Ten of the 364 districts in Afghanistan are under Taliban control and 156 districts are considered high risk. The presence of the Taliban in the country pose a threat to the upcoming presidential elections. For now, Afghan officials and their American and NATO allies are determined to go through with the elections. Many people are unhappy with the current president and believe he is corrupt and ineffective as half the country is now engulfed in war. This election will be a way for them to voice their opinions, however even if security can be established in enough places, there is concern that the vote will be so compromised that its credibility will be questioned. With the questioning of the credibility would come the questioning of the legitimacy of the current and future Afghan governments and presidents.
In order to help secure the country for the elections, 30,000 more American troops are set to arrive. These troops have a broader goal as well; to stem the insurgency which has escalated in the recent years, and turn the war. Even with these extra troops, it will be extremely difficult and maybe even impossible for elections to be held in some of the districts because of the extent of the Taliban control. Even still, all but 8 or 10 districts took part in voter registration and are therefore expected to take part in the election. There is also a question as to if individuals would even go out and vote. Many already believe fraud would play a large part in the election, and many individuals registered solely to receive voter cards which makes it easier to travel through government checkpoints.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/world/asia/12kabul.html?_r=2&ref=politics
Even though there is potential for the election to be compromised due to the Taliban and it will be difficult to conduct the election in some of the districts, the election still must happen. If this election does not happen as planned, it will send a message to both people inside and people outside of the country that the state of the country is so bad that not even an election to attempt to remedy the situation can occur. It would be an indicator of how bad the war is actually going. As the article also states, not having the elction would "throw the country into a political and constitutional crisis."
In every election there are going to be people who register to vote and then do not end up voting on election day. In Afghanistan this number may be greater than in other countries due to some individuals wanting a voting card for previously stated reasons, or due to the fact that it may be dangerous in some cases to cast a vote. The fact that a number of people will not vote should not be reason enough to not hold an election. There will still be a great number of people who vote, and they deserve to have their voices heard especially at a time when a change in leadership could be crucial to turn the state of the country around and get it going in the right direction. As the article stated, all but 8 0r 10 districts took part in voter registration out of the 364 districts in the country. That is a substantial percentage.
The article also mentions that the Taliban have held back from large-scale disruption of elections in the past because they rely so much on the people and do not want to alienate them. This means that although there is always going to be potential risk for the election to take place, it is not even certain that the Taliban would try to sabotage the vote or disrupt the election in some other way even if they do oppose presidential elections. Overall, the planned election must not be canceled. The extra 30,000 American troops being sent to Afghanistan should be able to provide some extra security for the elections, and at a time like this an election could possibly benefit the country of Afghanistan greatly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
After reading this post, as well as the article, I agree with Kristy's overall argument that these elections need to happen. While not everyone will be able to vote, it is important for the individuals who want to vote to be able to do so and have their voice be heard! In addition, it is important for these elections to be held so that the Afghanistan citizens know that change is coming for their country as a whole. If these elections are canceled, the Taliban will see that they still have some control of the government and democracy will not be able to take hold in the country.
It does not matter how these elections take place, all it matters is that they actually take place. These elections will show the Taliban, as well as the Afghanistan citizens, that the Allies are trying to help their country move towards democracy and the creation of a new country overall. Whatever the outcome of these elections may be, it will be a important for the people of the world to see Afghanistan, as a country, moving towards freedom and democracy.
Overall, it is important for the country, as well as a world, to see that these elections will take place, no matter who, in this case the Taliban, try to stop them. It is important for the world to see that the efforts of the Allies in Afghanistan are changing the country's government, as well as the country as a whole. Overall, I agree with Kristy's arguments in regards to the importance of these elections, no matter how many people vote, and what their votes are. The important thing is that these elections take place and show the citizens of the world that the Allies efforts in Afghanistan are creating results, and changing the country.
The Taliban rely on their own people for their support and recruitment; therefore any use of force to coerce the Afghanistan people to vote a certain way in their elections would alienate the people. The leaders of the group are far too smart to compromise the election this way. The major problem with the these elections is not the unlikely prospect that the Taliban will show up with guns blazing on Election Day but the increasing power being taken by the current president, President Karzai. As recently as March, Karzai suggested that because of the likelihood of violence and the difficult of distributing and collecting all the votes throughout Afghanistan's mountainous terrain, the election should be moved to April 28 instead of in August. If the Afghan Independent Electoral Commission agreed with this proposition, Karzai would have a much greater advantage over the competition (http://www.electionguide.org/country-news.php?ID=2). Thankfully, the IEC voted to keep the election day on August 20, but they did so at a cost. According to the Afghani Constitution, the incumbent President has to forfeit his power on May 21, and turn the country over to other elected officials until the election in AUgust. However, the Afghan Supreme Court recently voted to allow Karzai to continue to hold the office of President until August (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/world/middleeast/30afghan.html?partner=rss&emc=rss). The effects of this decision are tremendous. Not only does it give Karzai an enormous advantage in the upcoming election, it also justifies any future changes in the Afghani Constitution that would give the leader a much larger amount of power. As we have seen in other Middle Eastern countries, allowing one man to take more and more power through compromise is never a good idea.
Even with the fact that President Karzai is gaining more power although his reign should be coming to an end, the most important subject surrounding the 2009 elections in Afghanistan has to be the Taliban and their affect on the voters. As Melanie mentioned in her response, the Taliban cannot be given the satisfaction of seeing these elections canceled. To do so would give their leaders and followers a boost of confidence regarding what they are doing and why they are fighting. Also, perhaps more importantly, people in Afghanistan would see that the Taliban has more influence in their country than their own government does. While I'm sure not every person would lose their faith in eventually having a government that could run Afghanistan without the help of the U.N. and without corruption, there would be those people who turn to the Taliban, making the terrorist group even more powerful and influential. This is certainly not something that people want to see, especially here in America, as we have been spending money and giving up American lives to help with this situation and see to it that Afghanistan becomes a democracy. To see the Taliban have that much affect after everything we have done would severely undercut the efforts that have been put forth. A comforting thought (if you can call it that) is that there has not been a response to Taliban leader Mullah Omar's cry for a boycott of the elections. In December of 2008, Omar, who many say is responsible for hiding al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and sending hundreds of men to perform suicide bombings in Afghanistan, called upon Afghans to boycott the '09 elections and said that the elections would accomplish nothing (http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2008/12/8/mullah-omar). Many people heard this message but have dismissed it and are ready to vote in the upcoming election. Hopefully this persistence holds through and the election in Afghanistan proceeds as planned.
Based on what you said about the Taliban not wanting to alienate the people by disrupting elections, I think that the elections should be run relatively smoothly for the given circumstances. The amount of people who registered is nice to see, though who knows how many of them will actually end up voting. One of my main concerns is about who will be counting the votes. If anyone from with ties to the Taliban takes part in the counting, votes could be skewed to elect someone the Taliban can use to establish its power. On the other hand, what if only Americans tally the votes? Anyone highly involved with American politics could try to skew the votes to elect the candidate most liked by the American government. The Taliban is not all that we need to worry about. The American government could be just as dangerous to the people of Afghanistan if it is able to elect a candidate that would act as a puppet of the American government. Assuming no one disrupts people from going out to vote, we must take care to have those counting the votes be as unbiased as possible. Let the people of Afghanistan elect who they truly want.
I did not think about the possible controversy surrounding the counting of the votes. It is true that having the American government interfere could be even more of an issue than if the Taliban interfered. The American government is there to assist the citizens of the country, not to take the vote out of their hands. I agree that, due to the Taliban's reliance on the people for support, they will not target the elections. I also agree that if the elections do not take place it will show the people of the country that their government is weak and succumbs to the threats of the Taliban. This could lead to people joining the Taliban, wanting to align themselves with the stronger group. The election must happen, there is no doubt about it. There is no imminent threat from the Taliban, and a great number of people showed interest in voting by registering. It would be a step forward for Afghanistan people, and it would show them that their government is serious about improving the country and will not back down when threatened.
All of you insist that the issues here are routed in the elections. I agree and I also believe that the elections are necessary to maintain Afghanistan’s fragile political body. However, we’re only looking at it from one side. Has anyone taken into consideration how the Afghani people feel? Now, I’m not talking about the puppet officials Washington has placed into office, I’m talking about the everyday citizen. Public safety, transportation, and unemployment are issues that need to be dealt with right now. Who says that America’s way is the only way? This raises the age-old question about democracy and subsequently, our foreign policy.
We toppled a movement in Afghanistan, the Taliban, but we did not topple the government, partly because one never existed. Even during the stable years in the mid-20th century, Afghanistan barely functioned beyond its major cities. The American story was very different; we weren’t trying to create a governing body, we were trying to limit one. Anarchy never even crossed our minds but the story is very different in Afghanistan. The Bush administration posited that democracy is “urgently useful to the wider world”. Though this is true, it cannot be forced. Binding the Afghani people with a democracy, especially when they’re not prepared for it would be nothing more than an exercise in futility. Freedom and democracy don’t have to go hand-and-hand. The changes that followed the departure of the Taliban were great for the Afghani people, but putting democracy after freedom on America’s agenda was a mistake.
The issue here is much larger than if they should have elections this term. It is about the future of the Afghani people and the creation of a legitimate political institution from scratch? If only we did not go so far. We are bound to finish what we started. But that doesn’t mean we can’t assess our stance on democracy in the Middle East. Globalization will continue to rid the world of groups like the Taliban. Political change will happen naturally and will be shaped accordingly. America should work to stabilize and ease the development of new regimes; instead it uses its military to force Afghanistan into elections that it may not be ready for.
Post a Comment