Afghanistan after the Elections: Mohammad Arif Rahmani Explains
Mohammad Arif Rahmani, a leading Afghan politician, is a senior advisor to the Afghan government and an expert on Islamic jurisprudence and Afghan political parties. He has a master’s degree in law and is the author of several articles and books Secularism, Religion and Governance, to be published in the future. He was interviewed at his home in western Kabul, August 22, 2009, 2 days after the presidential election.
Kabul Direct: How will the elections that just occurred affect the future of Afghanistan?
Mohammad Arif Rahmani: Since the results of the election are not yet clear, we can only speculate about the possible outcomes.
If there was indeed the widespread fraud that some of the candidates have alleged, then, obviously, the results will be challenged. A fraudulent election will be held against the new government and undermine its ability to govern. Whoever wins under such circumstances will never be seen as the legitimate elected representative of the Afghan people.
If fraud has been committed, no leader, regardless of whether he is the choice of the international community or not, will be able to succeed in the difficult task of governing Afghanistan.Only the Afghan people can bless the results of this election. Afghans have to believe that the elected president won his office fairly. Thus, if the allegations of fraud are not dealt with in a way that gives the people confidence that this is the man that they in fact elected, the future in my mind becomes very uncertain, dark even.
The second presidential elections were supposed to get us to the next level of democracy. They were supposed to advance the process of changing our institutions, culture, and way of life in a way that all Afghans would feel more and more a part of the political system. This election was not the election of a truly democratic nation.
The way the elections happened shows that democracy is something Afghans have yet to achieve. I fear that if we misuse our chance at democracy, the new system will go the way every other form of governance in Afghanistan has gone. We will be subject to a totalitarian government and should not count on having a better future for at least another next five years.
Kabul Direct: When you said the future is now uncertain, what did you mean by that? And what made you conclude that the elections had gone so badly that you could no longer be hopeful about the near-term prospects of Afghanistan?
Rahmani: The new government needs to address all of the challenges that plagued the old government. The new government has to root out the widespread poverty. It has to create opportunities for the Afghan people the choice is not between a life of subsistence and a life of crime, as is the case for far too many Afghans, especially in the south and outside of the big cities.
The uncertainty that hangs over Afghanistan is that so far into this process, Afghans might lose confidence in the ability of a democratic system to address their many problems. Too many Afghans still live below the international poverty line. We have gotten aid from the international community in the past eight years but much of it has been squandered. President Karzai points to the country’s GDP growth but the average Afghan does not feel any sense of improvement in his basic living conditions or economic opportunities. In many parts of the country, the security situation is such that many Afghans still live in perpetual fear for their lives.
Kabul Direct: If the new government fails to address the fraud claims and assumes power anyway, how will those who feel that they were cheated by the fraudulent election react?
Rahmani: All of President’s Karzai’s leading contenders have already announced their position and their reaction to the election. They have all stated that they will not take their protest to the streets but will pursue their claims in the legal system.
For example, at their press conferences, Dr. Abdullah, AshrafGhani, and Ramazan Bashardoost all indicated that they would not accept the results of the election without investigating the widespread fraud charges. They indicated that they would like to see the suspect ballot boxes quarantined and then examined to determine if the ballots they contain are in fact genuine. They have at the same time, given repeated assurances that they will not encourage their supporters to protest in the streets.
According to my sources, the EU and UN are proceeding under the assumption that the elections were free and fair at this point and are in the process of trying to encourage the opposition to join the new government. I am doubtful, however, that the leading contenders will agree as this would make them, in their minds, a party to another five years of corruption, instability, insecurity and lawlessness.
Kabul Direct: Do you think fraudulent elections will cause the Afghan people to take to the streets like the Iranians just did?
Rahmani: First, we must consider why so many Afghans believe that it was President Karzai who rigged the elections. Most of the ballot fraud is believed to have taken place in the south. People believe that it is only the people of the south who want to see President Karzai in office as opposed to any of the other leading contenders.
Now both Dr. Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani have already stated that they will not encourage their supporters to protest the elections. This is because none of these candidates, no matter how much they might want to win, want to see the nation erupt into violence.
But things happen in Afghanistan. So I could imagine a scenario where the supporters of one candidate might take to the streets entirely on their own, without having to have any encouragement or permission from the candidate. In Afghanistan, politics do not conform international standards or
expectations.
