Photo: Afghan presidential candidate and former foreign minister Dr. Abdullah Abdullah waves to his supporters during a campaign rally in Fayz Abad district of Badakhshan province, north of Kabul, Afghanistan. Afghans will head to the polls on Aug. 20 to elect a new president. (AP Photo/Musadeq Sadeq)


The end game of the current "surge" in Afghanistan is to clear the way for elections on August 20th. This is why Afghan and NATO soldiers are laying down their lives in places like Helmand Province.

The hope is that the writ of the Kabul government can be extended to lawless provinces in time to provide the semblance of a free and fair election. If the southern provinces are not stabilized, the electoral result may create a strong ethnic imbalance which is not adequately reflective of the role of the Pashtuns in Afghan society. As the country is essentially an ethnocracy, an ethnically imbalanced government would threaten the legitimacy of the state.

Despite the sacrifices being made, the election results are almost a foregone conclusion. The incumbent, President Hamid Karzai is expected to win by a large majority without a run-off. The only two other candidates who even have a shot are Abdullah Abdullah (the former Foreign Minister) and Ashraf Ghani (a former Finance Minister, former World Bank official and Chancellor of Kabul University). Dr. Ghani has a superb resume but no real political base; in fact, he only recently renounced his American citizenship to compete in the carpet-bagger Olympics. Abdullah is better known both domestically and regionally but he is still a long shot. Barring massive vote fraud, Karzai will win.

It is worth noting that NATO and foreign donors are paying to hold these elections. Security for the leading candidates is being provided by the Kabul government (and thus the foreign forces which are helping to prop up the government). Campaign events appear to be highly stage managed as photo opportunities for foreign journalists.

So what are the differences between Karzai and his opponents? Short answer: not much.

Karzai's opponents all charge that the current regime is corrupt. While the charge seems righteous, it is mainly ridiculous. In a country like Afghanistan, corruption exists on one end of a continuum with civil war on the other end. In other words, it is corruption that prevents even greater hostilities in the country. It is extremely unlikely that anyone could rule the country without cutting deals. The Kabul government does not have the manpower to suppress the Taliban and other warlords and the foreign forces lack the will to supply the number of troops necessary for complete pacification.

Several candidates have expressed a desire to negotiate with the Taliban to end the war. Of course, Karzai has expressed similar sentiments, so this is a non-issue.

Dr. Abdullah has claimed that the troop surge represents a failure and that Afghanistan needs "real change." This seems to be an empty slogan. His main policy solution is better coordination between Afghans and foreign forces.

With this kind of opposition, it is no wonder that Karzai is slated to win.

Okay, so if the elections are a foregone conclusion and there are few legitimate differences between the candidates why hold the elections? The answer is that the ritual of an election is about making power visible. In this case, it is not just the power of the Kabul government but the true sources of power in Afghanistan (i.e. NATO). This ritual performance will eventually have to be sublimated through the extension and routinization of other governmental procedures. Until that time, however, power must be made legible to the masses.

Labels: afghanistan, elections, security, south asia