How to make Afghan votes count - By Zalmay Khalilzad

Afghanistan is in the grip of the second presidential campaign in its history. By their nature, elections are polarising events. However, in the case of Afghanistan, with its limited experience in electoral politics and ongoing insurgency, there is a real risk that the campaign could further destabilise the country.

I know, and have seen and felt, the tragedy of Afghanistan. Its origins lie in the cycle of no-holds-barred political competition among internal rivals and the decisions of foreign powers to manipulate Afghan factions for their own purposes. These actions, by Afghans and outsiders, have cost Afghanistan millions of lives and consigned it to isolation and poverty at a time of rising worldwide prosperity. The destructive cycle was interrupted by the overthrow of the Taliban regime and United Nations-sponsored Bonn process. The test today is to build on that success.

I know the leading candidates, all of whom have committed to respecting the democratic process. Yet the danger exists that some of them, or their supporters, will overstep the bounds of responsible competition. I also know that outsiders are easily tempted to pursue their own preferences rather than allow candidates to find their own level through a test of political support at the ballot box.

In this respect, I see several dangers in the current elections. The first is ethnic polarisation. As election day draws closer, the process is acquiring ugly ethnic undertones. Despite progress among young Afghans, ethnicity remains the most dangerous faultline in Afghan politics. Ethnic appeals could have serious negative consequences for the stability of the country and the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission there.

Already there are disturbing signs in northern Afghanistan, an area dominated by Tajiks and Uzbeks but with pockets of Pashtuns, the country’s largest ethnic group. Recent reports indicate that some local Pashtuns have felt intimidated and are turning to the Taliban, allowing it to infiltrate a region that has been relatively stable until recently.

Second, the Taliban and others who oppose progress in Afghanistan might seek to escalate the violence in order to prevent elections from taking place as planned. This could occur, for example, if one of the candidates were killed, which would lead to a mandatory postponement of the election under the Afghan constitution. Unsuccessful assassination attempts have already occurred against presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

If a candidate were to be killed, it is likely that those remaining would blame one another and the current government, which is responsible for the security of candidates and, arguably, would gain by staying in power if elections were delayed. A postponement would also prompt questions about whether the government could legitimately run the country after its mandate expires on August 20.

Third, there is the danger that one or more of the contenders might not accept the declared results, leading to protracted violence, probably focused on Kabul. It is unclear whether Afghan security forces could control the situation on their own or would require assistance from the ISAF. This could be a no-win situation, with serious consequences for the ISAF role in Afghanistan whether it participated in the pacification effort or not.

Fourth, the international community is also taking unhelpful actions. While the ISAF and the UN are playing crucial roles in providing security and meeting the logistical needs of the elections, some officials are taking inappropriate partisan positions. Some favour Mr Karzai and are encouraging Afghans to support him. Others are working to unite his opponents or, at a minimum, to push the elections to a second round.

If unchecked, these dangers could produce an election that deepens the divisions in Afghan society and undermines stability. To minimise these risks, the US should take the lead with other friends of Afghanistan to ensure a level playing field. We must avoid actions that create the appearance that outsiders are seeking to decide the outcome of the election.

The second – and most important – step is for the US, UK and UN missions in Kabul to work out agreements among the key Afghan candidates to respect certain “red lines”. They should agree not to mobilise support on an ethnic basis and to accept the election outcome if rules on transparency are respected.

The main candidates should also issue a joint declaration to facilitate post-election unity. They should articulate areas of agreement such as the formation of a competent national unity government by the winner of the presidential elections, support for the ISAF deployment, and the imperative to improve governance and delivery of services. Last, the ISAF needs to help develop, jointly with the Afghans, an emergency plan to prevent and contain violence should the results be disputed.

Five years ago, I had the privilege of representing the US in Afghanistan as we helped Afghanistan hold successful elections. The country still needs our help. President Barack Obama has correctly recognised that success in Afghanistan is an important American priority. It is vital that the US work actively to enable Afghan voices to be heard and to facilitate reconciliation, unity and stability after the people make their choice.

The writer was US ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the UN and is now a counsellor at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - How to make Afghan votes count