Dr Maleeha Lodhi :
Delays in the audit of Afghanistan’s disputed presidential election and uncertainty about its outcome have cast a long shadow over the country’s political and security transitions when the deadline for the withdrawal of Western combat troops is just months away.
The previously scheduled date of August 2 for inauguration of the new president has long passed. No new date has been announced even though the two election rivals have said they will agree to one before the end of August. Hopes of international stakeholders for the audit to be concluded by this month’s end appear too optimistic.
Following a second mediation effort between the feuding candidates by US Secretary of State John Kerry in August, Washington expects the winner to be declared by the end of this month. Whether a new president will be installed by the time a key Nato summit takes place in Wales on September 4-5 remains an open question.
Twice Kerry has had to intervene to avert a political breakdown threatened by the bitter conflict that was sparked by allegations of ballot fraud over Afghanistan’s June 14 run off election. The dispute that erupted risked deepening the country’s political and ethnic polarisation, and posed the danger of the political transition being derailed. This prompted Kerry to first mediate the July 12 agreement between the rival candidates, Ashraf Ghani and Dr. Abdullah-Abdullah. And when this looked like coming unstuck, he brokered another agreement on August 9. While Kerry came up with an ostensibly neat formula in July that prevented the post-election fracas from turning into a disastrous crisis, details of the two-part deal had to be worked out between Ghani and Abdullah’s camps. And as is usually the case, the devil has been in the detail.
One aspect of the agreement related to determining a legitimate winner. This entailed thorough scrutiny of all eight million votes cast. The second element of the deal encompassed a power sharing agreement for a national unity government to be set up later by the two leaders.
This broad understanding was secured by the US after it threatened to cut off all assistance. But giving practical shape to both the technical framework for the audit and political framework for a national government has proven to be excruciatingly difficult. Progress has been marred by discord between the two camps.
Disagreement over the rules and criteria for the audit led to several suspensions of the process and made the exercise slow and messy. The audit, in fact, has yet to start in a serious and sustained manner. Only a few thousand of the 23,000 ballot boxes have been audited so far.
It remains uncertain if the process will proceed smoothly and how long it will take. But the most consequential question that remains unaddressed is what happens if the outcome of this process is challenged.
If the process of determining a winner confronts obstacles, the other aspect of the Kerry-brokered deal is even more challenging. Already both sides have indicated they have differing interpretations of what a national unity government means. The key question left unanswered is what incentive would the winner have, after one is declared, to share power with his rival?
Confusion over this sent Kerry rushing back to Kabul. But details have still to be fleshed out.
Although it is important to ensure the credibility of the election audit, the uncertainty engendered by the slow and halting process has obvious implications for Afghanistan’s security and political transitions.
The slowness of the process means further delay on key pieces of the envisaged security transition – signing of the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) between Kabul and Washington to provide for a residual US military presence. This could jeopardise the West’s exit strategy.
The political implications of any prolonged delay to determine the election winner also has a significant bearing on prospects for Afghan reconciliation – essential, if not the bedrock for the country’s post-2014 stability. As long as uncertainty lasts the Taleban have little incentive to join the reconciliation process.
The longer it takes to establish a legitimate government and the closer Nato’s withdrawal deadline gets, the less the chance of political accommodation being forged between the government and the armed opposition. Without this the political transition will not succeed.
(Dr Maleeha Lodhi is a former Pakistani ambassador to the US and the UK)
