Preliminary results from June 14 run-off election indicate Dr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai by gaining 56.44 percent of the votes is well ahead of his rival candidate Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. Abdullah have warned that he will announce his own government. Question rises that where will Abdullah’s rejection of the results and international mediation in the process take political situation of the country?
Failing trials of elections in Afghanistan
The history of rejecting the results of election and banning the electoral process continues since the first years of formation of the new democratic government in Afghanistan. After the tenure of transitional government, installed after the fall of Taliban regime, ended and first Bonn Conference held, Afghanistan witnessed first presidential election in 2004, won by President Hamid Karzai by securing 56 percent of the votes while his rival Mohammad Younis Qanooni only secured 16.3 percent of the votes and rejected to accept the result. Since the first time of presidential elections in Afghanistan, Qanooni’s standoff harmed believes of people in electoral process.
In 2009 presidential bid, Abdullah Abdullah one of the candidates, not only rejected the results, but declined the credibility of the upcoming government which was due to be held by Hamid Karzai, which seems to be repeated this year as well.
In the last few rounds of elections held in Afghanistan, the conditions were not ready for transparent process which could lead to stability in the country. The electoral system was designed to give the opportunity of widespread frauds, especially by the security institutions and the electoral commission’s field staff, so these frauds gave the pretext to one of the parties that rejected entire process, in order to justify his failure in election.
The past experience shows that looking to the conditions in Afghanistan, democratic experiments are mostly unworkable in the context of Afghanistan since most the Afghan politicians could only accept the process which helps them to reach to power. Also the past rounds of elections showed that slogans for democracy and elections were almost fake and problems were created in order to facilitate a role for international parties to intermediate and solve the problem maintaining their profits.
Problems of the electoral teams
What we have seen in the last rounds of election were mostly the rivaling of two kind of personalities in the election; first where those educated abroad and believed in democracy, mostly with support of the west and had some programs for empowering democracy. On the other side in 2004, 2009 and finally in 2014 elections, personalities entered into bid who were involved in the past civil war and were promoting their background for winning the election, their support was from the parties who monopolize the power in the new government system after the Bonn Conference.
In 2014, the nominee from the first category is someone with highest level of education abroad and global work experience; but meanwhile in the structure of his camp some personalities came together who have the same interpretation from democracy as his rival team has, therefore the fear of rejecting the results existed from the both camps even before elections were conducted.
Links with foreign countries and circles is Afghanistan’s known problem, which is seen in both camps every time and has a huge effect on the process.
Political deals
The sense of the need for political deal appeared before runoff election, even the chief commissioner of the Independent Election Commission (IEC) who is head of the only institution to elect president through a democratic process, has also supported this kind of resolutions.
Political negotiation and deals behind the scene caused maneuvers of opposing the electoral process and insisting on their victory in the election, in order to achieve more privileges from such resolutions, or it caused other concepts for transition of power or widespread interferes from foreigners. This also raised questions within the nation regarding election and electoral process and harmed the trust of Afghans on such democratic processes.
There are also perceptions that the rival camps are bargaining over their participation in the coming government by insisting on their demands and conditions for accepting the results or entering to the electoral process, but this kind of measures could split the fragile country into two or more fiefdoms along tribal fault lines, or even return to the bloody civil war, or at least widespread foreign interferes in internal affairs of Afghanistan.
Foreigners’ role and influence on the election
In 2009 election, when both candidates could not secure 50+1 threshold John Kerry, the then Chairman of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations came to Kabul in order to mediate for solving the deadlock over the votes and finally convinced Abdullah Abdullah not to enter runoff.
John Kerry as senator and now as Foreign Secretary is believed to be closed to President Barack Obama. In 2009, the resolution for deadlock over Afghan election bid was diplomatic achievement of John Kerry, and therefore he in 2010 traveled to Kabul to solve the problem raised from the decision of the President Karzai to liquidate private security companies and in various other occasions to find solutions.
Since the United States has an obvious role in the Afghan election, Abdullah Abdullah told a gathering that he spoke to John Kerry and he will come for mediation. Before the preliminary results announcement a group of American senators traveled to Kabul and discussed related issues; but in spite of discussions with the senators Abdullah Abdullah warned announcing his own government.
After Abdullah’s warning, US President Barak Obama called both rivals saying that achieving power in illegal ways will result in US discontinuation of support for Afghan government. Though, after runoff election there are attempts being made to bring crisis and tension for possible crisis exists, but looking to current situation of the country and stand of international society, the situation does not seem dangerous. Broad role of foreigners instead of electoral commissions and reliance of both hopefuls on foreign mediation have led to decline in confidence of the nation in process; besides, it meant failure of the process which has faced it with problems in the future.
In general it seems that this democratic process did not have results for Afghans which were expected. In contrast foreigners in different ways try to prevent existence of a relatively powerful administration in Afghanistan. It looks like Afghanistan will go towards crisis as a result of this process; it could be a political deal or formation of government by any other approach without accepting election results.
By: Abdullah Elham Jamalzai