Elections: End to Bullet by Ballot | ||
Compiled by Mohammad Javad Ashraf Mansuri The April 2014 Afghan presidential elections was one of the most important political tenure’s Afghanistan has gone through since the ousting of the Taliban 12 years ago. Many Afghans hope that the elections would prepare the grounds for settlement of their main concerns that have been haunting them for decades: security challenges, growing opium trade and corruption. The election means more for Afghanistan than selecting a new president. It means the country could have the first peaceful democratic transfer of power in its modern history, in the year when the U.S.-led international forces (ISAF) that have been in the country since 2001 will leave. The current president, Hamid Karzai, was first appointed by a national assembly in 2001 as the interim leader and then went on to win two elections. Based on Afghanistan’s constitution, he was barred from running for a third term. This year’s presidential election can provide a critical opportunity for a renewal of legitimacy, a boost in confidence and a start to correcting the ineffective governance in Afghanistan.
Election, Essential for Peace and StabilityCommenting on the significance of the 2014 elections, the USIP Director of Afghanistan and Pakistan Programs, Andrew Wilder stated: “I strongly believe that the single biggest opportunity to protect the tremendous achievements of the past decade and to promote the U.S. objective of a relatively stable Afghanistan that does not slide back into civil war, once again becoming a haven for transnational terrorist groups and destabilizing its neighbors, especially Pakistan, is a credible election in 2014 that produces a legitimate successor to President Karzai.” Until recently this critically important political transition in Afghanistan has been overshadowed by the security transition – the ongoing process by which international forces are drawn down and Afghan forces take full responsibility for their own security. However, many Afghans do not believe it will be possible to have a successful security transition without a successful political transition that ensures there is a legitimate civilian government to control and maintain the cohesiveness of the Afghan National Security Forces. Furthermore, there is a clear recognition among Afghan political elites that a deeply flawed election that does not produce a legitimate outcome, will have a very negative impact on the willingness of major Western donors to continue generous levels of financial support to sustain the Afghan economy and the Afghan National Security Forces. They know all too well that it was not the withdrawal of Soviet troops that led to the downfall of the Najibullah regime in 1992, and the resulting descent into a bloody civil war, but the end to the Soviet subsidies following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The stakes in 2014 were not simply the election of a new Afghan leadership, but the endurance of Afghanistan’s constitutional political order. In spite of the problems that Afghanistan continues to face, its current constitution, ratified in January of 2004, has succeeded in holding together a disparate group of political elites. Many of these elites still have the means to contest for power with arms, but they have accepted that constitutional process and electoral contests are better ways of resolving leadership conflicts. Without elections the fabric of the constitution will be torn, and with it the existing consensus on how to allocate power and determine legitimacy. If this had happened, it would have been likely that some of Afghanistan’s major powerbrokers would resort to the only other set of rules for power available to them, i.e. force and violence. This would not only have tragic consequences for Afghans, but also reinvigorate the Taliban insurgency. If elections were not held it will be a big propaganda victory for the Taliban.
Foundations for a Democratic Future in AfghanistanElections have worked in Afghanistan, at least in terms of their most basic function. They have legitimized executive power, elected representative parliaments and provincial councils, and have begun to accustom Afghan citizens to the rites of democracy. However imperfect, Afghanistan has achieved a government that exercises civilian control over its security forces, negotiates trade deals with its neighbors, seeks loans from international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, represents Afghanistan at the United Nations, and maintains important bilateral relationships on a sovereign footing. All of this is possible because the government is recognized by the international community because it has been established on the basis of the mechanisms prescribed in its constitution. There is, of course, much room for improvement, but the two post-2001 electoral cycles have laid a foundation from which Afghans can continue to grow into their democracy. Elections are also accepted by most Afghans as a means of determining political power. The Afghans expressed pride in the fact that their country has joined the family of democratic nations. Furthermore, despite past flaws, they see no better alternative. At the level of elites, the prospect of election led to significant political mobilization. Electoral politics happened in Afghanistan – the democratic politics of coalition-building, platform-drafting, and campaign strategizing. The fact that President Karzai was constitutionally barred from running for a third term was the most salient feature of the 2014 election. U.S. President Barack Obama hailed the Afghan vote as “another important milestone in Afghans taking full responsibility for their country.” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Afghans “braved threats and intimidation” and “sent a powerful message that the perpetrators of violence cannot win.” NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen praised the “enthusiasm” of voters and the “outstanding job” done by Afghan security forces. Indeed, Afghanistan’s presidential and provincial elections on April 5 exceeded many expectations.
