"A fairly democratic environment has generally been observed in the overall majority of the polling centres," the local Free and Fair Elections Foundation of Afghanistan declared.There was a flap when opposition candidates charged that, among other irregularities, the ink used to mark the thumbs of voters (designed to prevent people from voting multiple times) was easy to wash off. Fresh ink was brought in, but it only became indelibile after a half-hour. That lead several of them to threaten to boycott the vote count. But that threat faded after Western diplomats held meetings with Karzai's main opponent, Yunus Qanooni, after which Qanooni agreed to drop the boycott threat in return for an independent panel to look into the allegations of irregularities.
The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which sent advisers to help with monitoring the polling, said Saturday's demand by 14 opposition candidates to nullify the election was "unjustified".
All that sounds pretty good. But there are two serious problems which cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election.
First is that those observers really were not in a position to make the declarations they did with near the degree of confidence they did. For example, Aljazeera (Qatar) reported on September 29 that
[s]o far, there is just one significant Afghan observation effort - the newly formed Free and Fair Elections Foundation for Afghanistan (FEFA).(By election day, FEFA was claiming to have trained 2,000 observers but admitted even that was enough to cover less than one-third of polling places.)
But a FEFA member who asked for anonymity says that even if his organisation managed to train 1500 people before 9 October, it would only be sufficient to observe just 12% of polling stations.
What's more, the OSCE team consisted on just 40 members, not near enough for an election involving over 5,000 polling places, many in rural areas so remote that the ballot boxes will be brought in to Kabul for the counting by donkey.
Beyond that is the fact that the real intimidation and threats took place before the election, not during the voting. And that is something the observers simply didn't see - or even have a mandate to watch for. Almost two weeks before the voting, Human Rights Watch was sounding an alarm.
Elections heralded as the dawn of democracy in war-ravaged Afghanistan will be hijacked by warlords able to intimidate voters and candidates to entrench their own power, a leading rights group warned Tuesday. ...Aljazeera gives a dramatic example of the pre-vote intimidation.
In a report titled "Rule of the Gun," Human Rights Watch said armed factions - some allied with the United States - were using force, threats and corruption to dominate the election process. Independent political organizers were receiving death threats, while others were too scared even to get involved, it said.
"Political repression by local strongmen is the principal problem," the New York-based rights group said. "Most signs suggest that warlordism and factional dominance will only increase."
Afghans in the southeastern province of Khost were given a stark warning this week in preparation for the 9 October presidential elections: Vote for Hamid Karzai or get your house burnt down.On October 8, Amnesty International added its own voice in a press release.
Some 300 elders of the Tarzi tribe expanded on their ominous electioneering technique in a public statement released on Friday.
Any man who does not vote for the US-appointed interim president, they said, will not be buried by his family. And he can forget about marrying off his female relatives, too.
"The act of holding elections has been held up by some parties as a sign of Afghanistan's recovery," said Ingrid Massage, Asia director at Amnesty International. "This could not be further from the truth: outside Kabul the situation for the Afghan people has been rapidly deteriorating over the last few months."What's more, widespread fraud could very easily take place, washable ink or no, since
The researchers found the climate of fear and insecurity which has blighted the election process is equally affecting the everyday lives of the Afghan people, particularly women. Lawlessness is rife: most Afghans have no access to justice because the judiciary is largely ignorant of national law. Armed groups in effect rule most of the country; in the central highlands they force farmers to grow opium.
[e]lection officials openly acknowledge the number of voting cards issued far exceed the estimated number of eligible voters - and that the illegal practice of multiple registrations is widespread.In judging the election, what counts is not only the technical process on election day, but also the conditions on the ground surrounding the polling places. And in Afghanistan, those conditions do not provide reassurance for the future of the people.
The Human Rights Research and Advocacy Consortium (HRRAC) published a report detailing the views of hundreds of people from six cities - views that are a testimony to how little has been achieved since the Taliban were ousted in November 2001. ...So even when Karzai wins,
They say the rule of law is non-existent, militias are still armed and regional commanders are as powerful as ever.
[w]ith few international observers likely to be in place on polling day, Human Rights Watch warned that warlords will be able to muster blocs of votes that could help them negotiate posts in the new government,so instead of diluting their power in favor of a stronger central government, it may well simply function as a means for them to cement their positions.
The form was attractive. The substance is lacking.
Footnote: The Human Rights Watch report is here; the HRRAC study, entitled "Take the Guns Away," can be found at the group's homepage (link above). A summary of the survey's findings, with a link to the text, is here.
Updated to include the quote from Amnesty International.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment