

The best part is that Russia, China, and four central Asian lands in the SCO, a military, political, and economic alliance, agreed in 2011 to watch Afghanistan after the US and NATO leave that was scheduled to be at the end of 2014. Fortunately, Obama decided to extend the US presence until the end of 2016. Our president knows that he will receive a divine revelation that will give the US the victory that it has failed to achieve after 13 years. Obama does not need the SIX SUCKERS who agreed to take this debacle from the US and NATO because he knows that spending more money that we don’t have for two more years will achieve “peace in our time.” Obama knows that sending US supplies halfway around the world to Karachi and driving them 850 miles through Taliban country to let the Taliban create ad hoc fireworks displays with assault rifles, machine guns, and RPGs at US expense for two more years will give us “peace with honor.” The wisdom of Obama is amazing.

Jul 07, 2014 4:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Alamanach wrote:
I have a Pashtun friend in Afghanistan, and I was discussing the election with him several months ago. He suggested that one good way to stabilize Afghanistan would be to bring back the monarchy. Given the strongly tribal mentality of so much of the country, this isn’t such a bad idea. A monarchical system might not be the best form of government, but it is far from the worst. Also, look at countries that lost their monarchies abruptly– Afghanistan included. Heavy bloodshed was often the result. Some countries have kept their monarchies, but have shifted political power away from the royal family in a gradual way: Japan and Great Britain, for example. These countries have remained stable. Maybe monarchies aren’t such a bad thing.

The West has traditions of democracy and equality so old, they make the Magna Carta look recent. Afghanistan has none of that tradition. I wrote a proposal once for a USAID grant to bring more Western books into Afghanistan: Plato’s Republic, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Victor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, and the like. Presently, you can’t find those books there, which means Afghans can’t read them, which means those ideas can’t seep into the culture. It’s no wonder that elections don’t make much sense to them. USAID turned me down, saying they couldn’t see the point in importing books.

Oh well. Good luck to you…

Jul 07, 2014 5:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gentalman wrote:
I hope Afghanistan does not become other Iraq.
The strength of super powers like Russia or US is expected to be constructive and not destructive.
Actions and results are more important than statements.

Jul 07, 2014 5:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.