Afghans Determining Their Own FatesAround 7 million people, or 60 percent of eligible voters, cast their ballots, despite threats of widespread violence, torrential rain, and massive queues. It was a powerful message of repudiation to the Taliban. It also signaled that democracy –after 13 years of foreign and Afghan blood being spilled and billions of dollars in aid spent – has firmly taken root in the country. As many Afghans were keen to point out, “Power comes through the ballot, not the bullet,” a message that had been painted by the government on scores of street corners and buildings in Kabul. Voting was extended by one hour to accommodate the vast numbers of voters. The tens of thousands of Afghans still waiting in line after polls closed were allowed to cast their ballots. The number of people who had come out to vote was so high in some areas that polling stations ran out of ballot papers. Thousands were turned away after waiting hours on end. Significantly, female participation was far higher than expected, as was the number of voters in the country’s south and east, militant strongholds where violence and Taliban intimidation had kept many Afghans away in the 2009 presidential and 2010 parliamentary elections. That’s not to say the vote was perfect. While turnout was significantly higher in urban areas, it was a mixed bag in insecure regions in the country’s volatile east and south. In these areas, there were reports of dozens of polling stations failing to open due to insecurity. There were also reports of “ghost” stations, where voters simply failed to show up. At the same time, there were sharp rises in some insecure areas. For example, there were reports of thousands turning out in the Andar district of Ghazni Province, where only three people voted in 2010. An anti-Taliban uprising has put the militants on the back foot in the district, but it is still considered highly insecure. Many Afghans and foreign observers lauded the high turnout as a victory for Afghanistan’s young democracy. International election observers had said before the election that turnout higher than 50 percent would represent a major success. “It was my dream come true,” said ShukriaBarakzai, a prominent female member of parliament. “That was a fantastic slap on the face of the enemy of Afghanistan, a big punch in the face of those who believe Afghanistan is not ready for democracy.” Kate Clark, a former BBC reporter says: One of the reasons why the presidential election ‘went so well’ was the hard work of Afghan journalists: their coverage of rallies and campaigns, holding of debates between the candidates and phone-ins and their scrutiny of alliances and platforms helped bring the competition alive and is likely to have been one factor in the high voter interest and turn out. Meanwhile, in an opinion piece published in “The Diplomat” on April 6, ZalmayKhalilzad, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan said that “The election demonstrates a rise in Afghan political consciousness. Afghans are taking charge of their own future, no longer allowing outside powers or brokered deals to determine their fate.”
Dr. Abdullah AbdullahAfghan presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah. From 1992 to 1996, Abdullah served as a spokesperson for Afghanistan’s Defense Ministry and subsequently as Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was in charge of foreign affairs for the government-in-exile of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, led by President BurhanuddinRabbani from 1999 until the collapse of the Taliban regime. In 2009 he finished second behind Karzai, in an election. Ethnically, an important factor in a nation where ethnicity can largely determine destiny, he is Tajik and Pashtun.
Dr. Ashraf GhaniAhmadzaiAshraf GhaniAhmadzai, former chairman of the Afghan Transition Coordination Commission, alongside his two vice-presidential candidates Abdul Rashid Dostum Uzbek ledar ( L) and Sarwar Danish (R). Ahmadzai, born to an influential Afghan Pashtun family in 1949, was the finance minister during the transitional administration after the Taliban regime fell. A technocrat, Ahmadzai partnered up with his former archenemy, General Abdul Rashid Dostum, a powerful Northern warlord who was a key U.S. ally against the Taliban. Ahmadzai ran in the 2009 elections but won only 3 percent of the vote. The partnership would give Ahmadzai the political support needed in order to become a viable candidate, if he can get the votes of ethnic Uzbeks from North Afghanistan who support Dostum
Mohammad Javad Ashraf Mansuri is a teacher at ShahidDastgheib High School, Shiraz. He has compiled this article from the following source: ibitimes.com.
| ||
Statistics View: 9,999 |
||