Afghan election unlikely to be decisive in first round

Amidst the biggest security operation in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban, the country held a landmark presidential election on Saturday. There was high overall turnout of an estimated 7 of 12 million eligible voters, a third of them women, well in excess of the approximately 4.5 million people who cast a ballot in 2009.

The vote is historic as it will ultimately lead to the first democratic transfer of power in Afghanistan’s history from President Hamid Karzai. However, in the absence of massive electoral fraud, the election will probably not prove decisive inasmuch as none of the eight candidates are likely to secure the necessary 50 percent to win outright in the first round.

The scope for fraud is indicated by the fact that a reported 18 million voting cards had been in circulation, despite the pool of 12 million eligible voters. In 2009, more than 1 million ballots were set aside as fraudulent.

A second run-off election on May 28 is therefore probable between the two candidates with the highest share of Saturday’s vote. It is likely, but by no means certain, that this will feature two of the following three candidates: Ashraf Ghani ― an economist and former World Bank executive; and/or Abdullah Abdullah ― a former foreign minister and trained medical doctor who finished second in the 2009 presidential election; and/or Zalmai Rassoul ― also a former foreign minister and medical doctor.

Saturday’s high overall turnout (voting was extended by an hour, and there are reports of polling stations running out of ballot papers), plus the absence of catastrophic Taliban violence (20 people lost their lives, and 43 were injured on Saturday according to the Interior Ministry), has fuelled optimism that this could prove a pivot-point in the country’s troubled history.

While this is possible, there are nonetheless massive political, economic and security risks on the horizon. The success of the election winner in tackling these will do much to determine the stability of the new government, and future direction of the country.

The number one item for the new president will be bolstering domestic security. Unlike Karzai, Ghani, Abdullah, and Rassoul have all endorsed the need for a long-term deal with U.S. and NATO forces.

However, in order to create the “political space’’ for what would be a controversial agreement with some of the populace, the new president will need to secure concessions from Washington. This could mean protracted negotiations which will frustrate the Obama administration.

While it is likely that a deal will ultimately be reached, there is a growing possibility that U.S. and NATO forces may pull out completely in 2014. This could prove catastrophic for the new government.

This is widely recognized internationally, but the financial and human cost of the Afghan military presence is unpopular in many Western countries. Moreover, delays in signing a deal (Washington hoped to reach agreement last year with Karzai) means logistical and personnel complications of extending the troop presence are growing.

Major issues that will need to be resolved include: the fate of Taliban prisoners; extending immunity for U.S. military personnel in the country; and any continuing U.S. mandate to perform counter-terrorism mission in Afghanistan. These are points where the new government will walk a tightrope between keeping Washington on side, whilst not torpedoing the peace dialogue with the Taliban.

Should a security deal be secured, a residual force (U.S. and NATO combined) of around 8,000-12,000 troops is most likely. Importantly, this would also help ensure continued extensive funding and training for the approximately 350,000-strong Afghan police and military forces which may otherwise disintegrate.

While a continuing international force would provide a stabilizing presence, Afghanistan nonetheless faces the possibility of much greater instability from a renewed Taliban counter-offensive. Hence, the reason why another key priority for the new president will be advancing reconciliation with the Taliban.

Pakistan’s influence could be key in facilitating any eventual peace deal. While doubts remain about that country’s ability and willingness to facilitate such an agreement, a potentially significant move was made last month when Pakistani government representatives entered into formal peace talks with the Taliban in North Waziristan.

Turning to the economic front, the new president will come into office at a very difficult moment. Since 2001, the fast-growing economy has become steadily more dependent on foreign aid.

Economic risks would be particularly intense if international troops are fully withdrawn. This could see foreign aid cut back markedly.

Another key problem is that there has been only very limited success in economic diversification since 2001. The danger is that, as aid is reduced, the economy becomes increasingly dependent upon drug exports such as opium and heroin.

Taken overall, Afghanistan is thus at a crossroads. There remains a significant prospect of much greater economic, political and security instability. This is especially probable if international forces are completely withdrawn in 2014 which could pave the way for the government’s collapse.

However, a different pathway is possible through a successful, speedy transfer of democratic power combined with an eventual reconciliation deal with the Taliban. This would consolidate the power and legitimacy of the new president and government, and help preserve some of the fragile gains in Afghanistan since 2001.

Andrew Hammond is a former U.K. government special adviser in the government of Tony Blair, and an associate at LSE IDEAS. By Andrew Hammond, The Korea Times