Afghanistan Elections Archives

October 21, 2019October 22, 2019 by Ahmad Mohibi

Pelosi and Esper in Afghanistan: To Leave or Not To Leave?

Two United States envoys visited Afghanistan this week: the Secretary of Defence Mark Esper under the direction of President Trump and a congressional delegation headed by Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. These trips signify the growing divide in opinion related to the US strategy in Afghanistan.

Trump’s growing impatience with the presence of American armed forces still entangled in the Afghan conflict — fueled by the 2020 presidential election — is matched by Pelosi’s urgency to maintain a presence in the region. The Speaker counters that US troops are needed for the sake of stability and the possibility that Afghanistan might return to its previous role as a haven for terrorism.

Esper’s unannounced trip on Sunday marks his first visit to the country since being confirmed as Pentagon chief. His unannounced arrival comes amid uncertainty about the administration’s strategy after the collapse of peace talks with the Taliban.

The Secretary told reporters on Sunday that the number of US troops in Afghanistan could be reduced to 8,600 — while maintaining counterterrorism operations — but the reduction would have to coincide with a peace agreement. The United States currently has 14,000 troops in Afghanistan. This is significantly less than the 130,000 troops that were stationed there in 2009 as part of broader counter-insurgency operations.

The Pelosi-led delegation met with President Ashraf Ghani, Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, Afghan women and ‘briefly compared notes’ with Secretary Mark Esper. Pelosi concluded: “While Afghan women have made some progress in some areas, more work is needed to ensure their security and durable economic and educational opportunities for women and girls in Afghanistan,” which highlights her belief that US support is integral to peace and development in Afghanistan.

Trump consistently critiques any US involvement in the Middle East and a series of tweets reflected that sentiment. He noted: “Fighting between various groups has been going on for hundreds of years. The USA should never have been in the Middle East. The stupid endless wars, for us, are ending!”

Although these tweets were specifically defending his withdrawal from Syria, the president’s view on US military involvement in Afghanistan is clearly in support of exiting the region. Meanwhile, Pelosi’s comments — especially those urging the need for support of Afghan women — appear to support the need for extended US involvement in the region, providing both military and societal support.

Esper told reporters “the aim is to still get a peace agreement at some point, a political agreement.” However, the Taliban’s propensity for violence continues to divide opinion in US circles as Trump’s initial decision to host a Taliban delegation at Camp David was met with heavy criticism.

The Taliban refuses to compromise on their demands, such as their desired institution of the patriarchal Islamic Emirate, characterized by strict social and cultural policies based on man-made principles and radical ideologies. As long as their use of violence and patriarchal political ideologies continue, the US will face divisions over its Afghan strategy.

The US is by no means the only international stakeholder in Afghanistan. The European Union envoy to the region Roland Kobia said, “The EU would like to see a swift resumption of the US bilateral talks with the Taliban and the start of negotiation between the government and the Taliban.”

The EU diplomat also called on the Afghan presidential candidates to contribute to the transparency of the electoral process and avoid any moves that could create problems for the election results.

Kobia’s comment on the presidential candidates re-enforces an important factor to consider when assessing the differing US opinions on the region: the Afghan elections. Putting aside the US-Taliban talks and the conflict itself, it is important to note that all of this is taking place while the country’s politics are in limbo.

Afghanistan is awaiting the results of the September 28 election. Riddled with accusations of fraud and voter-discrepancies, the post-election period has been tumultuous. This chaos is multiplied with the constant onslaught of Taliban instigated violence.

Opening a dialogue with the Taliban will be one of the most significant challenges facing the victors of the September 2019 elections.

Dialogue between political actors is integral to the maintenance of peace in Afghanistan whilst allowing a US withdrawal. However, intra-Afghan dialogue will be impossible without continued support from the US. It is integral that the US keeps its policy towards Afghanistan distinct from its withdrawal from Syria, despite growing criticism and support for Trump’s decision in the Middle East.

Military support in the region remains crucial, especially during this fragile transitional period as Afghanistan nervously awaits election results.

