Jenny Francis
Afghans voted for a new president on October 9, and hoped for a better future. After the events of that day, however, there is a growing fear that their hope is misplaced.
While the official results were yet to be declared by October 30, counting in Afghanistan's first direct presidential poll had concluded, with US-backed interim president Hamid Karzai a clear winner.
Statistics from Afghanistan's Electoral Commission on October 26 showed that, with 97.7% of 8.13 million votes counted, Karzai had secured 55.4% of the vote, enough to avoid a run-off election. His closest opponent, Tajik warlord and former education minister Yunus Quanooni, scored 16.3%. Hazara warlord, Haji Mohammad Mohaqiq, was third on 11.6%, and whisky-drinking Uzbek warlord, Abdul Rashid Dostum, 10.1%.
Each of these candidates has received, at one time or another, substantial financial backing and, in most cases, weapons from the US administration. Each claimed anti-Taliban credentials and primarily appealed to the loyalty and fear of their respective ethnic groups. As a result, voting patterns largely reflected the country's ethnic distribution. Karzai, from the majority Pashtuns, had the additional advantage of being the incumbent with an apparent bridge to the world of aid dollars. He is Washington's man in Kabul.
The only woman candidate, Masooda Jalal, was in sixth place with one per cent, just behind francophone poet Abdul Latif Pedram with 1.1%.
Opposition candidates boycott vote
While an impressive 8.13 million votes were cast (from 10.5 million registered voters), the issue of the day was the number of times each person actually voted. "I voted three times", said an Afghan solider guarding the presidential palace, according to the October 9 US Nation magazine. "But I can't tell you who I voted for, it's a secret", he added with a straight face. Some Western journalists watched their drivers vote three or four times.
In the lead up to the poll, during voter registration, everyone was aware that perhaps 30% of the eligible population had registered to vote more than once. While the UN admitted that "(p)robably there is a lot of multiple registering", it was argued they would still only be able to vote once.
On the day, polling booths were supplied with supposedly indelible ink. On receiving a ballot paper, each voter was obliged to dip his/her thumb into a small tub of this ink. A black thumb thus indicated a person who had already voted. As it turned out the ink was easy to wash off. BBC journalist Paul Anderson reported on October 9: "I watched as a group of three men washed off the thumb markings in full view of us — we filmed them — 20 metres from the ballot boxes where they'd just dropped their papers. Then they rejoined the queue of voters". It was subsequently pointed out that many thumbs were in fact marked with black pens meant for marking ballot papers and boxes, instead of the indelible ink.
John Sifton, Afghan analyst for Human Rights Watch, told Associated Press on October 10 that the ink problem was a result of poor planning by the international community. "Everything that went well on election day was as a result of the Afghan people. Everything that went wrong was due to the international community", he said. "The ink problem is and will be a huge blow to the legitimacy of the election". For his part, Karzai condemned Human Rights Watch: "They do not understand Afghan culture. Tribal culture, it is very democratic. Tribal elders cannot be intimidated."
While the issue of the indelible ink soured the legitimacy of Karzai's victory, his point about tribal culture raises the more fundamental issue of the very nature of this form of "democracy" in a country like Afghanistan.
Individual, secret ballots clash with the tribal system of an Afghan village. Dehnow, for example, is a mostly Pashtun village. As in most villages throughout the country, decisions in Dehnow are made "collectively", the 3000 families make suggestions and then defer to the village elders. On the eve of this election all the men of Dehnow were summonsed to confer with elder Dr Zialhaq. "He is the elder of this village", said Najibullah, when asked for whom he would vote. "Everyone will obey him, what he decides".
In addition, most Afghans, especially women, are illiterate, and electoral staff were poorly prepared. When handed a ballot with pictures and symbols representing the 18 candidates, an elderly man looked at the long list with confusion. When he asked for advice from electoral staff, he was told make to mark the box next to Karzai's picture. This was a common scenario.
By midday on election day, all the presidential candidates, except for Karzai, had called for a boycott of the poll. Despite this almost unanimous plea, the UN decided to carry on with the vote. Clearly under enormous pressure from the US administration, each of the opposition candidates subsequently withdrew his or her call to boycott the poll. When runner-up Quanooni emerged from his front door with news of his decision to accept the results, controversial US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad was seen leaving from the back door.
"Observing the visible fraud in the election, and then respecting the national interest of Afghanistan, is a sacrifice", said Quanooni. Third-place warlord Mohammad Mohaqiq made a similar announcement, flanked by US embassy staff.
Washington, in order to vindicate the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 and to present a positive foreign policy story prior to the US elections, needed a high turnout and an accepted Karzai victory. Faced with an embarrassing boycott, deals were made and offers too good to refuse were accepted.
International reaction
Governments who led the invasion of this country used the election to bolster their own image. US President Bush told a Republican Party fundraising meeting, "A marvellous thing is happening in Afghanistan. Freedom is powerful. Think about a society in which young girls couldn't go to school, and their mothers were whipped in the public square, and today they're holding a presidential election."
Australian Prime Minister John Howard, also re-elected on October 9, said in his victory speech: "[The Afghanistan] election has been made possible by reason of the fact that a number of countries, including Australia, were prepared to take a stand for democracy and to take a stand against terrorism."
From almost all independent commentators, however, the view was less rosy. Christian Parenti, from the Nation, wrote on October 9: "Despite a large voter turnout in Kabul and other major cities, the presidential election in Afghanistan has been a farce. Instead of Taliban violence, the balloting was besieged by a wave of fraud and technical errors. All of Karzai's opponents have denounced the vote as illegitimate, triggering a local and perhaps international credibility crisis for the US-appointed President Hamid Karzai and the international occupation of Afghanistan."
Even Melbourne's Age stated on October 9, "Afghanistan is not the success that [US President] George Bush claims it to be, and it certainly not mission accomplished".
The timeline for this election was set in Washington, with the aim of presenting more positive images than those of Iraq, immediately prior to the US elections. It has turned out to be a foreign policy embarrassment for Washington and the international community, particularly the United Nations, which spent US$200 million running the election.
Afghans remain desperately poor. Instead of health, education and reconstruction, most aid money is still ploughed into unsuccessful programs to demobilise private militia or reduce the opium production, or into poorly prepared elections. The election has passed, and Afghans continue to hope for a better future.
From Green Left Weekly, November 3, 2004.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.