The provisional results of the Afghan presidential elections, publicized on April 26, imply that there will be a second round as none of the ten candidates garnered 51% of the votes. Front runner Abdullah Abdullah (44. 9 % votes) and the runner up Ashraf Ghani (31.5%) will now compete in the run-off to replace Hamid Karzai who was not eligible since the Afghan constitution forbids a third-term in the presidential office

While the media the world over triumphantly projected a high turn out (60%) on the polling day as a victory for the US-backed ‘democratic’ process and a defeat for the Taliban, post-polling rigging-complaints have largely gone missing outside of Afghanistan. Ironically, both Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani have voiced concern over the transparency of the process. Dozens of videos began to make the rounds in cyberspace soon after the polling, showing stuffing of ballot boxes and other rigging practices. Allegations regarding buying of votes and traditional intimidation marking all Afghan elections held since 9/11, have also surfaced. Consequently, mass hopes invoked by an aggressive electioneering and hyper Afghan media, translating into an impressive turn out despite Taliban threats, have given way to disillusionment. They believe their vote has been stolen. A sense of betrayal has also been strengthened by the fact that Ashraf Ghani, ahead of the elections, was being projected in the Afghan as well as the international media as the most-likely winner.

Prior to the elections, in conversation with my colleagues and taxi drivers or relatives and friends with different ethnic backgrounds and political views, I also gathered the impression that AsharfGhani, a former World Bank employee and a PhD from Columbia University, would win hands down. Many pointed out that he was highly educated, had clean hands in the world’s third most corrupt country, and was a professor among warlords. However, many Ashraf Ghani supporters would began humming when I would point out that his vice-president was a notorious warlord, Abdur Rashid Dostum. While Karzai’s brother withdrew from the presidential race, all the remaining ten candidates were either themselves notorious warlords or had fielded war criminals as their vice presidential candidates. Front runner Abdullah Abdullah not merely is a proxy for the Northern Alliance, his Iran-backed vice presidential candidate, Mohammad Mohaqiq, is a notorious warlord. Because of their ultra-puritan views and violent Jihadist past, the mere mention of Saudi-backed RasulSayyaf and Qutb‐ud‐Din Hilal (son-in-law of most feared warlord GulbadinHikmatyar, once a CIA favourite) sends shivers down an Afghan’s spine.

While the presence of 3 women contesting for the slots of vice presidents and 300 women for provincial councils on April 5^th might be a sign of progress and improvement in one of world’s most dangerous and violent places for women to be, as has been voiced by several Afghan women’s rights activists, one should not forget the fact that women’s rights and issues are used for political agendas including in the April election campaigns.

Also, long queues of Afghans ready to brave Taliban threats to cast a vote bucked the clichéd image of violent Afghan people. By voting on April 5, the majority expressed its distaste for the Taliban and war and reposed its trust in the democratic process despite many reservations about the candidates. However, one needs to see beyond these significant, yet highly questionable, developments. The real problem is not only the domination of Afghan elections by warlords, drug barons or proxies of foreign powers [the USA, Iran, Saudi Arabia] and the rigging allegations breeding mass disillusionment, it is also the political façade built by the US occupation post-9/11. The political structure built by the Occupation paradoxically undermines the strengthening of democracy since the democratic process has been reduced to expensive elections only warlord/drug barons and foreign proxies can contest. The post-Taliban set-up was lent spine by the Northern Alliance, consisting of misogynist Mujahideen whose disastrous rule between 1992-96 drove many people to welcome Taliban as the lesser evil. In this set up, political parties, trade unions, social movements and space for women hardly existed. In other words, vital elements that strengthen and deepen democracy, were excluded. For instance, all elections since 9/11 have been held on a non-party basis. Therefore, pinning hopes in a façade aimed at building a democratic image for the Occupation before the crucial military pull out by the end of 2014, where warlords, drug barons and corrupt leaders are not brought to trial or taken accountable, in my view will hardly serve the Afghan cause in particular that of Afghan women.

---