AFGHANISTAN: POPULAR ANGER SIMMERS OVER ELECTORAL FRAUD ALLEGATIONS

CIVIL SOCIETY

Aunohita Mojumdar 8/26/09

Six days after Afghanistan’s presidential poll, the legitimacy of the outcome appears threatened by a lack of electoral transparency, negligible pressure from Afghanistan’s international sponsors, and a complaint mechanism stymied by its lack of mandate and resources.

At a press conference in Kabul’s plush Intercontinental Hotel on August 25, an audible murmur of disbelief swelled as Afghanistan’s Chief Electoral Officer Daud Najafi read from a list of numbers showing President Hamid Karzai and challenger Abdullah Abdullah in a neck-and-neck race. The actual totals appeared to contradict rumors that had been circulating in the capital that Karzai was winning by a healthy margin. The figures released by Najafi covered only 10 percent of the ballots cast.

While most western correspondents rushed off to file reports emphasizing the closeness of the race, the primary significance of Najafi’s numbers was that they helped deflect the growing anger and lack of credulity in the electoral process. Some believe the release may have been timed to do just that. One Afghan observer also suggested that the timing of the daily press briefings -- scheduled to begin at 5 pm every evening (though invariably starting later) -- reflects a government effort to keep the chances of spontaneous protests to a minimum. "People will be too busy with prayers and Iftar [the meal breaking the day-long Ramadan fast, which begins around 6:30 pm local time] to protest," the observer said.

Two competing narratives are now vying for attention in Afghanistan. One consists of the official count, sanctioned responses to criticism and the international community’s reactions. But a parallel narrative of claims, counterclaims and rumors of back-room deals is growing.

So strong are these rumors that Abdullah, who has charged the government with conducting widespread electoral fraud, felt compelled to hold a news conference to dispel rumors he was seeking a deal. "My message to our people is that I will not make deals based on your votes. I will not compromise your rights in exchange for anything," he told journalists on August 25.

Meanwhile, though the count is still officially weeks from completion, some Karzai supporters appeared to have no difficulty accessing figures. Finance Minister Omar Zakhilwal, for example, announced as early as August 24 that the incumbent had secured 68 percent of the votes.

With reports of low voter turnout and fraud trickling steadily out of the provinces, anger among Afghans is rising. Behind the scenes, negotiators are working "to lower the margin of victory to give the perception of a more legitimate outcome," according to one foreign diplomat.

One important mechanism for determining fraud is the release of data on the number of votes cast in each polling station at intervals throughout Election Day. If the reporting shows an abnormal spike, it does not automatically certify fraud, but it warrants investigation. Were these numbers available, observers would be able to compare and detect anomalies.

But in the six days since the vote, the Independent Election Commission (IEC) has refused to provide any figures on the total turnout of voters -- which it, by law, must have. The commission also has not provided provincial breakdowns that could enable observers to compare figures with what they witnessed on the ground.

IEC officials claim they need to "tally" the documentation -- check and recheck -- to make sure it is accurate. Western diplomats have supported this argument, which puts the value of the process above the transparency and credibility that could have come from the early release of provisional figures, as was done in the 2004 elections.

Tallies are no check against ballot stuffing, says a detailed account by Thomas Ruttig of the Afghan Analysts Network. His blog report on Paktia Province in southern Afghanistan indicates ballot stuffing was neatly performed on the eve of the elections. "If [ballot boxes were] delivered from the polling centers together with the legitimate ones, it would become very difficult to find them and quarantine them, in particular when they are accompanied by the required documentation," writes Ruttig.

Unofficial estimates suggest that around 5.5 million votes were cast. The figure is substantiated to some extent by the IEC’s announcement that the 555,842 votes counted so far represented 10 percent of the total. It is impossible to estimate what percentage of the actual electorate these figures represent, however, since there is no record or even estimate of the actual number of voters in the country. Officials accept that the figure of 17 million registered voters is inflated and represents multiple registrations, fake voter cards, under-age and proxy registration. In the absence of a real number, even official figures, when they are available, cannot enable a full assessment of the degree of fraud.

While the international community and IEC officials have claimed the August 20 polls had better checks and balances against fraud in place than was the case for previous elections, these safeguards depended to a large extent on how they were implemented by officials tasked with administering the vote. And, in many instances, officials are facing accusations of fraudulent practices on August 20. Even in relatively secure areas of Afghanistan, such as Parwan Province, EurasiaNet saw free and reasonable access denied to accredited reporters who were made to wait for lengthy periods outside some polling areas: sufficient time for anyone attempting to conceal fraud.

The Electoral Complaints Commission’s work, moreover, has been compromised by the IEC’s declaration on August 24 that nothing the ECC finds will have a bearing on the final results. This remarkable statement also overlooks the impact of small margins in provincial council contests that may be decided by narrow voting margins.

Some western diplomats allude to annoyance at the media’s strong coverage of fraud, complaining of an unproductive debate undermining the electoral process they quickly approved on Election Day. Since Karzai was expected to win anyway, "why waste time and energy on a second round," appears the prevailing argument.

Such an attitude may provoke a backlash. Because for Afghans who voted, at stake is more than western opinion. If allegations of fraud are ignored, they could lose their right to speak and to be heard -- a promise the West was quick to deliver after the fall of the Taliban in 2001.