Despite problems with past elections, upcoming elections in Afghanistan can facilitate its political transition, conclude the authors of a new study of Afghan public opinion. But to be helpful, the 2014 elections must include participation of as many key leaders and groups as possible, be tied to broader processes of political change, and symbolize a break with the pre-2001 past.

Summary

  • Afghan voters spoke of earlier rounds of voting in 2004, 2005, 2009, and 2010 as having had a cumulatively negative effect in terms of encouraging officials to be more corrupt, destabilizing local political balances, and resulting in less equitable access to power and resources.
  • Despite these developments, many respondents also described the ideals associated with elections in a positive way and felt that they were a potentially useful means through which to transfer power but had failed to live up to this potential due to manipulation by Afghan leaders and a lack of coherent support by international donors.
  • The understanding of many respondents of what constitutes a “free and fair” election, however, differed in several ways from what might be considered a Western approach to elections.
  • While people did express concern about whether elections were likely to be free and fair and often detailed how elections had not been transparent in the past, most were much more concerned with the uncertainty of the upcoming political transition than they were with the process of the elections themselves. Elections were part of a much broader debate on relations with the Taliban, the drawdown of foreign forces, the breakdown of the tenuous connections between ethnic leaders built by Karzai, and the political and economic effects of the decrease in international aid.
  • Related to this, respondents were generally more anxious about the outcomes of the elections than about the specificities of electoral processes, such as whether the elections would be held according to strict procedural standards.
  • A prevailing concern was that as elections approached, there would be less incentive for national and regional level powerholders to remain allied with the government and stay within the current system. Elections were considered likely to promote political chaos and, potentially, civil war as international troops leave and current coalitions break apart.
  • Respondents implied that the Karzai administration represents both the best and worst aspects of a presidential system—maintaining the ability (albeit personalized) to hold loose coalitions of ethnic and other leaders together but, at the same time, exerting overbearing control with little oversight.
  • Fundamentally, most respondents saw elections as a hazardous hurdle that could encourage renewed competition between groups.
  • These findings suggest that if elections are going to facilitate as opposed to hinder transition, the Afghan government and international community must work to ensure that they are inclusive, symbolic of change from the past, and integral to negotiation processes.
  • Elections will only be perceived as free and fair if there is a significant incentive for a wide range of political actors to continue participating in the political process. There is a need for both Afghan leaders and international diplomats to work to ensure the participation of as many groups and political leaders as possible.
  • The extent to which the election is perceived as a fair competition between political rivals does not contribute to the legitimacy of the government established as much as it represents a symbol of a political order that contrasts with both the tyranny of the Taliban period and the chaos of the 1990s civil war. Despite other concerns about elections, they are still a symbol considered important to many Afghans.
  • Technical reforms will do less to convince individuals that the elections will be free and fair than will continued negotiations between the Karzai government, moderate members of the Taliban, various allies of the current government, and the international community. Elections must form part of these negotiations by providing a means for different groups to express their collective interests. Long-term reforms to the system are needed, but these should be a part of an international assistance program that reaches well beyond the drawdown of troops.

About the Authors

Noah Coburn is a political anthropologist at Bennington College. Anna Larson is a PhD candidate in postwar recovery at the University of York. They have been conducting research on politics, democratization, violence, and elections in Afghanistan since 2005. Their book Derailing Democracy: Elections and the Reshaping of the Afghan Political Landscape is forthcoming from Columbia University Press.

Related Publications

Even After Withdrawal, U.S. Retains Leverage Over Taliban

Even After Withdrawal, U.S. Retains Leverage Over Taliban

Thursday, April 29, 2021

By: Karen Decker

President Biden’s announcement that U.S. troops would withdraw by September 11 has many Afghans and observers warning of a quick collapse of the Afghan state and a new phase in the country’s civil war. Without minimizing the challenges ahead, the United States should avoid any self-fulfilling prophecy of imminent collapse by insisting that the only future for Afghanistan is one that advances the gains of the past 20 years. As troops begin to depart, it is an opportune time to examine three forms of leverage the United States has to promote a political settlement.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

Democracy Is the Afghan Government’s Best Defense Against the Taliban

Democracy Is the Afghan Government’s Best Defense Against the Taliban

Thursday, April 22, 2021

By: Scott Worden; Belquis Ahmadi

The Biden administration’s announcement last week that U.S. troops would be out of Afghanistan by September 11 came as a blow to the current peace talks and many Afghan citizens who appreciate the rights and freedoms that international forces have helped to defend against the Taliban. Still, President Biden made clear that the United States continues to support the Afghan government and democratic system, and, to that end, the administration has indicated it would request $300 million from Congress in additional civilian aid. But Biden explicitly de-linked U.S. troops from that equation — stating that they would not be “a bargaining chip between warring parties.”

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes; Gender; Democracy & Governance

U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan: End to an Endless War?

U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan: End to an Endless War?

Thursday, April 15, 2021

By: Scott Worden; Johnny Walsh; Belquis Ahmadi; Ambassador Richard Olson

President Joe Biden formally announced on Wednesday that the United States will withdraw troops from Afghanistan by September 11 of this year, the 20th anniversary of the al-Qaida attacks that led to the U.S. overthrow of the Taliban. The decision comes a month after U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken looked to jump-start the moribund intra-Afghan peace talks in Doha, Qatar with a sweeping set of proposals. Although the withdrawal would mean an end to America’s longest war, the implications for Afghanistan’s hard-won progress are immense and many fear the possibility of a rejuvenated civil war after U.S. troops leave.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

The Current Situation in Afghanistan

The Current Situation in Afghanistan

Thursday, March 25, 2021

In February 2020 the U.S. and the Taliban signed an agreement that paved the way for the first direct talks between the Taliban and representatives of the Afghan republic since 2001. This nascent peace process has sparked hope for a political settlement to the four-decade-long conflict, although slow progress and increasing levels of violence threaten to derail the process before it gains momentum.

Type: Fact Sheet

View All Publications