“While Kerry again has brokered a deal between feuding candidates, there is no reason to believe that this deal will ultimately hold and it is the candidates who will ultimately determine whether there is a peaceful transition of power or not.”—Noah Coburn and Anna Larson on the recent elections in Afghanistan
The following post is by Noah Coburn and Anna Larson, coauthors of Derailing Democracy in Afghanistan: Elections in an Unstable Political Landscape:
Following the last minute intervention of John Kerry, the elections in Afghanistan to replace Hamid Karzai as president, have entered a chaotic period of counting, re-counting and accusations of fraud and corruption. How do we make sense of the power plays that are going on on both sides? Often forgotten in the mainstream press, these elections are actually the fifth in Afghanistan since the US-led invasion in 2001, and turning to look back at some of the lessons from these elections can help us think about the current process. We’ve spent much of the past six years tracking candidates, officials and voters in Afghanistan and our book, Derailing Democracy in Afghanistan: Elections in an Unstable Political Landscape, provides some important lessons.
First, elections are shaped by the cultures and history that they are held in. Too often local forms of democracy are ignored and we recount the long history of democratization (and sometimes de-democratization) that Afghanistan has experienced since its first elections in the 1950s. Clearly there is no evidence to suggest that elections or democracy are somehow incompatible with Afghan culture. Despite this, a group of former commanders and the political elite, have manipulated elections over the past decade to consolidate their own power. This has created more skepticism about elections on the part of many Afghan voters. The high turnout in the 2014 elections suggests that most Afghans want to see a new direction in the government away from some of the nepotism of the Karzai regime. However, the current wheeling and dealing between Ashraf Ghani, Abdullah Abdullah, Karzai, and Kerry points to the fact that it is the political elite alone that control the resources in the country and this vote is unlikely to change that.
Secondly, all elections are local. That means while on a national level candidates like Ghani and Abdullah are struggling against each other, much of the actual tension is at a local level. This means groups with grudges from the Civil War period, as well as jihadi militia groups have much at stake. The outcome of these elections could destabilize certain areas locally, by declaring certain groups winners and losers on the national level.
Finally, the international community can play an important role in supporting elections and democracy in other countries, but often their influence is not as strong as we think it is and policies that appear helpful can be harmful. For example, John Kerry’s meeting with Hamid Karzai in 2009, in which he publicly pushed him to accept a second round appeared helpful at the time, but ultimately allowed both Karzai and others to accuse the international community of having undue influence in the electoral process. This seriously undermined the legitimacy of the elections. Similarly, while Kerry again has brokered a deal between feuding candidates, there is no reason to believe that this deal will ultimately hold and it is the candidates who will ultimately determine whether there is a peaceful transition of power or not.
Larson and Coburn continue to follow and analyze the Afghan elections and you can get up to date reports on their blog www.afghanelections14.com.