Thursday, November 5, 2009
“It was Dr. Abdullah’s right to choose to withdraw from the runoff election. My future actions will all be guided by the Afghan Constitution and I will accept the decision made by the Independent Election Commission of Afghanistan.” (Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai on his rival’s decision to withdraw from presidential elections.)
The contentious presidential elections in various parts of the world have supplied steady fodder for my blog. In the last two posts, I covered the unraveling national unity government in Zimbabwe. 
This week, I have been following presidential elections in Afghanistan, where President Hamid Karzai's chief contender and former foreign minister in Mr. Karzai's government, Abdullah Abdullah, announced on November 1 that he would not participate in the run-off election on November 7. He did so after failing to persuade President Karzai to fire the officials of the (purportedly) Independent Election Commission, who rigged the votes in Mr. Karzai’s favor in the first round of the elections. So, Dr. Abdullah’s decision to withdraw appears to have been made out of desperation and not simply because he used his right to do so, as Mr. Karzai’s quote above may suggest.
This week, I have been following presidential elections in Afghanistan, where President Hamid Karzai's chief contender and former foreign minister in Mr. Karzai's government, Abdullah Abdullah, announced on November 1 that he would not participate in the run-off election on November 7. He did so after failing to persuade President Karzai to fire the officials of the (purportedly) Independent Election Commission, who rigged the votes in Mr. Karzai’s favor in the first round of the elections. So, Dr. Abdullah’s decision to withdraw appears to have been made out of desperation and not simply because he used his right to do so, as Mr. Karzai’s quote above may suggest.Mr. Abdullah reportedly rejected Mr. Karzai’s offer to form a coalition government. (He probably was right in doing so: if Zimbabwe’s example is any indication, coalition governments formed by thuggish autocrats and their idealistic opponents are typically very shaky.)
Afghanistan’s unfulfilled elections touch upon both politicians’ future, which is why I wanted to discuss the two of them in this week’s post.
Mr. Abdullah’s withdrawal effectively left Mr. Karzai unchallenged in his quest for a second presidential term. Mr. Karzai has been getting a lot of heat from the international community for his corrupt eight-year governance that included three years as an Acting President.
The White House commented that Mr. Abdullah’s decision would have no impact on the U.S. policies on Afghanistan. It may not affect the substance of the policies themselves: the U.S and its allies proffering troops to prop up Mr. Karzai’s regime are going to continue to insist on a transparent and inclusive rule in Afghanistan. But Mr. Abdullah’s decision will certainly hinder the implementation of said policies because the allies will be dealing with the same old coterie of power-hungry drug-trafficking warlords, still presided by Mr. Karzai, who received another proof of his unrivaled status after his opponent’s emotional announcement about dropping out from the race.The Obama Administration should have fought harder to ensure that the run-off happens, that it is organized responsibly and not in haste, and that it is conducted with a greater transparency than the first vote. Mr. Karzai might have, indeed, garnered a majority of the votes but, with the November 7 ballot having been called off, we will never know for sure. Washington’s insistence on a free and fair election, regardless of the outcome, would help prove that President Obama really meant what he said when he asserted his commitment to fighting corruption in Afghanistan.
If Mr. Abdullah emerged victorious in the run-off, his presidency, most likely, would have facilitated the implementation of anti-corruption policies in Afghanistan. At least his profile in The New York Times leads me to believe that. The Afghan government, too, could benefit from some “fresh blood.”
And, for all this talk about there being no other viable interlocutor for the West but the incumbent Afghan leader, Mr. Karzai appears very insecure about his own position. If he knew the victory would be his, would he not try to boost his dwindling approval ratings by agreeing to a credible run-off with his contestant? So, he is either no longer sure of his privileged status, or he just does not care what his public approval ratings are. Any other opinions?
It seems to me Karzai is definitely sure of his privileged status, albeit not in the eyes of the Afghan people. His sureity rests in the White House. Karzai had the unflinching support of the Bush Administration, and nothing changed when Obama came into office. Thus, Karzai appeared to be in a win-win situation: had he called for a run-off contest, he most likely would have won (Abdullah may have seen the writing on the wall here too). Or, Karzai could have avoided the contest by trying Abdullah's patience or by not holding it at all based on security and cost concerns. Had he chosen the latter option Obama's Administration would have at least tacitly supported the move, if not outright. Obama is in a real pickle right now trying to fight an increasingly violent war. The last thing he needs is a new face in Kabul with which to deal with and get accustomed.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were some back door pressure from Obama on Abdullah to cede the election. Keep an eye on Abdullah in the coming six months, his capitulation may be rewarded with something interesting.
I, as an Afghan who was born in this country and know about Afghan politics to some extent, would like to comment on this post, but my comments in NO way reflect the views of my office, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR - http://www.iwpr.net/).
First, yes, Karzai has not been a successful leader. This is something we Afghans have been saying since the US invasion of Afghanistan. But since Karzai was a darling to the Bush administration, top US papers such as the New York Times and Washington Post did not say bad things about Karzai, preferring to report what the US government wants and likes to hear. I can say that they are not really independent papers and the American people should not always be deceived by what they say or write.
So when Obama came to power and his administration did not like Karzai, the papers, too, turned against him.
I am not anti-Abdullah, but if you research his background, you will find that he was highly involved in the Afghan civil war in the 1990s, which left more than 50,000 Afghans dead and many more injured, and millions of them had to flee the country. Karzai, at least, was not a killer.
There is more to say but i would like to stop here and conclude that Karzai is bad, but today there is no alternative for Karzai. Abdullah is way worse than Karzai. Today, we Afghans are in a position of choosing between the bad and worse.
In my opinion, there was no alternative for Karzai and the international community MUST work with him. If Abdullah became the president (which is not realistic), things would go from bad to worse. First, Pashtuns, who constitute more than half of the Afghanistan population, would never support him, and on the other hand, he has links with warlords and drug lords more dangerous than the ones supported by Karzai.
Thank you.
Post new comment