Home Contact Us  

Afghanistan - Articles

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
#4565, 16 July 2014

Next Afghan President

Donít steal the election now
D Suba Chandran
Director, IPCS

Within a span of two months, there has been an unfortunate turn around to the electoral and thereby the larger democratic process in Afghanistan. After a successful first round of elections in April 2014, the second round took place during the last month to elect either Abdullah Abdullah or Ashraf Ghani. What should have been a simple and straight forward election between two candidates has today become a highly divisive one, threatening the positive achievements in the recent years towards establishing Afghanistan as a democracy.

Trouble started much before the counting process began. Abdullah Abdullah complained about fraud in the second round of election, with ballot boxes being stuffed in more than 2000 polling booths. What was surprising also was the number of votes polled in the second round of elections, when compared with the first round.

While the first round witnessed polling of six million votes, the initial count after elections projected seven million, while the final number after counting rose to eight million. The independent Election Commission has announced that Ashraf Ghani scoring more than 54 percent of the votes polled, while Abdullah Abdullah securing less than 45 percent.

Abdullah group consider this as a huge fraud and believe that the two million votes should be bogus and stuffed to ensure Ashraf Ghani wins the process. His supporters also provide as proof telephonic conversations of the election commission officials on the issue of fraud and attempting to steal the election in favour of Ashraf Ghani.
With the other two candidates – Zalmai Rassoul and Abdul Sayyaf who have secured 11 and 7 percent of votes during the previous round, supporting Abdullah Abdullah, the latter was expecting his vote share would increase from 45 percent in the previous round to more than 50 percent during the second round. However, Ashraf Ghani who had scored less that Abdullah in the first round was declared securing more than 50 percent, which the Abdullah group has refused to accept.

Having gone through the same process earlier while fighting Hamid Karzai, Abdullah Abdullah do not want to lose one more time due to fraud and is unlikely to wait till the next Presidential elections. His supporters are vociferous and are pressurizing Abdullah to form a government immediately on his own. His group wants to go to the Presidential palace and occupy it, thereby forming the government. Abdullah does have support amongst few Governors in the provinces and also amongst a section within the Afghan security forces. His threat is doable from his side.

It would have been a disaster had he carried out the threat. Thankfully, he allowed Kerry to mediate in finding a solution. After a marathon of meetings between Abdullah and Ghani, Kerry did succeed in establishing a deal; both had agreed to an audit again, thereby counting the votes.

How did the electoral process, after the initial success come to this stage? Was there really turn around between the two rounds, which made Ashraf Ghani take a decisive lead in a period of two months? Or, was there something sinister behind the entire disaster.

A section does accuse Hamid Karzai, the President now for playing a dirty role in favouring Ashraf Ghani. The latter being a pashtun is a factor cited as Karzai’s decision to steal the election against Abdullah Abdullah. When compared to Ashraf Ghani, Abdullah Abdullah is not seen as an outside; he has remained within Afghanistan, fought the Soviet troops earlier as a part of the Mujahideen resistance, and latter the Taliban. He continued to support the political process after Karzai was made the President during the last decade. Ashraf Ghani is seen as an outside and technocrat, who was imported from the West. So Abdullah group does have a point.

Second, there is also a conspiracy theory accusing Karzai as the primary villain trying deliberately to create political instability. If there is a political standoff between the two candidates, he is likely to remain the President for a longer term; or, given his support to Ashraf Ghani, the later would return the favour and accommodate Karzai in one way or another. This section also claims, without such a long term plan for himself, he would not have attempted to build such a huge palace in Kabul after passing over the baton to the next President.

The US was alarmed with such a situation for three reasons. First, Karzai continuing as the President in the event of political instability mean that the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) would not be signed between Afghanistan and the US. The other two candidates have agreed to sign, if they get elected. Second, the US is also equally worried about any political instability at this juncture, with the American forces preparing their exit plan.

The most important worry for the US is any repeat of Iraq situation. A section within the US has already started writing that today’s Iraq is tomorrow’s Afghanistan, hinting that what is happening within Iraq would happen to Afghanistan. An unstable government, non-inclusive politics, pull-out of foreign troops and radical onslaught – the recipe for disaster today in Iraq would very well become the ingredients of failure in Afghanistan tomorrow.

The US at this juncture does not want one more unstable country in this region. If there is instability in Kabul, the political process would remain paralysed. Attracting foreign investment, which is crucial to the stability and the very survival of Afghanistan, would then become a tougher issue.

