Afghanistan: Election Endorsement Threatens to Harm International Community's Credibility

In a hurry to score quick public relations points, some international observers and foreign diplomats cast Afghanistan's August 20 presidential vote as an unequivocal triumph for the democratization process. But that initial rush to endorse the integrity of the process may well come back to haunt the international community, as reports of electoral irregularities continue to surface.

International actors now find themselves in a difficult position, where any shift in the position already staked out risks damaging the international community's credibility in the eyes of Afghan civilians and officials alike.

"They were too quick to endorse the elections. All they need have done was make their approval more conditional," said a diplomat who requested anonymity, speaking on an issue that grows more sensitive by the day. A conditional approval would have provided internationals room for maneuver, enabling them to modulate responses according to emerging realities, the diplomat added. As it stands now, internationals seem to have painted themselves into a corner with their ringing endorsement of the vote, the diplomat said.

Analysts wonder what the international community can do to change course and emerge from this situation with its image undamaged. "In terms of the international community and its role in the elections, its reputation in Afghanistan and worldwide very much depends on the success of the rest of the process, and also on the aggressiveness and comprehensiveness of the Electoral Complaints Commission's [ECC] review of claims and fraud," said Candace Rondeaux of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group.

Observers have questioned the capacity of the ECC to address these complaints because of the limitations of its mandate and resources. While saying he had no doubt about the intentions and credibility of the ECC, incumbent President Hamid Karzai's main rival, Abdullah Abdullah, in response to a question from EurasiaNet, said the ECC's "capability remains to be seen." [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

"If we see, as in the past, patterns [that] indicate that bodies like the IEC [Independent Election Commission] and the ECC remain under-resourced and unsupported, then investigating these claims would remain a challenge," Rondeaux added. "And yet everything depends on the sanctity of this process."

The international community's early endorsement of the elections, she said, had been disappointing: "The risk of appearing too enthusiastic, too soon, is that you undermine your own credibility as an impartial observer and guarantor of the democratic processes."

While diplomats have stressed that the elections were Afghan-led for the first time, this hardly mitigated the international community's perceived influence and role in the process. Afghans have a complicated relationship with the international community -- donors and international troops alike -- seeing outsiders as having undue influence over their lives, while still depending on foreigners for essential assistance and support. Underscoring this complicated view is the fact that a large amount of public dissatisfaction with the electoral process is being directed at the internationals, rather than the national players who are accused of having vitiated the democratic process.

Most of the diplomatic community's comments have been confined to celebrating the fact that elections took place at all. Yet the endorsement of selective facts about the voting process -- on a day when a large section of Afghan voters found their voices silenced, either through inability to access polls, or through fraud -- fuels a popular impression that the international community is more concerned about the appearance of the democratization process, rather than its actual substance.

The attempts to pass off the elections as a success against the Taliban have not surprised observers, who see lurking behind such statements the domestic political agendas of donor countries. "What does it say about the British-American effort in Helmand, if days after they poured troops into the province in order to make it safer for people to vote, the turnout is a bare 5 percent? Can they admit it was a failure?" asked a diplomat referring to a military strategy.

Not everyone agrees about the international community's motivations. "The internationals probably spoke too soon and should have acknowledged early on that there were allegations of widespread irregularities that needed to be addressed before issuing an elections report card," said John Dempsey, the Kabul director for the US Institute of Peace. "But again, I think that they wanted to mute any potential violent reaction from supporters of one candidate or another on polling day as well as acknowledge that millions still turned out in the face of security threats and that there were no spectacular mega attacks."

Efforts to minimize the impact of flawed elections have helped introduce imaginative arguments into the mix. New buzz amongst internationals in Kabul has it that since most of the disenfranchisement took place in southern provinces where the bulk of Karzai's voter base is supposed to be, ballot stuffing has merely made up for the votes that would have been cast for him under more stable circumstances.

Long before the votes have been fully counted, the international community has started to push the idea of a "government of national unity." While the rationale for such a move is laudable in theory, it cannot replace the electoral mandate to which Afghans are entitled. An artificially created coalition government could alienate millions of Afghans who participated in the elections, despite considerable personal risk. It could also be a recipe for political dysfunction in Kabul, a situation that the Islamic radical insurgency could feast on.