Afghanistan voted for its representatives in Parliament on
Saturday. And what’s remarkable is, it’s not nearly as bad as everyone assumed.
True, upwards of twenty people were abducted
beforehand, and a few election workers got killed, and 63 polling stations were
attacked with rockets,
causing voters to run away from
polling stations, and there was at least one suicide bomber. And there was, of
course, widespread
fraud. But it could have been a lot worse.
In fact, violence this year was down nearly 37 percent over
last year’s Presidential election. The Free and Fair Election Foundation of
Afghanistan, however, highlights in its first
preliminary observation of the election the difficulty in assuming too much
from mere trends. FEFA lauds the security forces for “preventing wide-scale
disruptive violence,” but cautioned that there were still hundreds of security
incidents that directly affected voting patterns. Worse still, a huge number of
those attacks were caused by “powerbrokers,” the FEFA term for either strongmen
or other candidates for office.
While the Afghan election is a process, not an event, there
are still some lessons we can draw from the event. For one, Marjah, the tiny,
isolated farming community in central Helmand where the U.S. launched a high
profile campaign to defeat the Taliban earlier this year, was nearly
empty. If nothing else, this should prompt skepticism of the International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF)’s entire “government-in-a-box” idea, which
says you can immediately replace destroyed institutions with functioning ones
and declare victory. That clearly didn’t happen.
But there might be a bright side to the election, as well,
though it requires a fair amount of speculation. ISAF recently attacked
a convoy of cars in Takhar, a small province in northeast Afghanistan. While
ISAF claims they killed a senior member of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan,
one of the occupants of those cars was a candidate running for parliament,
raising the troubling question of collaboration between elected members of
parliament and the insurgency. Candidates could either be working with
insurgent leaders for some reason, or insurgent groups could be fielding their
own candidates for office. It would explain the lowered levels of insecurity on
Saturday: there is no reason to engage in violence if your own people are
running.
There’s no evidence that actually happened, and we might
never know if it did. But we should be looking at ways to incorporate the
insurgency into Afghanistan’s political process anyway. Far better to have
bastards running for office than launching rockets at the voting booths.
Joshua Foust is a
contributor to PBS Need to Know
and a contributing editor at Current
Intelligence. He blogs about Central Asia and the Caucasus at http://registan.net.
(2)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE