Afghan Election Runoff, Redux

Please extend a warm welcome to T.K., the first of our contributors who answered the call to join the super-awesome fun of writing for Registan.net. As soon as Nathan is connected to a computer again, I promise, he’ll have his own author’s account.

It’s official, there will be a runoff election in Afghanistan. I see this ending in similar fashion to the first round, Karzai will win, there will be rampant fraud, and opponents will cry foul. I would say, though, that the runoff – if Afghans vote – could actually legitimize whoever ends up the victor. But, to what degree is it really possible to legitimize any head of state in Afghanistan at this point?

Karzai’s 4 year bout with palace fever, combined with blatant fraud and low turnout in the first round, have served to weaken Kabul to the point where it would take a miracle to rescue national government legitimacy. I doubt that a runoff will accomplish this, but it may be a step in the right direction. As Steve Coll writes:

In Afghanistan, despite possibly decisive fraud, the opposition has barely thrown a rock. Abdullah Abdullah, the aggrieved second-place finisher, just holds press conferences in his garden.

It goes without saying that Afghans have had enough of violence. Abdullah’s restraint signals a broader, resilient desire among many political and tribal leaders to avoid having their country descend into chaos again. This is the opening that American policy has repeatedly failed to grasp since the Taliban’s fall in late 2001: an opportunity to reject the false expediency of warlords and indispensable men, in favor of deepening participatory, Afghan-led political reform and national reconciliation.

The lack of violence from the Abdullah camp (even the fringe) should beget some optimism. But, at the same time, there’s no shortage of “hot” warfare going on, and a political settlement in Kabul will likely do little to quell it. No matter who wins this election, a lot of people will lose it, a lot of people can’t vote, and a lot of people (see: Taliban) will fight for there not be elections at all. Beyond winners and losers, it seems to me that in Afghanistan, it’s more about how many people actually vote and are counted than who wins a given election. So, I have to ask (because I really don’t know): are elections in Afghanistan tangibly useful? Why? Sure, they offer an alternative to Taliban rule, and, with the inevitable violence that occurs, it’s easy to frame the Taliban as violent extremists who don’t want people to vote. But, do Afghans need to be reminded about the Taliban’s violent tendencies every couple years?

Sure, a great many Afghans may be sick of fighting and ready for a political settlement, as Coll suggests, but that doesn’t mean all of them are, and, further, it doesn’t mean Kabul is capable of brokering any meaningful peace. This is the issue I have with expanding the U.S. war effort with 40,000 (or however many) more troops. The COIN strategy of “clear, hold, build” is all well and good, but I just don’t see the civilian side coming around. Inevitably, there is a fourth component to COIN strategy – “leave” – and, it’s who we leave the country to that will matter most. The U.S. military could perform literally perfectly and still see Afghanistan go to sh*t because of the things over which they have no control. The surge worked (so far) in Iraq because the vacuum when violence went down was filled by politicians who chose to forge a political solution. I just don’t see this happening in Afghanistan.

- T.K.

Tagged as: Abdullah, Afghanistan, Democracy, Elections, Karzai, Runoff