Although the envoys are divided in opinion, they must focus on insight gained during the 18-year Afghan intervention and put domestic political conflicts aside for the time being.

October 4, 2019 by Rise to Peace

Afghanistan election: A huge victory for the Afghan forces

More than 72,000 security personnel were deployed to 49,402 polling booths nationwide. The threat of attacks remained on Afghan voters’ minds, but some said they were determined to go out and vote.

Despite efforts to ensure the election ran smoothly, including the use of equipment such as biometric fingerprint readers and better training for poll workers, 445 polling stations remained closed due to security concerns. Chaotic disruptions at polling stations and scare tactics from Taliban forces led to fear and anxiety across the country’s electorate.

“I did not vote because I did not want to get killed,” said a 25-year-old shopkeeper in District 11 of Kabul City.

The increased security presence did not prevent all manifestations of violence. TOLOnews reported over 260 incidents and that 90 of them were a direct attack on polls. In a single attack, at least 17 people were wounded when a bomb exploded outside a polling station in the southern city of Kandahar hours after the polls opened.

As Abdul Qadir Sediqi, a Reuters correspondent in Afghanistan correctly states, the election was “a major test of the Western-backed government’s ability to protect democracy.” As the votes continue to be counted, Afghans cautiously await news to find out who their next president will be, and if this leader can improve the security situation.

Ghulam Rabani Rabani, a council member for Kunduz province, stated on election day that the Taliban “are attacking Afghan security forces in two locations outside the city, in running gun battles.” He confirms civilian casualties, but couldn’t immediately provide a number.

In Baghlan, a province frequently attacked by the Taliban, 12 polls remained closed due to their threats. Fewer people voted at open polling stations as the Taliban fired several mortars to disrupt the electoral process. Further, security was especially tight in northern Afghanistan, particularly in Kunduz due to a recent attack by the Taliban. However, telecommunication networks were down in Badakhshan, Takhar and some areas of Kunduz province until September 30.

Furthermore, only 225 people voted in Zabul province because of the strong insurgency presence and the lack of civic engagement. The telecommunication networks were disrupted or completely down intermittently. Afghanistan Independent Election Commission (AIEC) stated it lost contact with 901 of the country’s 5,373 polling centers.

On top of this, the Taliban threatened to close highways and disrupt polls. Nevertheless, despite a few claims of Taliban activity on the Kandahar-Kabul highway in Zabul province, they were unable to disrupt the election drastically.

Security concerns, election fraud, and a lower voter turnout can easily be depicted as backsliding in Afghanistan, however, the presidential elections of 2019 were a positive step compared to previous events. Elections in 2009 and 2014 may have produced higher turnout, but they were hampered by mass corruption, fraudulent votes, and deadlier attacks.

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

October 2, 2019October 3, 2019 by Rise to Peace

Afghanistan near crises now that election is over

Editor note: The information in this article is based on our research, interviews, and analysis. It is a collaboration between our Afghanistan team, including two field researchers and a journalist in Kabul, as well as the Washington D.C. team. This piece provides in-depth knowledge and on the ground reporting that neatly summarizes the events of the presidential election of September 28th, pinpoints local regions of concern and identifies the role of the Taliban in thwarting an increased voter turnout. Key impediments to democratic participation are highlighted and build toward the burning question: does Afghanistan face yet another crisis of governance in the wake of this contested election?

Security concerns, technical difficulties related to voter registration irregularities, and apathy due to entrenched fraud contributed to a low voter turnout in the Afghanistan presidential elections held on September 28. Total votes only accounted for half of those placed in the 2014 election.

“Lowest turnout ever,” said Sayed Mujib Faizy, a reporter for Salam Watandar radio and a Research Analyst for Rise to Peace. “People were scared, less motivated to vote due to possible terrorist attacks and also bad past experiences from previous elections.”

Resident of District 15 of Kabul city are voting at poll in their communities. Photo by Rise to Peace. September 28, 2019

Residents of District 15 of Kabul city are voting at an election poll in their communities. Photo by Rise to Peace. September 28, 2019

While all the votes remain to be counted or transferred to the central tally, front runners Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani both claimed victory. Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission (AIEC) is set to announce the primary results on October 17 and the final results on November 7, 2019.

