The question deals less with which candidate wins the presidential race and more with the legitimacy and acceptance of the election results by the multi-ethnic population of Afghanistan. The Afghan election system follows that of the French. There are a total of 11 candidates in the run and it is not possible for any one of these aspirants to get more than 50 per cent of total votes. This will mean the two candidates getting the highest votes will be pitted against each other in the second round. The process of declaring an ultimate winner can take a few months if one takes into consideration the disputes erupting as a result of ballot complaints. The second round of two leading contestants will take minimum six weeks from the date of the first, or even more.
The question that is important here is whether or not the Uzbek, Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Nuristani, Pamiri, Aimak and others will accept the result or will Afghanistan descend into civil war. The latter is most likely. The apparent stronger candidate Abdullah Abdullah, who previously resigned as Karzai's foreign minister, emerged in 2009 as a serious contender to the Afghan President post. He garnered enough votes to make it to the second round. However, he does not command Pashtun support in Afghanistan. Hence, any opposing contender of his, assuming there is a second round will walk away with the Pashtun votes for the simple reason that Abdullah will not be acceptable to them.
The Afghan National Security Forces are not strong enough to counter a full-blown insurgency. Although in most areas, the local forces are responsible for maintaining law and order, the international forces do patrol to support them in certain areas upon request. Let us not forget a doggedly continuing insurgency continues in the eastern and southern part of Afghanistan as I write.
Afghanistan is going to face shortage of investment, security back-up support, collapse on the front of transportation and reconstruction upon the international forces leaving its land. There will be a dire need to focus on long-term sustainable programmes based on strengthening the economy. This can only follow a peaceful transition of power, or at least near peaceful.
Afghanistan will no longer be recipient of heavy international aid to restructure its economy. It needs to develop production sectors, looking for markets to sell their wares inside and outside Afghanistan. But, as Pakistan's example teaches us, economic stability relies on secure environment. Killings, insurgency and related security instability can effectively make the capital take flight outside the borders.
The Afghan ground will be fertile for Taliban with the international forces out of the picture. Russia, Iran and India will support the anti-Taliban forces. India's investment in Afghanistan is a whooping US $2.0 billion in development aid and has a huge stake there. In 2011 both countries signed an agreement to the effect that India will train and equip the Afghan Security Forces. Iran, on the other hand, is using media in Afghanistan with an aim to gain stronger influence. On the Russian front, Karzai offered unequivocal support to Russia in its annexation of Crimea. Russia is viewed as a natural ally of Afghanistan in the changing geopolitical scenario. Russia has not forgotten Pakistan's role in supporting USA vis-à-vis Russia in the 1980s. China has supported Pakistan principally, whereas Russia has done the same for India. A tricky situation by any given standard.
Pakistan is in a noose. On the one hand, it needs to deal with militant outfits on its soil. There are no two ways to go about it. On the other hand, in the evolving situation next door, with a next to impossible border to manage between the two countries, there is a strong chance of the Afghan soil being used to organise attacks within Pakistan by the militants rather than the other way round.
So what does Pakistan do? It has landed itself in a situation where they are damned if they do and damned if they don't do anything. There is no perceived ally with which Pakistan can associate itself or rely upon to counter this situation. The argument between the 'good' and the 'bad' Taliban will not hold. Policy making in Pakistan is divided owing to a mix of extreme right, right, moderate and left legislators.
Author Mike Malloy rightly said, "Afghanistan - where empires go to die."
One sincerely hopes it does not drag down Pakistan with it.
The writer is a lawyer, academic
and political analyst.
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
