Many refer to elections as the ultimate in peaceful dispute resolution.  The international community places great importance on the power of elections to bring change and transition in countries around the world.  However, whether this approach makes sense is debated in the democratization community as many question “sequencing” and whether it is better to first develop rule of law, or democracy, or aid both simultaneously.   Many who recommend that democracy can wait do so out of the concern that electoral politics can fuel violence in nations that are fresh from conflict, or still embroiled in conflict.  Current events in Afghanistan illustrate the reality of that concern. 

Although many refer to Afghanistan as a “post-conflict” state, conflict is still very much a fact of life for the average Afghan citizen.  The elections have helped to highlight this point as the Taliban has used them as another excuse to engage in active intimidation and violence in the country.  The NY Times reported that the Taliban used a variety of intimidation tactics including, “…firing rockets at polling places, kidnapping campaign workers, planting a bomb in the toilet of a mosque that was to be used as a polling place, and threatening to amputate not only fingers with voting ink on them, but noses and ears of those who dared to vote.”  The Taliban also reportedly kidnapped 30 campaign workers, election officials and one candidate for parliament.  In this atmosphere it is not surprising that voter turnout is low in today’s election.

In the midst of this violence it seems that local politicians are resorting to the “Chicago Model” of electoral politics:  buying votes to enable local candidates to “vote early and often.”  The going rate for voter registration cards ranges from $5 to $18.  In Kandahar the price is reportedly as low as $1.  Half of all Afghans live on less than a dollar a day.   Ironically, the vote buying may reflect an election with more competition and one that does not have a foregone conclusion.  In contrast, last year’s election reportedly had less vote buying because the prevailing view was that President Hamid Karzai’s election was assured either due to wholesale fraud or due to the genuine support he enjoyed as an incumbent Pashtun from the largest ethnic group in the country.

The negotiations candidates have with individual voters regarding how much to pay for their voting registration cards seems to revolve around the relative level of poverty, the location, and how easier it is to “transfer” the particular voting card.  The poorer the individual voter, the more likely that they will part with their card for less money reflecting the relative value of the dollar.  The location matters because the more dangerous the location for propective voters, the less likely they will vote, this means that voters cards from less dangerous location are worth more.  And, the most valuable cards, it seems, are those that belong to women.  Women’s cards are more valuable because they do not have photos and because it is common that men would cast votes for their wives, mothers, or sisters, since leaving the house to vote is not an option for some women in Afghanistan.  This means that women’s cards are much easier to “transfer” allowing anyone to use them.

Unfortunately this election, as with previous elections in Afghanistan, does not seem to be a model of peaceful conflict resolution reflecting a steady and smooth transition to a modern democracy.  Instead it clearly reflects the continuing violent conflict and deep divisions within Afghanistan.   For more information see: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/afghanistan/100918/afghanistan-far-perfect-election; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/world/asia/18vote.html?ref=asia; and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/world/asia/18afghan.html?ref=asia;