Kabul Direct: So in what way can we resolve this situation?
Rahmani: This depends on how widespread the fraud was. If it turns out that there was so much fraud that it is impossible to ascertain who really won, then obviously, we will have to have some kind of national dialogue about how to proceed.
If it comes to this, President Karzai and his team should meet with the leading candidates and their teams and they should all gree on how to go forward. Of course, it would help to have members of the international community also present, to act as observers and referees. They should not play a role in the discussion. They should only lend support to the process, and intervene only when the disputants cannot agree on a way forward themselves.
At the end of this process we should be able to come up national coalition or arrangement whereby the leading candidates share power on some level, or act as a kind of shadow government in order to distribute power. In the end, the Afghan people may even get the better government. We might emerge from this mess with a government that is more accountable to the Afghan people – that is, to all the Afghan people.
Kabul Direct: Regarding a national dialogue, could you elaborate on this idea. And do you really think that the leading contenders would ever agree to share or join President Karzai’s government?
Rahmani: Obviously a government that comes to power by rigging elections is not a government that accepts the idea of legitimate contenders. So one does have to worry about a leader who would resort to fraud in order to gain office. It is not much of a stretch to imagine them resorting to, say, violence either to obtain their political objectives.
Unless President Karzai is prepared to bring in the military to prop up his government, he should accept that a national dialogue must take place. Any leader who cannot agree to participate in such a reconciliation process would obviously not have the national interests of Afghanistan ashis first priority. And conversely, those who would agree would by their very willingness to be part of a national reconciliation, demonstrate that they did have the security and well-being of the Afghan people at the top of their personal agenda.
Kabul Direct: Let’s talk about what you think will happen after the new government forms.What will the new government’s agenda look like? Will these next five years make or break the democratic process? And what can the new government do to end the insurgency and pacify the country? Does the new government just carry on the old government’s policies or is there a need for change?
Rahmani: Clearly, the international community will not stay here forever. Only recently the German foreign minister announced that if he is elected prime minister in Germany’s next election, he wants to have an exit strategy from Afghanistan. The other members of the international community are also trying to leave. Thus it is extremely critical to get all the help we can from the international community while they are still here.
We need to use this opportunity to get their help in stabilizing Afghanistan, in easing the tensions, and in combating the insurgency as well as terrorism. And so we have to get our own security forces ready to take over when the international community pulls out. We have to make sure that the Afghan security forces are capable of taking over the counterinsurgency operations.
This is why it was recently announced that the Afghan forces should be increased to 500,000. The current force of 70,000 is simply insufficient to restore and maintain security. Even 500,000 forces might not be enough. After all, New York City alone has 40,000 police officers.
We also need to increase the military pressure on the insurgents. We have been far too reactive, even passive, allowing the insurgents, to date, to call the shots. It is time we made the Taliban understand what the stakes are. We cannot continue to beg them to come to the negotiating table. We have to show them the consequences of not choosing peace.
Kabul Direct: So do you agree with the Obama administration’s strategy to continue to mount military pressure on the Taliban?
Rahmani: For sure. The insurgents should realize that they have two choices. They can come to the negotiations table or they will be eliminated. If you make sure this choice is clear in their minds, they will come to the table. Otherwise, they will not – as they have not.
Kabul Direct: What do you think the new government’s foreign policy will look like? example, will it deal with Pakistan?
Rahmani: For the past seven years, Pakistan has clearly demonstrated by its actions that Islamabad still sees Afghanistan as part of Pakistan’s strategic depth. That is, Pakistan still apparently regards Afghanistan as one of its lost provinces. Thus Pakistan wants to ensure that a puppet government remains in Afghanistan.
Pakistan also continues to reap financial benefits from instability in Afghanistan. Naturally, their foreign policy reflects this. The ISI and Pakistani military make sure, in fact, that the instability continues in Afghanistan by supporting the various insurgents – most notably, the Taliban.
So I believe that the next government has to work with the international community to come up with a plan to pressure Pakistan into becoming a good
neighbor as opposed to a fomenter of Afghanistan’s insurgency. Pakistan must be convinced that it must become a brotherly nation versus an enemy nation.
Pakistan has to stop its religious seminaries from radicalizing students and sending them to fight jihad in Afghanistan. They have to stop the ISI from training these radicals how to launch suicide operations and make explosives. They have to stop training people to innocent Afghans. And until they do this, we should stop the charade of pretending that they are a respected and brotherly nation as they are not.
