What’s wrong with Afghanistan?

Ritam Banati A study of the elections in Afghanistan is of tremendous global import. The significance is not about which government is installed. It is more because the world is carefully observing how much influence Taliban exerts. What started it? The history of the state goes much before the Soviet invasion. Internal strife has been the hallmark of the restive nation since a very long time. The incursion was necessitated not only due to the forces of Communism, which suited the conqueror strategically, but also due to the vulnerability of the mismanaged country. Internal disharmony and coups characterised Afghanistan from the start. Moscow’s interference in its affairs was the result of the erstwhile USSR looking to spread its influence in an era of Cold War. Thus Afghanistan became the battleground of superpower politics as then the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency assisted in arming the Mujahideen to fight the Soviet invaders. These armed fighters then turned against America and this only worsened the situation in the war-ravaged nation. The immediate aftermath USA realised their mistake fully at the time of the 9/11 attacks. It then with the help of stationed NATO troops brought Afghanistan out of the political grip of the Taliban that had managed to bring large parts of the country including capital Kabul under its control. Subsequently, in 2004, elections were held and Hamid Karzai was elected as the President. But the forces of Taliban continued to be a force to reckon with. Taking the bull by the horns, NATO troops continued the killing spree of the militia. Loophole in the anti-terror strategy The anti-terror strategy of the US in Afghanistan seeks to curb the influence of the Taliban. Killing the Taliban terrorists will most certainly not render the entire system that produces the insurgents powerless. For no one is a born Taliban. What can be done Therefore, instead of spending money to shed their blood, it is vital to either render them powerless completely so that in time they wither off or to start the daunting task of neutralising the environment that produces them. Poverty being just one instance, flawed education being the other. Till the time the Taliban are not subjugated completely, it is near impossible to conduct free and fair polls. The 2009 election and the Taliban factor This is because, the fear of the Taliban is strongly etched in the voter’s mind and this was clearly evident in the turnout in Afghan polls this year, meagre 38.7% as per Independent Election Commission (IEC) estimates. This figure was not only much below the 70% turnout in 2004, it was also lower than the expected percentage of 40-50%. But one needs to even consider the Taliban factor while analysing these statistics. Karzai polled 54.62% of votes followed by Abdullah with a 27.75%. Couple this with the poor turnout and forgery mixed with violence and one can safely guess that the actual percentage in Afghanistan that really voted for Karzai could be much lower than 20%. In such a scenario it becomes extremely difficult to assess the strength of a candidate’s popularity. Karzai, being a Pashtun draws maximum support from among the Pashtuns and Abdullah from the Tajiks. The fear of the Taliban perhaps was not as much a deterrent factor in this year’s election as was the complete erosion of faith in the Karzai government. This factor disappointed people to an extent that they lost faith in polity. Besides, they also complain that the massive amount of global aid that is meant for the country’s development is entering the coffers of the politicians. The Tajiks in the north are in a majority compared to the Pashtuns of the South. Despite this, a Pashtun has polled more votes than a Tajik. There is also more violence in the south where the Taliban controls a few districts in all provinces completely. This leads one to wonder why a Tajik candidate as per preliminary results just polled 27% votes as compared to Pashtun’s 54%. Poor turnout could be one factor. But even if one goes by that, still there should be lower turnout in the south than in the north. And because majority of them are Tajiks in the north, Abdullah should have at least polled votes comparable to Karzai if not more. But till Taliban influence is strong in the state, it is difficult to draw clear cut conclusions. The tragedy of being `Afghanistan` Sadly what was true of Afghanistan before Soviet invasion holds true even today- the desperate and blind power struggle. Earlier they were the Soviets that tried to exploit the situation to spread Communism there. Now it is the USA which is trying to undo a historical wrong it committed when it armed the “freedom fighters”. A suggestive solution The only answer to the peril that the country finds itself in is development which includes food and education as the main planks. Also if the international community really wants to solve the problems of the hapless nation, first it will have to ensure that the police and the Army there are strong enough to instil a sense of security in the people, Secondly, it’ll have to devise a mechanism that helps in the percolation of financial aid to the masses. Once people are strong and secure, government cannot afford not to be accountable to them for its actions. And when government is answerable, true democracy is achieved and the road to contain the Taliban gets carved. And once that happens, elections cannot be unfair.