Only if the proposed national unity government is committed to the service of people, and not to privileges for itself, can Afghanistan hope to emerge stronger from the current crisis.
On August 8, the presidential rivals renewed pledges to set aside political differences and jointly serve the country – an agreement announced in the presence of US Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who flew into Kabul to salvage an understanding he brokered only four weeks earlier.
Abdul Ghafoor Lewal, head of the Regional Studies Centre, observes: “A national unity government has been proposed as an impartial government to solve the crisis, but considering the current situation in Afghanistan the definition is different.”
According to political analysts, the basis of the crisis between the two presidential candidates, doctors Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah, is the inherent differences in their political and tribal affiliations. A future government that includes both would reflect their individual power bases leaving no place for people who are not affiliated to either side.
Faizullah Jalal, a lecturer in Faculty of Law and Political Science, Kabul University, considers three elements will be reflected in a national unity government: Abdullah Abdullah, Ashraf Ghani and President Hamid Karzai. “This structure will have no place for bright Afghans either inside or outside the country. Even women who constitute nearly half the population will have no place.”
Political watchers think the only way out would be to set a detailed agenda for a future government – within the framework of service to people – or they warn, political and tribal interests would dominate, and create problems.
Lecturer at Kabul University Nasrullah Stanekzai says, “The two candidates had different agendas. (But) even as the process of audit of votes is going on they have agreed to form a national unity government. When it is formed the priority should be definition of national interests, and service of the Afghan people based on national interests. If its basis is a wish for seeking privileges, the government will not be stable.”
Word games
Only bits and pieces of information about the agreement have become public. There is speculation that clashes of opinion between the presidential rivals is inevitable. A day after they signed the “political agreement” (Aug 8) that ensured both would be winners in the election, differences cropped up over the definition of a national unity government and division of power.
Ashraf Ghani said in separate meetings with the domestic and international media that forming a joint government does not mean the winner of the elections will share power with the loser.
“Dual authority is not possible,” Ghani told the foreign media. Dr Abas Noyan, one of Ghani’s campaign members, explained to Killid later, “If a government divides its power, that is not a government, (it) would not be accountable and would be acting against democracy, too”.
Killid sought reactions from Abdullah’s side. Fazel Rahmad Urya, an Abdullah team member, answered by quoting Article 5 of what would be the agreement signed by the two candidates. Dividing power is unquestionable, he says. Later Aqa Hossein Saancharaki, Abdullah’s spokesperson, was as political as Ghani. “What he said means we are now one team and that we are working together on defining criteria for structuring the government”, he told Killid.
Writer and political analyst Mohammad Qarabaghi is pragmatic. Since competition over gaining power is the basis of the rivalry between the two political leaders “there is probability of all kinds of tension” creeping into their proposed partnership, he believes.
“The need for an external mediator that should be American would be felt frequently so it is better that the main heads of the coming government should accept the eternal role of Kerry as mediator so that whenever the government faces crisis he would travel unexpectedly to Kabul and open the knots,” says Qarabaghi.
Wary public
Killid also gathered opinions among civil society activists. The electoral crisis has had a bruising impact on the Afghan economy. People have suffered from job losses and rising prices leading many to say they wish they had not voted in the election. There is also a feeling that the two partners in the proposed national unity government care less about people than about political power. A future government would consequently be weak, is a widespread opinion.
Activist Sekendar Mehanyar says the agreement to form a national unity government has no legal basis. “It is in fact a political agreement … it does not have executive approval. As a result there is a strong probability that it may not be honoured, causing tension and uproar …,” he told Killid. According to Mehanyar, people’s opinions and voices would count for very little in a government of only winners.
Independent observers have observed tongue-in-cheek the Abdullah-Ghani agreement is a “letter of lamentation for democracy”.
For 13 years millions of dollars was spent on strengthening democracy; soldiers on election duty laid down their lives, and courageous voters risked their fingers to cast their votes. “These are the sacrifices that Afghans accepted for ensuring democracy,” says Abdul Shaheed Saqeb, a journalist and political analyst. “Yet the lamentable truth is that our political destiny is being written through the mediation of John Kerry not through elections and votes cast by people.”
Follow TKG on Twitter & Facebook