More than the political paralysis and economic failure, Afghanistan is likely to become politically polarised along pashtun and non-pashtun lines, if the above happens. This will also puncture the Afghan dream that the youth in particular believes in terms of establishing an Afghan nation based on a larger identity cutting across narrow ethnic and tribal identities. The political instability would let the Afghan youth down and hit them hard, than any other sections of the society.

So, who will benefit out of the above developments? Obviously, without firing a single bullet and planning an ambush, Taliban would gain considerably and in fact would cover the lost ground in no time. Taliban, though weakened when compared to the last decade, still have enough fire power to wreck the process, especially in a politically unstable situation. Taliban would bounce back, not because of inherent strength, but because of the failure of mainstream political process and political consensus.

For the rest of the region, any Taliban ingress in Afghanistan now leading towards an establishment of any form of government, even over a limited territory would imply two fanatic regimes in Iraq in the west and in Afghanistan in the east, forming a radical corridor. Such a development would neither be in the interest of Afghanistan, or in the rest of Asia. West Asia, South Asia, Central Asia and even parts of Western China (especially Xinjiang) would face the reverberations of such a development.
It is imperative that the two Presidential candidates in Afghanistan get back to the political process and ensure that the audit takes place, thus increasing the credibility of the electoral process and infusing faith in the political path.

By arrangement with Rising Kashmir 

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
IPCS Columnists
Af-Pak Diary
D Suba Chandran
Resetting Kabul-Islamabad Relations: Three Key Issues
Can Pakistan Reset its Relations with Afghanistan?
The New Afghanistan: Four Major Challenges for President Ghani
Big Picture
Prof Varun Sahni
Understanding Democracy and Diversity in J&K
When Xi Met Modi: Juxtaposing China and India
Pakistan?s Tactical Nuclear Weapons: The Inevitability of Instability

Dateline Colombo

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera.
Sri Lanka: Moving Towards a Higher Collective Outcome
The Importance of Electing the Best to our Nation's Parliament
Sri Lanka: Toward a Diaspora Re-Engagement Plan
Dateline Islamabad
Salma Malik
Pakistan's Hurt Locker: What Next?
IPCS Forecast: Pakistan in 2015
India-Pakistan Relations in 2015: Through a Looking Glass
Dhaka Discourse
Prof Delwar Hossain
IPCS Forecast: Bangladesh in 2015
18th SAARC Summit: A Perspective from Bangladesh
Bangladesh in Global Forums: Diplomacy vs. Domestic Politics
Eagle Eye
Prof Chintamani Mahapatra
India-US: Significance of the Second Modi-Obama Meet
Has President Obama Turned Lame Duck?
Modi-Obama Summit: Criticism for Criticism?s Sake?

East Asia Compass
Dr Sandip Mishra
India-Japan-US Trilateral: India?s Policy for the Indo-Pacific
China-South Korea Ties: Implications for the US Pivot to Asia
Many ?Pivots to Asia?: What Does It Mean For Regional Stability?
Himalayan Frontier
Pramod Jaiswal
Nepal?s New Constitution: Instrument towards Peace or Catalyst to Conflict?
IPCS Forecast: Nepal in 2015
Constitution-making: Will Nepal Miss its Second Deadline?

Prof Shankari Sundararaman
IPCS Forecast: Southeast Asia in 2015
Indonesia's Pacific Identity: What Jakarta Must Do in West Papua
Modi in Myanmar: From ?Look East? to ?Act East?
Sushant Sareen
IPCS Forecast: Pakistan in 2015
Islamic State: Prospects in Pakistan
Pakistan: The Futility of Internationalising Kashmir

Looking East
Wasbir Hussain
Myanmar in New Delhi's Naga Riddle
China: ?Peaceful? Display of Military Might
Naga Peace Accord: Need to Reserve Euphoria
Maritime Matters
Vijay Sakhuja
Indian Ocean: Modi on a Maritime Pilgrimage
Indian Ocean: Exploring Maritime Domain Awareness
IPCS Forecast: The Indian Ocean in 2015

Nuke Street
Amb Sheelkant Sharma
US-Russia and Global Nuclear Security: Under a Frosty Spell?
India's Nuclear Capable Cruise Missile: The Nirbhay Test
India-Australia Nuclear Agreement: Bespeaking of a New Age
Red Affairs
Bibhu Prasad
Countering Left Wing Extremism: Failures within Successes
Return of the Native: CPI-Maoist in Kerala
The Rising Civilian Costs of the State-Vs-Extremists Conflict

