Good grief! Afghanistan’s Charlie Brown elections

Editor's note: As the Kandahar campaign rolls on and results come in from the Sept. 18 parliamentary elections, GlobalPost's Kabul correspondent will chat live with members. Here's your chance to get the unfiltered, unvarnished view of how America's long war looks from the ground.

Join us on Sept. 22 at 12 p.m. Eastern Standard Time for a live web chat with Jean MacKenzie in Kabul. This web chat is available to members only. To learn more about becoming a GlobalPost member, please click here.

KABUL, Afghanistan — Were Afghanistan’s Parliamentary elections a success?

I covered the event itself, I’ve spent several days talking to experts, many hours with campaign workers and what seems like a lifetime poring over reports by media, electoral bodies and government entities.

I’m more in the dark than ever.

Depending on whom you talk to, the signs are hopeful. Neither the Taliban nor the warlords managed to derail the elections completely, despite more than 400 separate security incidents, at least 18 people dead and dozens injured.

“There was definitely an electoral event in Afghanistan,” said Glenn Cowan, head of the Democracy International observer group.

But there is a long way to go to turn an “electoral event” into an election.

Some voters, perhaps as many as one-third of the electorate, actually went to the polls, leading to gushing encomiums on the courage and determination of the Afghan people. Of course it will be weeks, if ever, before we know how many actual people filled out ballots; hundreds, maybe thousands, of Afghans have multiple voter cards.

“I know at least one guy who voted 13 times for my candidate,” said one campaign manager, with a certain degree of pride.

The Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan, or FEFA, recorded numerous instances of ballot box stuffing and proxy voting — where one family member shows up and casts votes for his entire family, some of whom may not actually exist. So there is absolutely no guarantee that 4 million votes represent 4 million voters.

I do not wish to take away from the heroism of those who did brave rockets, suicide bombers, twitchy foreign troops and irate candidates to cast their vote for democracy.

As FEFA head Nader Nadery put it: “We do not want the international community or others to use the irregularities in this election as an excuse to say that Afghans are not ready for democracy. Those voters said loud and clear that Afghans do want a democratic process.”

They may want it, but did they get it?

“Yes and no,” smiled Nadery. “It’s a mixed feeling.”

Those Afghans who did risk their lives to vote, who expressed a firm and touching confidence that their voice would be heard, somewhat sadly reminds me of the hopelessly optimistic Charlie Brown, lining up to kick that football once again, in the face of all past experience that tells him he is going to be disappointed.

I just wish I could figure out whom to cast in the role of Lucy — is it the unrepentantly corrupt Afghan government, or the shamelessly self-serving foreign community? Or even, perhaps, the intermittently complicit media, of which, I confess, I am a representative?

Over the past four elections we have seen a steadily declining turnout, a rising disaffection among the population, and, although we do not yet know the final results in this instance, greater and greater attempts to tamper with the vote.

But for weeks we have been told that everything is under control; U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry told the BBC that the Afghan security forces had made “a quantum leap” in their capacity to protect the population since the last elections.

Did this include Kandahar, where rockets were falling every 30 minutes or so throughout the polling period? Or Helmand, where fighting in Marjah kept almost everyone home?

According to FEFA, “enemies” — shorthand for the Taliban and other insurgent groups — accounted for 276 serious incidents. That left 157 acts of violence and intimidation by those who are, presumably, on the government side. Warlords and powerbrokers do not like to take “no” for an answer.

“This is evidence that the (disarmament) process over the past nine years has not gone all that well,” said Nadery, adding with a bit of understatement, “the (candidate) vetting process does not seem to have been that successful, either.”

The Independent Election Commission (IEC) assured us that all possible measures had been put into place to control fraud. Observers have been making chirpy comments about the progress made over last year’s disastrous presidential poll, when close to 25 percent of the ballots had to be invalidated.

But there were reports from hundreds of polling stations that the indelible ink designed to prevent multiple voting washed off easily with water. We had the same reports last year, and in 2005, and in 2004.

“Isolated incidents,” insisted IEC chief Fazel Ahmad Manawi.

“Almost all the ink washed off,” whispered a FEFA consultant.

The elections were never going to be perfect — the international community made quite sure we were well aware of that. Dignitaries of all stripes set out to depress expectations, setting the bar so low that in some places you needed a metal detector to find it.

Everyone from Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, to the U.N.’s Special Representative Staffan de Mistura have thought it necessary to remind us incessantly that “we are not in Switzerland.”

Who ever said we were?

After six years of Kabul’s dusty streets, spotty electricity and erratic services, I am under absolutely no illusions that I am living in Zurich.

At least Defense Secretary Robert Gates took an original approach, warning us not to expect to transform Afghanistan into “a Central Asian Valhalla.” Why not? It’s a better fit that Switzerland — lots of dead warriors, and no pretense of having great chocolate.

We are now facing the most delicate period. Complaints are already flooding in — hardly surprising, given the mathematics of the election. More than 2,500 candidates are campaigning for 249 seats. The losers (and even some of the winners) are likely to be quite active in trying to manipulate the count, since the margins are so slim. A difference of a few dozen votes can mean the difference between defeat and victory.

The Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) is in charge of fielding the grievances. But it has been politically neutered by the president, and is already under tremendous pressure to wrap things up as quickly as possible. No one wants a protracted wrangle on the order of last year’s presidential poll.

The results are not expected to be finalized until the end of October. It is much too soon to tell how close the relationship will be between the list of winners and the will of those heroic and determined voters.

Even less can we predict how this election will play in the public consciousness. Will Afghans feel that this was a credible, successful election? Or will they once again be disappointed in how the democratic process has been played out in their country?

Most importantly, the next time elections are called, will they line up to kick that football?