Afghans heaved a sigh of relief as news of the agreement between the two presidential candidates brokered by US Secretary of State John F. Kerry broke. But a closer reading of the fine print reveals a far more complicated deal.
Afghans heaved a sigh of relief as news of the agreement between the two presidential candidates brokered by US Secretary of State John F. Kerry broke. But a closer reading of the fine print reveals a far more complicated deal.Under the agreement every vote cast in the runoff election on June 16 will be audited. The winner will lead a “government of national unity” that will include supporters of his rival. This notwithstanding the fact that weeks earlier both candidates had rejected the idea of a coalition government as a solution to the crisis.
Khan Mohammad, the first deputy of Dr Abdullah Abdullah who levelled the charges of rigging in the election, said the post of chief executive would go to the losing candidate. A loya jirga would be summoned to change Afghanistan’s presidential system of government, and the losing candidate would get a post equivalent to the prime minister.
Mohammad Mohaqeq, the second deputy of Abdullah, made similar comments in an interview to the BBC.
Meanwhile, the team around Ashraf Ghani who was declared the winner in the preliminary results, said the proposed change in the system of government was not in conformity with the Constitution, but only the result of an agreement between the two candidates.
Sarwar Danesh, the second deputy of Ashraf, said a decision to change the system of government has to be taken by the loya jirga which is called under very “special circumstances”. “This has not been agreed as a part of the process of the formation of a government of national unity,” he observed.
Until last week the Ashraf Ghani team had maintained the post of chief executive was kept for Ahmad Zia Masood. According to the team’s Azita Refaat, the formation of a national government with members drawn from rival sides would be purely on merit.
However, civil society is of the view it will be nothing more than a coalition government, and the suffix of national unity is just a justification.
Activist Zinab Atayee said, “The formation of a national unity government would depend crucially on agreement between the two sides (Abdullah and Ghani). Or there are bound to be differences that would affect the efficiency of such a government and create tensions.”
To political analyst Haroon Mir the discussion is pure semantics. “National unity government means formation of a coalition government,” he says. He adds that both candidates are bound by the agreement brokered by the US and signed in the presence of the UN special envoy to Afghanistan Jan Kubis.
Not Iraq
Ashraf Ghani, in an interview to Associated Press, reiterated his commitment to the process. “We both are committed to lead our war-stricken country in a comprehensive manner through the help of our international partners…,” he said.
He rued the colossal losses to Afghanistan by war, which is equal to 240 billion dollars. He asked the country be left alone in “peace and calmness” to rebuild a system destroyed by the failure of political leaders in leading our country”.
He dismissed comparisons between Afghanistan and Iraq. “I am not al-Maliki (Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki) and Afghanistan is not Iraq,” he said.
Politics of expediency
Jandad Spinghar, head of the Free and Fair Elections Foundation (FEFA), has welcomed the agreement for a fresh audit of each vote. “The votes of people are once again valued through agreement between the two candidates,” he said, adding the agreement was a positive development. In his opinion national unity was essential as a future course.
Not all agree that the politics of coalitions can provide for good governance since portfolios are going to be divided in political, tribal and partisan deals.
Asghar Esraq, a political analyst and chief editor of Rah-e-Madaniat (the way of civilisation) believes, “The formation of a national unity government is a solution but it is not beneficial to the new democracy in Afghanistan because cabinet portfolios would be distributed among powerful tribal leaders, and not individuals best suited to the job.”
In his opinion there would be no place for “good people” in a national unity government “because power would be divided between those fighting each other”.
On the other hand, there is fear that the politics of expediency would be at the cost of a strong opposition, and detrimental to the interests of reform-seeking civil society. The government may veer towards autocracy.
Activist Mohammad Mehrjo of the Afghanistan Civil Society believes a strong civil society and opposition are the two pillars of democracy.
Hasibullah Asim, the writer, analyst and civil society activist, wishes the presidential candidates would respect the Constitution and election verdict. “It would be proper that the candidates and their teams respect the Constitution and accept the will of the people, and the process of elections ends in the framework of law.”
