Nouse.co.uk » Fraud accusations rife in Afghanistan

Fraud accusations rife in Afghanistan

November 10, 2009
Victoria Lee

The decision of Afghan Presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah to pull out before the second round of the Afghan elections has left many questioning the legitimacy of Hamid Karzai, the winner by default.

Karzai, the subject of investigation for electoral fraud and vote-rigging by the Independent Complaints Commission (IEC), was declared President the day after Abdullah’s withdrawal. Abdullah withdrew his candidacy after his demands for a new chairman of the IEC were ignored. He said he could no longer take part in an election with biased officials and was standing down “in the interests of national unity”.

Azizullah Ludin, Chairman of the IEC described how the IEC commissioners had come to a “unanimous” decision to name Karzai President and cancel the second round of voting. Ludin’s deputy, Zekria Barakzai, said: “It does not make sense to have just one candidate taking part [in a second round] – the people would know the results before they go to the polls.”

Although Barakzai is “totally disappointed” about the way the elections have turned out, he said concerns about the country’s security situation and the vast costs of a second round of voting were deciding factors in naming Karzai President.

However, many of Abdullah supporters have attacked the decision, accusing the IEC of failing to follow the rules of the Afghan constitution, which requires a President to win at least 50% of the vote. Saeed Rahi, a lawyer, said of the 50% rule: “The constitution is quite clear on this, but this process is now a political game run by the international community.”

After the announcement, the US embassy endorsed Karzai in a statement: “We congratulate President Karzai on his victory in this historic election and look forward to working with him.”

However, many political commentators believe that this election has highlighted the severe problems with the structure of the Afghan Government. Candace Rondeaux, Chief Afghanistan Analyst at the International Crisis group in Kabul, has described it as a “system [that] is fundamentally broken”. She said that the current constitution had created a weak parliament and, consequently, an overly strong President: “Afghans will have to suffer another four years when Presidential powers cannot be checked”.

The Afghan Government is also highly centralised. The election debacle has left many questioning whether the attempt to force a centralised Western-style government on a country whose traditions have been local and tribal for over 1,000 years.

Judith Kipper, Director of the Middle East programme at Washington’s Institute of World Affairs, has publicly questioned whether increased international support. “Concentrat[ing] more on the local [Afghan elections next year] than on Kabul and Karzai” could be the answer to rebalancing the power base of this “extremely primitive country” Kipper commented.

It has also been suggested that increased focus on local, rather than national, leadership could help to reintegrate the tribal-based Taliban into local communities.
For now, Karzai has the support of the international community.

However, Prime Minister, Gordon Brown warned that the extra 500 British troops needed to stabilise southern Afghanistan will not be deployed until the returning Karzai administration puts into place: “urgent measures for tackling corruption, strengthening local government and reaching out to Afghan society”.