| October 13, 2002 | Sunday | Sha'aban 6, 1423 |
Demanding democracy, but refusing to vote!
THE country is yet to find itself a proper and formally approved name and appellation. It is being variously designated as the ‘Republic of Afghanistan’, the ‘Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’ and ‘Daulat-i-Intiqali Afghanistan’ translated into English as Afghanistan’s Islamic Transitional Authority (AITA), also referred to as Afghanistan’s Islamic Transitional ‘State’ or ‘government’. Almost all the Afghan passports, I happened to see, carried the stamp of ‘the Republic of Afghanistan’.
Whereas there appears to be nothing wrong with ‘transitional government,’ the description ‘transitional’ used for ‘State’ is hardly appropriate. Much less appropriate would be the word ‘Authority’, (like the Palestinian Authority which is neither a government nor a state in the fullest sense of the term).
As for the actual power and the writ of the Karzai government, it remains confined to Kabul only and that too not very effectively, considering the multi-ethnic character of his cabinet with a preponderance of the Panjshiri non-Pathan elements. As regards Hamid Karzai’s own personality and performance as the head of the state and government and his absolute, unflinching commitment to the preservation of the Afghan millat as one organic whole, there would not be two opinions.
Left alone and secure in his exalted office until the first elections (if and when?) he seems to be adequately equipped with the will, the capability and the necessary political acumen to steer his country through the transitional period. If Afghanistan remains in the dangerously fluid state, it would not, however, be possible to make a fair guess even about the near future.
Considering the number of forces — external and internal — each playing its own game outside a common, nationalist matrix, one seemingly little overstep or transgression could do grave damage to the fragile structure put together under the Bonn Agreement. The Bonn Agreement itself went only as far as the formation of the interim government for six months — Dec 1 to June 2 — until the holding of the Loya Jirga to legitimize it for the period intervening between its formation and the first general election.
Thus the practical utility and relevance of the Bonn Agreement all but ended with the re-validation of the Karzai government after the Loya Jirga. There is already talk of a Bonn-II or Kabul-I. Bonn-II, as a foreign-brokered protocol is, however, ruled out as something basically offensive to the native temperament and tribal autonomy. The so-called Kabul-I would, therefore, appear to be a more practical and acceptable option.
What exactly is Kabul-I remains open to debate? In simple language, it would mean a meeting of the Afghan warlords and other zonal / area influentials to decide about setting a time table for the next elections; re-composition / rationalization of the existing cabinet on the basis of more balanced ethnic lines; role of the foreign forces, of the US-led coalition force, in particular, redefinition of its role and objective and telling it to quit soon after the job is done. Also, to revive the economy and introduce currency reforms to balance the Afghani vis-a-vis foreign currencies.
While the Loya Jirga of June, convened mainly to re-validate and restore the writ of the Karzai government, Kabul-I would set the agenda for the future governance of the country, its relations with its neighbours and the world community, etc. Kabul- I would be a purely internal process without any outside intervention. These are briefly (even roughly) the points emerging from my informal interaction with various interlocutors and lay no claim to absolute authenticity.
Now a closer look at Afghanistan’s present ethnic imbroglio and divide. In the capital itself, Karzai reigns if not exactly rules. He has managed quite creditably to get along with his Panjshir colleagues, not all of whom are known as his friends. He has been trying hard to make the best of what he has, by extending his hand of friendship even to someone as opportunistic and volatile as Gulbadin Hekmatyar.
In a press statement carried by the English section of the multi-lingual (Pushtu / Farsi) Kabul Weekly (dated Sept 26), he invited Hekmatyar to stop opposing the government and to cooperate with it. He went on to say: “The only way to stabilize peace and security is to be united and to work together.”
Regarding the attempt to assassinate him, he said he didn’t want his assailant to be killed and any more Afghans to be killed. He vowed “to continue the war against Al Qaeda and international terrorism” and would never change his mind about the suppression of the gun’s rule in the country.
His invitation to Hekmatyar, a Ghilzai Pakhtoon and absconder, may well turn into a double-edged weapon against him. For one thing, Hekmatyar is about the most distrusted and disliked person in the former Mujahideen ranks; and for the other he is a Wahabi Pathan. Karzai’s move may well be misinterpreted as a ploy to shore up his own position by having a Pathan and his tribe on his side. The move is bound to be misunderstood and resented by the Panjshiris even if did not actually materialize. There is hardly any chance of Hekmatyar’s homecoming without a general, unconditional amnesty being proclaimed.
Outside and away from Kabul the ethnic picture remains even more chaotic and daunting. To the south in Kandahar, Karzai’s own home town, sits Gul Agha Sherzai, apparently no great supporter of Karzai. It was in Kandahar that the assassination attempt on Karzai took place. To the west in Herat sits commander Ismail with his own strong militia. He is well-known for his centrifugal past and commitment to his personal / local authority.