Regional Economy
Amita Batra
India and the APEC
IPCS Forecast: South Asian Regional Integration
South Asia: Rupee Regionalisation and Intra-regional Trade Enhancement
South Asian Dialectic
PR Chari
Resuming the Indo-Pak Dialogue: Evolving a New Focus
Defence Management in India: An Agenda for Parrikar
Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan: Implications for Asian Security

Spotlight West Asia
Amb Ranjit Gupta
Prime Minister Modi Finally Begins His Interaction with West Asia*
A Potential Indian Role in West Asia?
US-GCC Summit: More Hype than Substance
Strategic Space
Manpreet Sethi
India-Russia Nuclear Vision Statement: See that it Delivers
Global Nuclear Disarmament: The Humanitarian Consequences Route
Nasr: Dangers of Pakistan's Short Range Ballistic Missile

The Strategist
Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar
Jihadi Aggression and Nuclear Deterrence
The Blight of Ambiguity
Falun Gong: The Fear Within

OTHER REGULAR contributors
Gurmeet Kanwal
Harun ur Rashid
N Manoharan
Wasbir Hussain
Rana Banerji
N Manoharan

Ruhee Neog
Teshu Singh
Aparupa Bhattacherjee
Roomana Hukil
Aparupa Bhattacherjee

Related Articles
"Afghanistan and Regional Security: After Elections," 16 July 2014
Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy,
"Afghan Presidential Run-off: Things that Matter," 30 May 2014

Browse by Publications

Issue Briefs 
Special Reports 
Research Papers 
Seminar Reports 
Conference Reports 

Browse by Region/Countries

East Asia 
South Asia 
Southeast Asia 
US & South Asia 

Browse by Issues

India & the world  
Naxalite Violence 
Suicide Terrorism 
Peace & Conflict Database 
Article by same Author
Will the Genie Want to Go Back?

The Fall of Rajapaksa: Why Democracies Fail Strongmen

Pakistan: The Military Courts

From Kashmir to Kabul

A Fractured Mandate: The Big Picture

And Now, They Are Coming For Our Children

Pak-Afghan Reset: Will the Taliban and al Qaeda follow?

Resetting Kabul-Islamabad Relations: Three Key Issues

Rise India, avoid regional pitfalls

Foreign Fighters of Pakistan: Why Pashtuns and Punjabis?

Can Pakistan Reset its Relations with Afghanistan?

The New Afghanistan: Four Major Challenges for President Ghani

Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping: Strong Leaders, Hard Issues

Pakistan: The Coup that didnít take

Pakistan: Crouching Democrats, Hidden Khakis

Processes at the cost of peace?

Cost of Peace

Rise of Democratic Anarchists

Mullah Fazlullah: Challenges to the ďEliminate or ExtraditeĒ Approach

The Tahirul Qadri Affair

Dhaka as the Gateway to Indiaís Look East Policy

Modi, Sharif and the Cross-LoC Interactions

Region by Sub-regions

Civil-Military Equations in Pakistan: Que Sera Sera

End of the Road for Taliban?

Y! MyWeb
Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
Year 2018
 2017  2016  2015  2014  2013  2012  2011  2010
 2009  2008  2007  2006  2005  2004  2003  2002
 2001  2000  1999  1998  1997

The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) is the premier South Asian think tank which conducts independent research on and provides an in depth analysis of conventional and non-conventional issues related to national and South Asian security including nuclear issues, disarmament, non-proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, the war on terrorism, counter terrorism , strategies security sector reforms, and armed conflict and peace processes in the region.

For those in South Asia and elsewhere, the IPCS website provides a comprehensive analysis of the happenings within India with a special focus on Jammu and Kashmir and Naxalite Violence. Our research promotes greater understanding of India's foreign policy especially India-China relations, India's relations with SAARC countries and South East Asia.

Through close interaction with leading strategic thinkers, former members of the Indian Administrative Service, the Foreign Service and the three wings of the Armed Forces - the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force, - the academic community as well as the media, the IPCS has contributed considerably to the strategic discourse in India.

Subscribe to Newswire | Site Map
18, Link Road, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi 110014, INDIA.

Tel: 91-11-4100-1902    Email: officemail@ipcs.org

© Copyright 2018, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.