The international community also needs to be clear about this. They need to recognize that Pakistan, at the moment, is an enemy nation. And the international community needs to help us get rid of this enemy. And the first thing we need to ask them to do is to stop sending our enemy billions of dollars as this is the money that Pakistan is using against us, using to kill innocent Afghans.
I read a recent report in which it was stated that the US sent some $12 billion to Pakistan in the past seven years to help them fight the war on terror. And much of this money was sent even after President Bush was informed that Pakistan was not being helpful to Afghanistan, but was in fact contributing to the insurgency. This aid must be stopped. Because if Pakistan is not turned around, NATO, in its first mission of outside of Europe, will surely fail and the democratic project in Afghanistan will fail right along with it. We understand that the US needs to manage the situation in Pakistan as Pakistan has nuclear weapons. But the nuclear program is also the key to open Pakistan’s army and ISI as well. Pakistan is desperate to have these weapons to deter India, Iran and other countries in the region. So just as this is Pakistan’s leverage, it is also the international community’s leverage over Pakistan. But at the moment, Pakistan must be recognized as an enemy state and it must be dealt with accordingly.
Kabul Direct: What do you think about Iran? Has Iran been helpful or hurtful in Afghanistan?
Rahmani: If president Karzai is the new president, then I doubt we will see any change in the status quo with respect to Iran. Over the past seven years, Karzai was resistant to making claims that Iran was somehow interfering in Afghanistan’s affairs or lending its support to the insurgency.
Ahmadinejad and Karzai were, for all practical purposes, mutually supportive. The reason for this was twofold. First, Iran provides Afghanistan with many cultural and educational services. Second, Iran has been helpful in building infrastructure in Afghanistan, particularly in the west, where the Afghan-Iranian border areas are.
Kabul Direct: What about India? Whenever Pakistan is mentioned, India’s role is also part of the discussion. Do you think India has been as destructive in Afghanistan as Pakistan over the past eight years?
Rahmani: I don’t think India plays a negative role at all. In the past seven to ten years, it was Pakistan who was responsible for the Talibanization of Afghanistan. And Pakistan’s negative interference in Afghanistan didn’t begin with the Taliban.
Beginning with the Post-Soviet era, Pakistan has been in Afghanistan, trying to conform Afghanistan according to its own designs. After 2001, when the Taliban were routed, it was Pakistan who was instrumental in bringing them back.
By contrast, India has been a good neighbor. First, there is no sign India has ever tried to play a destructive role. Instead, India has chosen the path of reconstruction and development as the way into Afghanistan. This is why they are increasingly respected both in the region and in the world. And Pakistan is increasingly despised, I might add.
India has spent some $2 billion in Afghanistan – in Farah Province in the west to Faryab and other provinces in the north. And I have not seen any evidence of any kind of military or intelligence activities that India has conducted in Afghanistan.
Pakistan is so deep into its cold war with India that all it can see is India is in Pakistan and therefore it has to destroy Afghanistan. India, as I said, is emerging as the better power because it has determined that service and support is the way forward.
Kabul Direct: Since India is playing such a positive role in Afghanistan, should Afghanistan try to improve its bilateral relations with India?
Rahmani: In today’s world, nobody should dismiss India as a power not to be reckoned with. Every forecast around the world acknowledges India as an emerging power. So everyone should build a strategic relationship with India.
As far as Afghanistan in particular is concerned, I do think the current relationship between the two countries can become a gateway for an expanded relationship. We should indeed try to layout a roadmap of what this relationship should look like.
Kabul Direct: Can you give us your final word on what will happen now that the first round at least of the presidential elections is now over?
Rahmani: Whichever new government assumes power, these next five years are going to be critical. If we don’t seize the opportunity before us, then we shall witness the defeat of democracy in Afghanistan, and the defeat of NATO in its first and what could then turn out to be its final mission outside of Europe and maybe even the end of NATO itself. The terrorism and insurgency we see in Afghanistan today will likely spread throughout the region and possibly throughout the world. And if democracy fails here, I don’t think the result will be a more beautiful and lovely region, or a more beautiful and lovely Middle East. The future will look dark for all of us, I’m afraid, not just as Afghans.
No Comments