A similar scenario happened in 2014 in that both candidates claimed the higher number of total votes, and thus victory. High tensions after the second round of voting consequently resulted in a power-sharing agreement brokered by former United States Secretary of State John Kerry. This facilitated the establishment of the National Unity Government (NUG) which was not entirely a democratic solution. It was the first time in the history of Afghanistan presidential elections and governance that two candidates challenged for one seat, therefore it was uncharted territory.

The past four years have been difficult for Afghanistan under the National Unity Government. According to the incumbent president, 45,000 security personnel have been killed since he took office. As well, ethnic discrimination among tribes tripled, unemployment continued to rise and there have been increases in violence, as well as corruption. All of these factors leave Afghanistan vulnerable to terrorism.

Despite the fact that the 60,000-strong Taliban were outnumbered by security forces, Afghan voters still feared the threats issued by the Taliban. Their aim to intimidate and spread fear in the Afghan people included warnings that they would conduct bombings and mass shootings, as well as cut off fingers, to express their opposition to the elections. The AIEC reported that nearly 2.2 million out of 9 million registered voters cast ballots in the election, proving that the Taliban’s fear tactics were successful.

For instance, in Kabul — the headquarters for all security agencies such as the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Interior Affairs, the United States embassy and military bases — the Taliban successfully carried out several minor explosions with the one intended to keep the people away from the polls. This undoubtedly weakened the credibility of the democratic process and heightened the power, as well as legitimacy, of the Taliban since they could execute such attacks in the capital city.

Cautious authorities placed an uneasy Kabul under partial lockdown, tightening security and banning trucks from entering the city. Nevertheless, Taliban threats did not stop many from voting. Mohiuddin, who is 55 years old, told AFP, “I am not afraid, we have to vote if we want to bring changes to our lives.”

“These elections are important to us because we want a leader who will negotiate peace with the Taliban and end the years-long war in the country,” expressed Ismatullah Safi, a taxi driver in the capital of Afghanistan, Kabul.

Shoaib Sharifi, a journalist in Kabul, described the security presence as strong. He noted, “In the big cities there seem to be more police and army deployed than voters.”

Poll officials in this part of Kabul city have been waiting for over an hour now to receive voters. Photo and report by Sayed Muib Faizy of Rise to Peace. September 28, 2019

Here is a breakdown of the three main problems that led to a low voting turnout: security challenges, voter suppression and fraud, and women’s participation in the election.

We have conducted interviews, gathered data, and examined local voters who contacted Rise to Peace via social media and by Afghans posting their experiences on Facebook.

Security Concerns and Challenges: A huge victory for the Afghan security forces

As the vote-counting commenced, it brought about the end of election day in Afghanistan. The precarious security situation and the struggling economy seemed to be on top of the minds of voters. The Taliban made every effort over the last few weeks to ensure this election would not be a peaceful affair. More than 72,000 security personnel were deployed to 49,402 polling booths nationwide. The threat of attacks remained on Afghan voters’ minds, but some said they were determined to go out and vote.

“I did not vote because I did not want to get killed,” said a 25-year-old shopkeeper in District 11 of Kabul City.

Local officials in Helmand said that voter turnout was weak. The presence of the Taliban in the province prevented citizens from casting their votes in at least five districts. There were also multiple reports from provincial officials in the north of Afghanistan that stated insurgents fired mortars on the city of Kunduz in attempts to interfere with the casting of ballots. Ghulam Rabani Rabani, a council member for Kunduz province, stated on election day that the Taliban “are attacking Afghan security forces in two locations outside the city, in running gun battles.” He confirms civilian casualties, but couldn’t immediately provide a number.

Furthermore, only 225 people voted in Zabul province because of the strong insurgency presence and the lack of civic engagement. The telecommunication networks were disrupted or completely down intermittently. AIEC stated it lost contact with 901 of the country’s 5,373 polling centers. On top of this, the Taliban threatened to close highways and disrupt polls. Nevertheless, despite a few claims of Taliban activity on the Kandahar-Kabul highway in Zabul province, they were unable to disrupt the election drastically.

The Afghanistan National Security Forces scored a marked success as they prevented any major terrorist attack in a country where various terrorist groups operate and the Taliban controls over 60% of the territory. Their actions proved their capabilities to defend Afghan citizens. Security concerns, election fraud, and a lower voter turnout can easily be depicted as backsliding in Afghanistan, however, the presidential elections of 2019 were a positive step compared to previous events. Elections in 2009 and 2014 may have produced higher turnout, but they were hampered by mass corruption, fraudulent votes, and deadlier attacks.

Voter Suppression and Voter Fraud

General uncertainties over the election coupled with the continued threats of Taliban violence proved to be problematic obstacles that hindered citizens’ eagerness to vote. Efforts to mobilize the more than 9 million registered voters were proven to be unsuccessful as broad and diverse swaths of the Afghan population chose not to partake in the nation’s fourth Presidential election.

It is still too early to measure the extent of electoral fraud that was committed during this particular election as not all of the ballots have been counted. On the other hand, citizen journalists reported instances of fraud on social media sites, such as Facebook. Videos depicted supporters casting numerous ballots in favor of their preferred candidate in several places across Afghanistan. A group affiliated with Ashraf Ghani’s campaign team, or other supporters, can be viewed filling out ballots whilst sitting under a tree in this video posted to Facebook.

Biometrics

Though new safeguards and technological improvements were incorporated in order to strengthen the electoral processes of Afghanistan’s critically important governmental elections, fraudulent practices and technical glitches with voting machines caused for flawed executions and untrustworthy outcomes. These significant setbacks undermined the integrity of Afghanistan’s presidential election, and further proved the need for more reforms to be undertaken in order to ensure the viability and legitimacy of Afghanistan’s future democratic elections and institutional practices.

Technical difficulties, such as computer system glitches and faulty software programs, led to miscalculation of vote tallies and distrust in the technology. As a result, these instances put into question the role computer-based systems should have in ensuring the legitimacy and success of Afghanistan’s electoral processes.

Registration ballots

Apart from security concerns and biometric failures, most people in Afghanistan were unable to vote simply because their names were not in the system of registered voters, where these individuals have been registered within their respective communities and designated polling stations. Poll administrators were unable to verify or find records proving voters’ registry and citizenship within the election data systems, which delayed the designated polls, and as well as frustrated passionate voters that risked their lives to cast their votes.

“Our names are not in the system… this is fraud,” said a 60 year old man in Nangarhar province to TOLONews. Another voter said that his name was not on the list, even though he was registered and voted in last year’s parliamentary election.

The AIEC voter registration database had difficulties throughout the country and as the result, most registered voters could not vote. Administrative failures such as these led to voters questioning the legitimacy of the election, with Afghan voters vocally chastising the AIEC for their failures and inability to manage a presidential election through effective, trustworthy approaches and applications.

Role of women: lower compared to previous elections

If men face extreme difficulties to vote in Afghanistan, it is even less likely that women will vote given the security challenges and cultural barriers, primarily in rural areas, where they are vulnerable to terrorism and as well as stricter social barriers. Compared to previous elections, fewer voted from the 3 million women registered to vote.

There are several factors that have impacted the female voter turnout. First, women are often victims of violence, as demonstrated by a deadly bombing spurred by the 2015 parliamentary elections, where an explosion targeted women voters in an elementary school in Wazir Akbar Khan. Second, women were disinterested in voting because they were discouraged from the results of previous elections where they voted despite security and cultural barriers. Third, cultural barriers throughout the country prevent women from exercising free will and choice as they have been historically dominated by the male dominant society. For instance, at the household level, the majority of women are told by their husbands or fathers for whom to vote.

This intense patriarchal culture from the local levels feeds insecurity for women to be productive members of Afghan civil society. It can lead to further security challenges as the Taliban want to restrict the rights of women and participation in the democratic process could place women in harm’s way. On the other hand, since Taliban rule ended in 2001, women’s rights have expanded and today there are 63 women in the parliamentary body out of 320. This is a major success given how fragile Afghanistan is, where the majority of its women have lived in an extremely marginalized society.

According to TOLONews, from 6:15 am to 8:15 am no women voted in Kandahar province. This election had the lowest voter turnout ever in Afghanistan, therefore it is unsurprising that fewer women voted. A decrease in the number of women engaged in the electoral process is a concern, yet inspiring photos of women voting, like a 70-year-old woman who voted in Kandahar despite Taliban threats, demonstrate there is room for improvement.

Conclusion

Afghanistan is in a critical moment of its history and it cannot afford another crisis while it remains entrenched in others. In addition to security challenges, general discouragement felt by Afghan citizens is a key factor in regard to low voter turnout. Throughout our interviews and analysis of data received, the majority of respondents answered that they are unhappy with corruption and fraud in the past four elections in 18 years. “Even my friends said that we do not want to vote because its symbolic and we don’t have a good experience,” said Mr. Faizy.

“Fraud will take Afghanistan to crisis,” said Rahmutalla Nabil, a presidential candidate and former head of intelligence in Afghanistan.

Election transparency, as well as a political compromise, are needed to avoid a crisis given Afghanistan’s rich ethnic-tribal values and systems. Most of the people we interviewed expressed their concern that the crisis is possible. They urged the United States and the greater international community to continue to monitor and pressure the AIEC for transparency and voter counts to avoid any systematic fraud. In addition, the US should not support any candidate that emerges as a winner that applied fraudulent tactics. Not only would that counter democratic norms and values of a free society, but it would further damage any legitimacy of an Afghan government.

Sayed Mujib Faizy of Rise to Peace is interviewing voters in Kabul city. September 28, 2019

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

September 17, 2019September 17, 2019 by Rise to Peace

Elections 2019: Is Afghanistan Ready?

On 17 September, a blast rocked Ashraf Ghani’s campaign rally in Parwan province, echoing the words of Mohammad Ismail Khan, a former Mujahideen leader turned politician, who previously stated that “the current situation in Afghanistan is not suitable for elections.” Ismail Khan’s pessimism, as well as that of other stakeholders, is no surprise given the political activity over the last few weeks. The collapse of peace talks between the US and the Taliban as well as the increase in the number of attacks by the Taliban paint a grim picture for the region’s upcoming general election.

In addition to the uncertainty over the US commitment to security in the region, as well as the escalation of violence from Taliban forces, history demonstrates that elections are tumultuous events in Afghanistan with reports of voter suppression, intimidation and ballot stuffing. A report by European Union election observers in 2014 suggested that more than two million votes — or about a quarter of total votes cast — came from polling stations with voting irregularities. This begs the question as to how the Afghan security forces will manage the September 28 elections and whether the country is, in fact, ready for the looming deadline.

This election has been far from orderly since the beginning with many presidential candidates opting to avoid public addresses unless necessary, due to security concerns. The New York Times reported that Ghani himself “was reduced to addressing virtual rallies across the country via video-chat.”

Taliban activity increased across Afghanistan in the last few years, but their bombardment of Baghlan province in the north creates an even larger hurdle for the elections. Disruptions in the province also obstruct the AH76, one of the only highways linking the north to Kabul. The severing of communication and transport links will have a major effect on the region and heavily disrupt voters in the run-up to elections.

There is little doubt that violence will escalate in the coming weeks, especially since the Taliban have vowed to target the elections since the breakdown of talks with the US. “On any given day, there is fighting in nearly two dozen of the country’s 34 provinces” and as a result of this, over a quarter of the country’s polling stations will remain closed due to a lack of security.

The Taliban’s alleged control over 70% of Afghanistan is not the only terrorism-related hurdle that Afghanistan faces in the run-up to elections. A bombing at a wedding in Kabul that killed 63 people in August, and the assault on Mullah Habatullah Akhundzada (the younger brother of Afghanistan’s Taliban chief), presents a grave reminder of the increasing influence of ISIL in Afghanistan.

Trump’s suggestion that he may continue to withdraw troops despite the lack of a peace deal may provide Ghani with a challenge he has not had to face in many years: facing the Taliban without US support. One could expect a drastic decrease in the morale of Afghan troops who rely heavily on US airpower as well as training and heavy weaponry.

Even if the winning party survives the inevitable accusations of fraud and vote-rigging, Afghanistan’s governing structure has historically consisted of a weak central government unwilling or unable to enforce significant financial or administrative mandates on all of Afghanistan’s diverse ethnic communities. This is a result of Afghanistan’s multiethnic and mostly tribal society which consists of fourteen tribal groups.

Although intra-Afghan talks are integral to the establishment of peace in the region, foreign intervention will also play a major role. Security forces, already spread thin, cannot afford the loss of US airpower, military training and heavy weaponry. Aside from security, the election process itself riddled with accusations of fraud and vote rigging in 2014, will heavily rely on an independent commission who will, ideally, give a sense of legitimacy to the election. This would at least allow the incoming government the ability to govern without the controversy that surrounded the beginning of the current government’s term.

Foreign involvement rarely creates the sense of authentic free and fair elections. However, as elections so strongly influence the extent to which a fragile state becomes stabilized, it is integral that stakeholders (including the US and NATO) are present and continue to provide the support, or at least the security, needed to hold the September 28 elections.

Image Credit: Staff Sgt. Christopher Allison of the US Department of Defense. An Afghan elder shows his purple inked finger to show he has voted and cannot do it twice.

in EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

August 28, 2019September 2, 2019 by Ahmad Mohibi

What in the World Is Going On in Afghanistan?

The Afghan Peace Talks on the Eve of Their Presidential Election

Mullah Khairullah Khaikhwah, a senior member of the Taliban, stated that a peace deal between the US and the Taliban negotiators would likely end in an awaited peace deal by the end of this week. After eight peace talks in Moscow, Qatar, Pakistan, Indonesia and Afghanistan, a hope for a permanent ceasefire appears elusive. Afghan political parties, including Jamiat Islami, are optimistic and supportive of a peace agreement. The Afghan government is skeptical and does not accept any agreement but the resolution to hold fair and free elections.

According to a senior Afghan official, intra-Afghan dialogues are agreeable on three main issues:

Ceasefire
Dismissal of election
Interim government, but the Taliban calling it a “New Government”

Ashraf Ghani’s running mate, Amrullah Saleh, calls the political leaders behind this agreement, “useful idiots/self-named leaders…” on his Twitter and states that “…elections will take place. Allow no poisonous propaganda to disturb your patriotism. The link between elections and peace process is very direct & crucial. No one without a mandate from the people can negotiate a settlement.”

The Afghan government want an election. The Taliban does not want the Afghan government to hold elections because they believe the incumbent authorities are illegitimate, and they do not want the regime to maintain power. Other Afghan political leaders such as Ata Mohammad Noor, Mohammad Hanif Atmar, Muhamad Mohaqeq and other influential leaders who fought both the Soviets and the Taliban, are willing to accept an interim government and to make a deal with the Taliban. This all comes down to election vs. interim government and Afghan government vs. Taliban.

Afghanistan Election History

The Bonn Agreement of 2001 created a timeline for presidential and parliamentary elections to commence in 2004. The United States backed the successful presidential campaign of Hamid Karzai, but parliamentary elections were not successfully held until September 2005. Elections at this level were hampered by accusations of electoral discrepancies and voter fraud. It is speculated that these two factors tarnished the elections as illegitimate and accordingly led to a low voter turnout.

In August 2009, presidential and local elections were held. Accusations of fraud, such as ballot stuffing, emerged yet again. A low turnout and acts of intimidation presented challenges. Months later, in October, the US pressured Afghan President Karzai to authorize a runoff vote to rectify complaints of the original election. Karzai ran against Abdullah Abdullah; the latter dropped out of the race due to a lack of transparency. Thus, Karzai remained president for the next five years, as the country vowed to overcome any future fraud and corruption through the implementation of a better electoral system.

Parliamentary elections in 2010 did not differ much. Twenty-one candidates were disqualified by the Independent Election Commission because of fraud and illegal activities. Further, the Taliban used terrorist attacks and threats to incite voter suppression. These particular acts of fear mongering dissuaded women and progressive candidates from becoming elected.

The 2014 elections marked Karzai’s term limits and a new president would be elected to office. Ashraf Ghani won against Abdullah Abdullah, but charges of fraud remained.

2019 Election Issues

The Electoral Commission postponed the 2019 elections twice in efforts to curb fraud. As a consequence, the presidential elections are slated to take place on September 28, 2019.

Voter suppression and intimidation remain typical obstacles of elections in Afghanistan. It is a nationwide problem as the Taliban and other terrorist groups target civilians in major cities like Kabul and in remote countryside villages.

The US, Afghan representatives, and the Taliban concluded the Doha peace talks, but it seems that no agreement has been reached, especially regarding election processes. It is the Taliban that seems to be the unwilling actor as they continually refuse to speak with the Ghani regime; authorities they deem illegitimate. In the post-peace talk period, the Taliban continue to engage in acts that strike fear in ordinary Afghan civilians.

The US, UN, and the Afghan government state their commitment to ensuring that the Independent Election Commission can thwart voter suppression and election fraud. Nevertheless, the commission is faced with managing the troubling union of terrorism and corruption.

Terrorism and corruption go hand in hand and play off each other. They create instability in government systems, which in turn create anxiety within the people, who are left to consider their electoral system as illegitimate. Elections are not perceived as free and fair.

Here is a breakdown of what peace talks means to each side and what needs to be done.

The United States

Interests of all peace brokers matter. The Trump administration wants to end the Afghan War and fulfill perennial campaign promises ahead of the 2020 elections. President Trump would tactically boast of such a major achievement. Since 2001, the US has used hard power methods to create stability and to end terrorism. Trump stood firm in the early years of his presidency as he used additional options for delivering strong military strikes in Afghanistan. He increased the number of troops on the ground from 10,000 to 14,000, dropped the ‘mother of all bombs’ on ISIL headquarters and suspended military aid to Pakistan.

The US has since amended its stance in favor of diplomatic measures and seeks to give the peace process a chance. Trump appointed Zalmay Khalilzad as the Special Envoy for Afghanistan Peace and Reconciliation to take the lead on all US efforts. Recently, there has been an excellent amount of progress, mainly the Taliban’s willingness to discuss their grievances and explain how they want their country to be operated.

Opposition parties

A negotiated settlement is in the best interest of opposition political parties for numerous reasons. First, President Ashraf Ghani has ruled Afghanistan with an iron fist, from centralizing power and isolating powerful political leaders like Rashid Dostum and Ata Mohammad Noor.

Abdul Rashid Dostum a.k.a General Dosutm — the leader of the National Islamic Movement of Afghanistan or simply known as Junbush and the current vice president — was exiled under the direction of President Ghani. Dostum’s role in the Afghan government is viewed as symbolic since he was used twice by both Ghani and Karzai to tactically augment their coalition of supporters. He represents Uzbeks; one of the four major ethnic groups in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, Dostum’s relationship with the Afghan political elite has been complicated as both administrations exiled him to Turkey for numerous reasons. These include rape, torture of a local commander and being powerful enough to initiate a revolt.

Ghani lost an influential leader, Ata Mohammad Noor; the Chief Executive of Jamiat-e Islami Afghanistan and a governor with thirteen years experience. According to our research, an announcement from the Afghan government office, and an exclusive interview with TOLOnews, it was revealed that Noor resigned over a condition-based agreement a year prior to the actual acceptance date of his resignation. His resignation was accepted by Ghani without the acceptance or approval of any of the stated conditions. As president, Ghani had the constitutional right to replace him or anyone else, but this aggressive action was viewed as an “ethno-nationalist” move and faced with nationwide criticism, including the famous Afghan commander, General Raziq, who later was assassinated by the Taliban.

Bad decisions such as these further damaged the integrity of the government and created mistrust between political actors. In Afghanistan, political leaders from different ethnicities are influential, powerful and necessary for cooperation to combat terrorism and build a democratic Afghanistan. Ghani’s decision to simply dismiss two influential leaders of two major political parties jeopardized his regime and ill-effects of these actions are felt to this day.

The Afghan government

The Ghani administration wants to continue its rule and does not want to relinquish power. They understand well that if the US and the Taliban accept an interim government with the support and agreement of political leaders, their regime will end. Further, they do not have the political capital to win an interim government leadership position, nor will the Taliban and other Afghan leaders will allow them to gain power in such a framework.

This is the chief reason why the Afghan government is skeptical of the peace process and an interim government. The election provides an avenue for Ghani to retain power and he wants a legacy like his predecessor Hamid Karzai; to rule for a long time to implement his policies as he continuously promises the people.

Both Ashraf Ghani and his running mate, Amrullah Saleh are in favor of elections mainly for the above reasoning. In a recent TOLOnews exclusive interview with running mate Amrullah Saleh, Saleh’s definition of peace requires the Taliban compete in an election so that they can express their policies, if they are capable of such politicking. Saleh criticizes the Taliban for not having basic literature and accuses them of being a “puppet” to Pakistan.

Taliban

The Taliban wants to make peace with the US because they are the root of the current Afghan government. Without US intervention, contemporary interpretation of the Afghan government or democracy would be alien. The Taliban occupied approximately 90 percent of Afghanistan by 2000 and could have stayed in power had they not been toppled.

Over the past 18 years, the Taliban continuously fought and outlasted sophisticated military operations under the guidance of two US presidents (George W. Bush and Barack Obama), NATO and ISAF forces. These struggles compelled the US negotiate with the Taliban.

The Taliban view Afghanistan’s president as a “puppet of the West” in the same vein that the Afghan government considers the Taliban as a “puppet” of Pakistan. They have stated on multiple occasions that they would negotiate with past enemies — Mujahidin rather than the current “non-Islamic” government of Afghanistan. This stance remained unchanged since the former president Hamid Karzai called the Taliban in 2006 to join a peace process or the first time.

The Taliban gained a worldwide reputation after the US government appointed Khalilzad as the special envoy. They perceived this as a recognition of their status as a political party rather than an insurgent group. The US’ soft approach provided the Taliban with additional power to reject the Afghan government as illegitimate, as they always claimed over the past 18 years. They saw this as an opportunity to deal with the master and real ruler behind the scenes — the United States.

Transnational Terrorism

The Taliban are a major insurgency group that have operated in Afghanistan since 1996. Since that time, they have harbored Al-Qaeda, the Haqqani Network, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan as well as numerous foreign fighters from diverse parts of the world. Insurgents primarily from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan and the Russian republic of Chechnya traveled to Afghanistan for Taliban instruction and education.

If a negotiated settlement is reached, the likelihood that factions of the Taliban, along with over two dozen other terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan, will continue to be obstacles to the peace process. One particular organization, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, have a foothold in the Khorasan province of Afghanistan, Pakistan and infiltrating Central Asia.

Conclusion

History reveals that elections in Afghanistan struggle with illegitimacy and corruption. The 2019 edition appears to be stymied by similar complaints despite efforts of the US and Afghan governments to ensure free and fair elections.

The Taliban and opposition parties consider this round of presidential elections as fraudulent due to corruption inherent in the current Afghan government. Since the Taliban have additional motives and do not want elections to be held, integrity of the electoral process is used as a factor in the peace talks.

A peace deal will come with a big cost — dismissal of elections and creation of an interim government, or the “New Government,” as labelled by the Taliban.

If all parties truly want peace, they must appreciate the United States efforts in brokering this deal. To this date, the current Afghan government has been skeptical of the peace talks mainly to remain in power and win another mandate to govern through elections. Gaining power is the most important aspect of some political actors and rejection of a peace offer from the Taliban insurgency is demonstrative of their stance on peace and democracy.

Ahmad Mohibi, a writer and is the founder of Rise to Peace. Follow him on Twitter at @ahmadsmohibi.

Nick Webb, a Research Analyst at Rise to Peace.

in Ahmad Mohibi / Asia / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments