Mohammad Shehzad

Afghanistan's first-ever presidential election was the 'talk of the town' at a reception by the Turkish Embassy to mark its 81st Proclamation Day.

The diplomats were jubilant over the successful holding of the October 9 elections. 'This is a remarkable achievement for Afghanistan. Millions of people caste their vote despite the bad weather-snow, ran and dust storm-and life threats from the Taliban. This is a day of celebration and should be seen as such. By taking part in the elections, the brave people of Afghanistan have provided evidence of their optimism and hopes,' remarked a senior European diplomat who looks after Central Asia.

'But the election was boycotted. Would it not damage its reputation as well as Karzai's?' I asked.

'You have to understand that holding elections is no joke-even in the functional democracy. Even the US had problems during the last presidential elections. You have to understand the background of Afghanistan. It has been completely devastated by a long war of 25 years. An imperfect democracy is still better than no democracy in a country like Afghanistan. 'Which ballot?' was not the question this time! 'A ballot' was the question! 'Which ballot' would be a question in the next election. By that time, people will be more enlightened; more democrat; more educated, etc.'

Responding to the same question, another western diplomat said: 'The boycott was shameful! When you are sure about your defeat, you say: 'I don't play!' That's what Qanooni and Seerat have done. They have acted like children. By the way, the boycott was Qanooni's brainchild. He wanted to disrupt the election but in a subtle manner. He did not succeed. His 'evil genius' was foiled by the 'sensible' Afghan people who flocked to the polling stations to caste their votes. President Hamid Karzai was right in saying that the elections were a 'triumph' for the Afghans and 'defeat' for terrorism.'

Not a single diplomat was willing to take the boycott seriously. When I tried to collect the views of human rights activists on the boycott I was told that the boycott was malicious. 'The election was historic in many ways: It passed off largely peacefully. No significant disruption was reported; no act of violence by the al-Qaeda or Taliban terrorists was reported-as threatened by them. The Afghans rejected the boycott call by making their way to the polling stations. The turnout was impressive. The election was unique because a woman candidate also contested it. The 18 presidential candidates belonged to 32 different political parties. The presence of a female among them was a reflection of a new trend in the Afghan society. More female voters caste their votes compared to men in Pakistan. The UN, which jointly managed the election with Afghan officials and a number of independent European observers declared the poll 'fairly democratic'. The latter have also expressed satisfaction over the fact that a large number of women also turned out to vote across the country. Those who boycotted did not have a sound excuse. The excuse of 'indelible' ink was quite lame. It is shameful! Moreover, Qanooni has agreed to accept the results of an independent inquiry into charges of fraud.'

Some guests have dissenting views of course. They thought the Bush administration wanted a feather in its cap by holding the election in haste. Bush was losing support and he needed a success story to tell ahead of his own elections in November. Since that story would not come from Iraq, so Bush decided to impose the election on Afghanistan.

'It is wrong to say that the election was violence-free. Pakistan had to bear the brunt of the election in the form of a series of recent terrorist attacks in Sialkot, Multan and Lahore that killed hundreds of innocent people,' remarked an analyst. In his views, there would be more such attacks but a senior diplomat disagreed with such thoughts. 'What happened recently in Sialkot, Multan and Lahore is the result of the jihadis and militants' frustration. The noose is being tightened around their neck and they are just reacting.'

I think the Afghan elections should be seen from another angle i.e. what's next? Karzai by becoming the president again won't be able to extend his writ outside Kabul. He needs the support of the international community to address some most important issues: law and order on the top; re-building the institutions; education; health; water; sanitation; roads; women empowerment; and so on so forth. In a nutshell, he has to reinvent the wheel! He will have to have a good working relationships with his rival politicians since they will play an important role in the forthcoming parliamentary elections. The April-May parliamentary elections are going to be a real challenge. The lessons learnt during the presidential elections should be used to make the parliamentary elections smooth, fair and transparent.

Karzai has to work very hard on the reconstruction of the country and the rehabilitation of the millions of displaced Afghans at his earliest. He needs explicit support from the international community-the US, UN, EU and Japan particularly. These countries have time and again pledged funds for the reconstruction of Afghanistan but done very little in this effect. And last but not the least, the NATO backed ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] strength must be increased because security is the biggest issue in Afghanistan.

Copyright ©2004 Mohammad Shehzad and Kashmir Times. About the author