No closure in Afghan election row
The latest vote counts from Kabul show that President Hamid Karzai has now apparently got a large enough vote to prevent a second round of voting. But instead of providing the kind of closure that many might have hoped for, a flawed election process has now opened the way for months of political haggling and brinkmanship.
The United States and United Nations, among others, are pushing for a rigorous investigation of hundreds of reported irregularities.
Does the president owe the re-election to hundreds of thousands of questionable votes?
Some complaints point to districts where almost nobody voted for his rivals, others to ballot boxes being stuffed with votes without any voters having gone to the trouble of visiting the polling station.
Inevitably there are quite a few observers who believe the US and others will make a fuss because some of the rigging has been brazen, and they feel their public demands such protests, but that ultimately they will baulk at forcing Mr Karzai from power.
The vote will thus have gone ahead at great cost in lives and money but reassured nobody that the president has an authoritative new mandate.
It might be worth asking who, on the international side in particular, thought pressing ahead with this election was a good idea?
Back in February I wrote that the question of whether or not to hold it was an "elephant in the room" for the new Obama team.
Apparently key civilians like Richard Holbrooke and his British counterpart Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles favoured the poll, but some of the military figures like General David Petraeus did not.
Clearly there would have been a political cost to abandoning the exercise - the Taliban would doubtless have crowed that the president was afraid to hold it.
If however the authorities had cited the security situation for a postponement of the election, and convened a Loya Jirga - a grand assembly of local leaders of the type that originally confirmed the president in power - to confirm him in office for two years then it might well have been better for all concerned.
Instead we face months of investigation of the irregularities, with the choice of deposing Mr Karzai or leaving him in power as a damaged president at the end of it.
I'm Mark Urban, and I'm Newsnight's diplomatic and defence editor. I deal with war and peace around the world, so with apologies to Leo Tolstoy, that's what this blog will be called. No literary pretensions, just an attempt to drill down to the key issues - people around the world struggling for peace and security.
Comment number 1.
At 8th Sep 2009, dennisjunior1 wrote:Mark Urban:
I am not surprise, by the reports that there is no closure in the Afghan Election row; Because, there are reports of fraud and misconduct in the recent polls...
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 8th Sep 2009, bookhimdano wrote:given the british people do not even have the same level of democracy in the uk [cannot elect a head of state] why should they let the afghans vote for who they want?
brave british troops are dying for nothing and for electoral rights we don't even have here.
suppose afghanistan had the 'british model' of treason laws that prevented discussing if anyone else should be head of state, of a national oath to defend a hereditary head of state and a national anthem to pray for protection of the that hereditary?
who would fight for such an absurd system or even think it good?
before we can 'export' democracy we need it in the uk?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 9th Sep 2009, dennisjunior1 wrote:Mark:
It might be worth asking who, on the international side in particular, thought pressing ahead with this election was a good idea?
I thought moving forward with election in Afghanistan at this time, was not a good idea; Although, I am a strong favour of democratic rule....
But, the country was not ready for elections (2009)....
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 9th Sep 2009, leftieoddbod wrote:so run it by me again...we are losing soldiers every week to uphold: democracy? women cannot vote. Democracy; rape within marriage Democracy; girls cannot access education. Democracy; warlords rig elections Democracy; Karsai totally corrupt Democracy? Don't make me laugh...and cry
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 9th Sep 2009, barriesingleton wrote:GLOBOPOLY - MOVING THE PIECE CALLED 'BRITAIN' (#4)
Don't forget the global board game Oddo. The rules say: "Impose will on foreign country - gain certificate of International Bully." It doesn't matter what you impose: you can make them all grow peanuts and sell them to you for - well - peanuts, or force them to teach your language as their primary communication, then fix them up with a health service - and finally strip out all their nurses and doctors. Naturally, in Globopoly, when their elections are as corrupt as your own - you are outright winners.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 10th Sep 2009, MacScroggie wrote:With aspects of the Afgan election now officially declared fraudulent, now is the time to assess the UK's involvement in that troubled nation.
Like the Americans, we can fight a war with reasonable success, but we cannot be peace keepers, let alone moral arbiters in another country, without significant loss of life and limb.
It's time to withdraw and hold a line against the enemy that we CAN defend - our own shores.
Human Rights legislation for terrorists must be diminished, whatever the EU and the rest of the world might say. Terrorism prevention must become the UK's Number One Priority, and these people ruthlessly sought and rooted out.
More importantly punishment for terrorist offences must be greatly increased, and deportation after serving a sentence will NOT be optional.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 11th Sep 2009, threnodio wrote:Is it not blindingly obvious that if the West persists in seeking to export - some would argue impose - their model of democracy on unwilling or unresponsive recipients, they are going to come horribly unstuck every time?
The allies are now stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they accept the outcome of the poll, it degenerates into a cosmetic exercise in which the fact that it was not 'free and fair' does not really matter. They had their election and that is the end of it. On the other hand, if they reject the result and seek a rerun, it is in effect an admission that the model does not work in practice. In that case, why are the nations involved spending millions of dollars and hundreds of lives on a busted flush?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but, in retrospect, would it not have been better to barge in, take out as many Al Quaida people as possible as some kind of payback for 9/11 then get the hell out of there? I have argued elsewhere that a war in Afghanistan is unwinable because the objectives are unachievable. It has now been characterized as the war we 'must win'. History tells it's a war we cannot win.
But - hey - they got an election - of sorts!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 16th Sep 2009, MacScroggie wrote:Remember Zimbabwe ?
Remember their "democratic" elections 18 months ago ?
The same thing will happen in Afganistan. There's little or no practical international action that can be taken, so we will come to dully accept the "status quo".
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 18th Sep 2009, MacScroggie wrote:Anyone remember a gentleman called Magabe and a country called Zimbabwe ?
A definately rigged election happened there only 18 months ago, and now many countries have almost normalised relations with Zimbabwe.
By the beginning of 2011 we'll will all have forgotten the political mess Afghanistan is in. Our only thought will be for the continuing loss of life of British troops there.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)