The Obama administration foresaw two potential outcomes of last month's nullification of a purported election victory for the incumbent President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai. President Obama and top foreign policy brass hoped for a runoff election or some form of power-sharing agreement between Karzai and his opponent, former Afghanistan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah. The United States ultimately wanted an Afghan leadership that was not only popularly elected, but also seen as legitimate in the eyes of the people, as this would best combat the Afghan insurgency. Abdullah and Karzai both agreed to a runoff on Nov. 7 and all seemed well. But the United States never foresaw what lurked behind door number three.
When Abdullah withdrew from the runoff on Sunday, the Obama administration was left speechless as Karzai, declared the de facto winner on Monday, pledged to reduce government corruption and thereby finally assume a critical role in the reconstruction of his country. American skeptics were left shaking their heads. Obama declared the Afghan election situation "messy" and issued his hopeful congratulations to Karzai.
Debate over whether Karzai means business about significantly reducing corruption is irrelevant, as a quick look at history can easily resolve the debate: Karzai will not change, never has changed and never will change. There is zero incentive for him to do so, and corruption is very firmly entrenched. The important element in this electoral disaster is not whether Karzai will clean up his act, but rather the influence and significance Abdullah now has in Afghan politics. Abdullah claims that "a transparent election is not possible" and that any sort of legitimate political process is impossible.
Abdullah knows full well that his fellow countrymen understand the extent of electoral cronyism in Afghanistan, and that it is but a small extension of a very corrupt Karzai administration. Backing out of the runoff affords Abdullah, if not hero status in Afghan politics, then certainly one of a politician engaged in a righteous struggle against a corrupt regime. However, Abdullah's refusal to participate in an electoral cycle that he deems unjust is dubious; certainly the corruption in the system is known, but how does his lack of participation make the system fairer? If he were truly concerned with immediately improving the legitimacy of the Afghan democratic process, wouldn't he risk a second defeat and at least play the game — legitimizing the system and allowing for some stability to come out of electoral chaos?
Abdullah has but one chief concern in mind — acquiring power. In withdrawing from the runoff, totally delegitimizing Karzai's "victory" and exposing the Afghan electoral infrastructure for the dip-your-finger-in-the-ink sham that it is, he has gained his fair share of political exposure and influence. It's an Afghan apophasis. By claiming he does not want to participate in a political process that is hopelessly overrun with corruption, Abdullah is acknowledging just the opposite — that he very much wants power and influence in the Afghan political realm, and furthermore that he deeply understands the situation and how best to not only exploit it for his gain but also to mobilize his fellow Afghans. That combination, paired with a very unpopular and ineffective President Karzai, is a highly combustible and absolute worst-case situation that the Obama administration in no way foresaw some two weeks ago.
Perhaps a Kandahar resident best summed up the current Afghan political situation: "Karzai has not won, and if the international community does not prosecute the thief, what will happen? This fire will spread." Winter is fast approaching in Afghanistan. The last thing the Americans need is for a fire like this to heat up political tensions through the snowy months.
--
Teddy Minch is a senior majoring in political science. He hosts "The Rundown," a news and sports talk show that airs from 3 to 5 p.m. every Friday on WMFO. He can be reached at Theodore.Minch@tufts.edu.