In the east (Gardez) rules Bacha Khan Zadran, braving the main brunt of the US bombings to the admiration of his supporters. Whether or not in touch with Hekmatyar, Sherzai could be said to have been harbouring him, if the reports about Hekmatyar’s reported presence in his area have even an iota of truth.
The north remains under the overarching domination of Gen Abdul Rashid Dostum. However, he is no longer the unchallenged, absolute ruler of the North. There are others like Ustad Mohammad Atta and Mohaqqiq to challenge his authority.
When I had been there last in 1992, Dostum was the absolute, unchallenged ruler of the entire North. Under him the area was a zone of unruffled peace and tranquillity. This unfortunately is no longer the case and there is much fighting going between Dostum’s and Atta’s factions.—The writer is a retired brigadier.
Despite an extensive advertising that the Election Commission did for the general elections on Thursday, there was a dismal turnout of voters in the polls. It is not to suggest that the EC failed to persuade the electorate, it is more an obvious failure of the citizens themselves to have risen to play their roles.
The question that goes abegging is this: why is the Pakistani voters stay away from the general elections despite the fact that each time when there is a military rule, the voters are clamouring and yearning for democracy.
Even women who seek to play larger roles in society, or the vocal youth (now 18 and above) who want to have a say in the running of government and society, failed to make their presence felt this time, in particular.
One has been talking to people in town on the indifference and apathy of the local voter (cynical, angry, frustrated, weary and so on) and at least any of them seems to make an interesting profile.
But you have always voted in the past and you stayed away this time? I asked him; and without a semblance of any regret, he said he had had enough of this exercise in democracy. He was tired. He did not say that he did not believe in democracy, but he said he was not sure whether he would really matter in his constituency.
He had voted in the 1970 general elections, he recalled. That was the first general elections in his life, soon after finishing with university. He thought that things would change enormously; he recalled that there was a civil war in former East Pakistan and then came the Fall of Dhaka. That happened.
He again voted in the general elections in March 1977, even though he was somewhat unhappy with the way democracy was going. That electoral experience brought in another Martial Law. But that does not mean you stop voting, which is a responsibility, I said. He rejected the argument promptly.
Then came the experience of the 1985 polls, and the different general elections that were held in the 90s, and this to him meant a long-lasting disillusionment with the bureaucrats, politicians and with democracy. He did go to vote each time, went through the hassle of trying to find his name in the city’s voters lists, and stand in queues and suffer the mismanagement of the electoral staff.
On that election day, he would feel good, and upright. Even strong, as he had voted. Sometimes his candidates would win, and sometimes they would lose. But that did not matter to him, and to his friends. But the awful way an elected government would function, or be thrown out, kept on eroding his faith in the very act and process of voting. And yet, the contradiction within him was that he continued to believe in democracy.
Some of his friends began saying openly that they did not believe in democracy for this country, but this weary man stood by his democratic vision, and his faith in the people.
On Thursday, he was somewhat sheepish and guilty at the end of the day — that he had not voted. He had not just failed his society, but he had failed himself. He had not even bothered to find out whether his name was in the voters list, and when a particular family in his neighbourhood said that his name was missing from the list for the first time, he felt reassured. At least he did not have to suffer the heat of that October sun.
According to some media reports, a reason why the turnout was low this time was the weather. The warm treacherous weather. But that is not good enough reason not to vote. In fact, there are no reasons why a person should not cast his vote. Reports say that daily wage earners did not vote, for they wanted to give the highest priority even on that day to the financial aspect of their lives.
In a report, one of the daily wage earner said that “I hate them (politicians) because when they come to power, they would not allow you even to wait outside their office gates”. Then he spoke of the role of politicians in the country.
Even if one was to appreciate the poor man’s nonchalant attitude to going out to vote, how does one explain the attitude of the affluent, educated people in this city. They are the people who are forever complaining of either the absence of democracy or rampant corruption, or of the absence of good governance, or inefficient bureaucrats, or a long list of ills of Pakistani society. Yet when it comes to going at least a step forward in making their small significant contribution to society, they fall short. They stay away from the polls.
There are now varying depressing estimates of the turnout for the polls on Thursday, and it only makes you wonder whether, and to what extent, would the results have been different had a larger number come out to vote. Would it have had a real bearing on the outcome?
It is argued that there is a worldwide trend, even in western democracies, that the voter turnout has declined. That is not good enough reason for our own low turnout. Keep in mind that each general election has brought the graph of voter turnout lower, and that in a context where Pakistani society has a growing number of problems which are crying out for solutions; solutions that will warrant an informed public opinion, a conscientious citizenry.
What is baffling is that this time, for the first time not only was the voting age brought down to 18 but there were also a welcome addition to television channels (besides the Pakistan TV whose general stance towards the election results coverage was rather flippant it seemed); and these overseas TV channels focusing on Pakistan should have acted as a motivation to make the citizen cast his vote.
The point to conclude with is this: will this disappointing trend of staying away from the polling station by the voter stay for good?
PS: Let me confess here that I did not vote this time and did not feel good about it, to say the least.