As the press continued to recount stories from far-flung
districts (outraged elders, stuffed ballot boxes, intimidated electoral staff);
as the international actors were "allowing the process to run its course"; as
the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) stoically continued to announce its
batches of preliminary count results, while releasing more and more "dirty"
ballot boxes into the count; and as the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC)
was faced with an ever growing number of complaints, on Tuesday September 8, 2009
suddenly all strands came together in what may well become the elections' most
important confrontation.
On Tuesday two things happened. First of all the ECC ordered the IEC to do a
monitored audit of all polling stations that showed implausible results (more
than 600 votes cast -- i.e. more than the number of ballot papers
present -- or more than 95% of all the votes cast in favor of a single
candidate). After that, during the press conference in which the latest
preliminary results were announced, the IEC seemed intent on dodging the
instruction. Journalists were told that the IEC needed to seek clarification
with regard to the reasons of the ruling before they could comment any further
-- but the ECC order is crystal clear. In fact, all it does is instruct the IEC
to implement its original internal safeguards against counting obviously
suspicious polling stations.
The confrontation had been brewing for days. There was never much appetite
within the IEC to tackle the thorny issue of fraudulent votes, but in the
course of last week it became clear that the leadership was seriously
considering flooding the count process with unfiltered results. Statistical
triggers and algorithms were removed or rendered practically ineffective and
there were rumors that the full preliminary result would be announced on
September 5 (which did not happen). The advantages from the IEC's viewpoint
were clear. Releasing all polling stations into the count -- whether clean,
suspect or overtly fraudulent -- would provide an escape from the awkward
responsibility of excluding large numbers of votes cast in favor of President
Karzai (and some of the other candidates). There was probably also an issue of
trying to make up for lost time, as the full preliminary results had originally
been scheduled for September 3.
There were several tussles over the weekend. An IEC press conference scheduled
for Saturday September 5 was cancelled due to "technical difficulties with the
counting software." An IEC decision to disqualify 447 polling stations, which
was announced on Sunday September 6, was withdrawn as the IEC's authority to do
so had apparently been contested -- indicating that the commission was
suffering from both political pressures and internal divisions. The latest
batch of preliminary results announced on September 8 -- 91.6 percent of
the votes counted and Karzai leading with 54.1 percent -- finally indicated
that the IEC had decided to push ahead with the results and with the release of
the suspect polling stations. And now the ECC is stepping in.
The consequences of the ECC ruling will be considerable. Even the most cursory
scan of the polling station counts -- the latest of which can be found here -- shows large numbers of quite obviously manipulated
results (round figures, high turnout particularly in insecure areas, absence of
the natural "sprinkling" of votes among different candidates). The EU Electoral
Observer Mission released a strongly worded statement today in support of the ECC
ruling, describing how they had counted 2,451 polling stations where more than
90 percent of the votes had been cast for a single candidate and 214 polling
stations where the number of votes exceeded the number of voters assigned to
the station (out of a total of 18,877 polling stations). This represents a
total of almost 700,000 votes -- not counting the stations that have not yet
been released into the count. Such figures can alter election results, which
explains the reluctance to implement what in essence are common sense measures.
The ECC ruling is appropriate in both its boldness and simplicity -- in
essence requesting the IEC to follow its own original rules, even though that
may mean disappointing powerful patrons. It is a crucial ruling, as it asks the
electoral authorities to address what is one of the main weaknesses of the
current Afghan government: the fact that laws do not apply to the powerful, nor
do they apply to their friends. The ECC ruling thus goes against the grain of
power -- it will be fought, which means that it needs to be defended and
upheld. The internationals cannot cave on this one, even if that means
being accused of interference. If interference was ever both necessary and
defendable, it is probably now.
This could be one of the much needed signals of possible change.
Martine van Bijlert is the co-director of the Afghanistan
Analysts Network, where this post was originally published.
(0)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE