HAQUE'S TALKING

Priority of Politics and Policy Planning

Monday, October 5, 2009

THE AFGHAN ELECTION; FACTS BENEATH THE DEBATE

Hamid Karzai, The President, Casting His Vote

There lies a strong supposition ‘Democracies do not fight’, given by the western philosophy hawkers to excavate causes of war. Like many other pseudo assumptions this special one also opens the wings of question what the relations there may be drawn between two separate dynamics i.e. democracy, an internal affair of a country, and war among states, an external factor. After making a deep thinking on the argument you will find the real connotation of the assumption but, alas (!), with a slight variation in its inner sense e.g. ‘Democracies need not fight’ or, at least, ‘Selective democracies do not fight’. Are you confused regarding all the three statements given above such as democracies do not fight, democracies need not fight and the last one selective democracies do not fight? Is it clear to you what the difference between first two suppositions as democracies do not fight and democracies need not fight? Do you know what sense gives the term selective democracy? If you can explain all those assumptions and term, it can be assured that ins and outs regarding election in Afghanistan are completely luminous to you. Contrary to that, it will be a task of finding a needle from a dune if you do not have a clear cut idea about those things described in above. So let us first discover the real meaning of them.

The first supposition which is originated, propagated, and campaigned by the western philosophers, suggests that if there are two democratic countries there would never happen war between them. They give a nonsense explanation about the war preventing power of democracy. They prophecies that as a democratic government is to think about the welfare of the people they have no time to commit war and they also have no mandate to war as most of the people are peace loving and real mandate lies in their hands. This interpretation regarding war curbing power of democracy never is in the position to be accepted or believed as there are huge examples where, you will see in third world countries, lots of democratically elected governments turn into autocratic characteristics within a short while of their election. So to get the real explanation there may be suggested another assumption, as there has already been given, democracies need not fight. Why wars occur? When a state can’t achieve its interest because of unwillingness of another state, there may arise a war situation. But with taking full advantage of money-media-muscle power a strong nation can easily shape and reshape any government in a weaker state. In this way the stronger state can achieve its all interests from the weaker state by managing the government of that country. So war, most of the time, does not become a means of obtaining interest as it did in the past. In this circumstances we can make a corollary that democracies need not fight. But when a democratically elected government does not fulfill the requirement of a big power there come the questions of selective democracy. Yes! This is a special type of democracy which is created, nurtured and nourished by massacring or, at least, ignoring a real democratically elected government. Look at the behavior of USA’s treatment with HAMAS, democratically elected government in Palestine, and Musharraf’s government in Pakistan. In these two cases selective democracy was the means to gain interest. This is the fact what is working in case of Afghan election. Before going to beneath of the result and process of the election you must have to go to the real target of the USA and its alliance in this region. The USA along with NATO wants to continue its presence in Afghanistan to slaughter China, and probably India if need in far future. But justifying this presence is not an easy task for the USA without fitting a reasonable excuse. Only an unrest, turbulence and instable Afghanistan can assure a rational justification for the western ally to stay in the region. In such a situation a peaceful Afghanistan is never expected to that party who is critical and real playmaker of the region. Thus it is quite clear to all that only a selective democracy can be expected and must be implemented by that clever and coercive client of the region. Let us make a quick glance to the Afghan election with the goggles that particular perspective.

If we look at the election process and its continuous story from top to bottom with a white eye we can describe in that particular way. The second presidential election in Afghanistan under the present constitution of Afghanistan was held on August 20, 2009. Elections for 420 provincial council seats were held at the same time. In accordance with the announcement of the NATO officials given in May 2009 that 15.6 million voters had registered to vote, roughly half of the country's population; 35 to 38 percent of registered voters were women. These registration numbers have been disputed, however, by the Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan and media reports, which suggest widespread fraudulent activity in the election process.

Under the 2004 constitution, elections should have been held no later than 60 days before the end of President Karzai's term in July 2009. The Independent Election Commission (IEC) originally recommended that the poll be held at the same time as the 2010 parliamentary balloting to save costs. However, politicians in the country were unable to agree to the details. Concerns about accessibility to mountainous areas in spring 2009 and the ability of getting adequate people and materials in place by then led the IEC to announce the elections would be delayed to August 2009.

The opposition accused Karzai of attempting to extend his power past his term. In February 2009, President Hamid Karzai called on the Independent Election Committee to hold the election according to the country's constitution. Thereby forcing the IEC to reiterate the August date, and silencing critics, who fear a leadership vacuum between May and August. Some potential Afghan opponents complained Karzai's move was an attempt to clear the field of challengers, most of whom would not be ready to campaign for the 2009 election. After the IEC and the international community rejected Karzai's decree, Karzai accepted the date of August 20, 2009. The Supreme Court of Afghanistan announced in March 2009 that Karzai's term would be extended until a new leader had been elected. His opponents called the decision unconstitutional and unacceptable, pointing out that it put Karzai in a position to exploit the office to secure his electoral victory. After all these occurrences there have been played the play of an election where Karzai got the office of presidency by obtaining the minimum required votes with lots of complains i.e. manipulating the result, showing fake vote centers and using governmental mechanism to unsure victory. Moreover boycott by Taliban has also brought the acceptability under question. Low vote casting rate is also another aspect of disqualification of unacceptability of the election.

Now the fact comes first in our mind why the father of democracy, at least according to their demand, is playing such a critical play in Afghanistan’s election. Why Karzai is now under their severe pressure though he is the man who in near past was selected as the savior of Afghan people? Is he not their expected and exclusive choice now? If not why they gave him a chance to exploit his power in influencing election? All these questions require a single answer- selective democracy, already argued above. They usually want to keep pressure both on Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah to get bargaining power with them. They want to inform Karzai that if he is not satisfying their demand(s) and going out of their rudder he will be thrown away as election is not accepted to the world’s mass. In this way Abdullah Abdullah, the opposition of karzai, is being used by them as a triumph card. In the same time they also are trying to eyewash world mass to justify their presence in Afghanistan in the name of instability and disorder and, of course, reestablishment and resettlement of firm democracy. Taliban is, obviously, a genuine excuse to continue their presence but nowadays they are, in fact, tired with war. So Talibans are not to be an option for them. They want their presence ensured without war what can only be justified with an Afghanistan full with political turmoil and chaos.

In such a situation Hamid Karzai, a puppet of western block, will ascend in power through a shabby, shaky and trembling rope which in any time may tear or to be cut with the tricky scissor, Abdullah Abdullah the real name of the scissor. If they can serve the purpose through their puppet government, no matter Karzai or Abdullah, why they will let the war with Taliban, once created and nurtured by them to hunt Russia but letter denied to serve their purpose. As a result Afghanistan is going to be a place of selective democracy, selected by the USA, to ensure western interest without war and at the same time to confirm their attendance in the region to tight, and teach China. If a selected democracy in Afghanistan permits the USA to contain a foreseeable foe, namely China, without any excuse why they will not let it happen. Who keeps it unpracticed to kill a bird keeping the gun on others shoulder?

A woman is casting her vote

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home