Low turnout predicted in landmark Afghan elections

Most Afghans aren't stupid. They're not going to risk life and limb to vote in a confusing and suspiciously fraudulent election with a predetermined outcome designed to favour those with US backing...

WTF do people expect???

I'd say it's enough of a turnout to gauge the national mood in Afghanistan.

That being said, this whole elections charade does not impress me. Elections alone are not democracy, and sadly, good democracies require an economic basis corresponding to an advanced nation. Time and time again developing "democracies" show us cronyism, corruption, patronage, and a whole host of other problems associated with scarcity of resources. Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations in the world. I'm saddened, but I don't think their country will experience social, economic, or political advancement to match the rest of the world for a very long while. We're talking about a people whose main form of transportation is still the donkey (no offense to them, just the facts). I wish them well, but I don't see much change in Afghanistan to come for a long time.

It's sad that we here in the U.S. are experiencing these traits as well, but I don't consider the U.S. to be an advanced democracy. They gave up claim to that with the Bush administration I look to the Scandinavians and other Europeans to gauge the development of democracy.

"elections"

Bush wins. Bush wins. Bush wins.

And for this period of time, it will be dependant on international help. I'm not sure anyone has a good idea what the composition of the new parliament will be like. With all 400 candidates running as independents, it may be too difficult and pointless to rig.

She was in a head to foot burka with one of those eye visor things, and even her hand was covered up while she voted. This is freedom?

Will they count her ballot? If so, then this is freedom in one respect: the freedom to have a say in who represents her in parliament.

Not the same as freedom of speech, freedom to own property or not to wear a burka granted but one freedom. Perhaps her daughters will grow up in an Afghanistan that recognizes these freedoms too. Unfortunately, change in social norms and customs takes a long time.

I guess they were supposed to accept her ballot, but one wonders if they actually did. There seems to be a great contradiction in having the franchise, yet not having full rights in many other areas of life. One wonders how it will work out in practice.

In a way this is the opposite of what the Soviets attempted in Afghanistan. They tried to impose full legal equality for women, without effective political rights (i.e. meaningful elections). We are imposing political rights (assuming the elections are honest) without full legal equality.

It remains to be seen whether democracy can precede changes in social norms and customs, or must come after them.

I've seen plenty of women dressed that way here on my campus.

Western observers reacted with embarrassment and dismay yesterday that turn-out in Afghanistan's parliamentary election was 20 per cent lower than in the presidential election last year. The election commission estimated turn-out as just over 50 per cent this year, down from 70 per cent last year.

The US military commander in Afghanistan, Lieutenant-General Karl Eikenberry, had rashly predicted a record turn-out ahead of the polls. Some suggested the lower figure meant Afghans were growing disillusioned with democracy less than a year into the experience.

Many Afghans braved threats and intimidation from the Taliban, who vowed to disrupt the elections. Although the Talian said they would not target polling stations, they were thought to have threatened voters in their heartlands in the west and east. Afghan women faced threats from hardliners who objected to women having the vote.

Independent UK

that was considered high. Many European countries have turnout in the 70s.

Last week's vote was Afghanistan's parlimentary election. I wonder what the U.S. turnout was for a strictly non-national election?

me too.

maybe someone should let them taste ACTUAL democracy and not just a fiefdom of bushco style corporo-fascism before they decide if they like it or not.

UnoCal is their government. By design.

insisted on it...

From the current World Media Watch....

4//The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia September 19, 2005 - 11:16AM

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/tilt-at-democracy-tests-karzai/2005/09/19/1126981976164.html?oneclick=true



TILT AT DEMOCRACY TESTS KARZAI

The future is daunting for the President as Afghans vote, writes Paul McGeough.



The Afghan poll is a high-stakes contest over who knows best how to run this broken-down country - President Hamid Karzai or the army of foreign diplomats push-pulling his government down the democracy road.



They pleaded with him. Out of sheer frustration, the United Nations, the Europeans and others warned Karzai: "You'll be sorry."



But insisting he was on top of things, the Pashtun President stuck with his choice of an electoral system that many fear could backfire explosively.



Karzai disagrees. But the new parliament could be elected by as few as 20 per cent of voters, making it utterly unrepresentative; and Karzai's black-balling of political parties risks returning an unruly rabble that might eat him alive.




(SNIP)



Karzai's insistence on the rarely used SNTV electoral system - single non-transferable vote - allows voters to choose just a single candidate in fields of up to hundreds for no more than a dozen seats in most provinces. The most populous, Kabul, has 33 seats - but there is a field of 389 candidates.



A senior foreign diplomat observed: "Predicting the outcome is impossible. No candidate is likely to get more than 10 per cent. If the rest are lucky they'll get about 1 per cent each.



"We hope we are wrong. But a 20 per cent parliament is a risk because Afghans are bad losers. With such a thin spread of votes, how is a 1.09 per cent loser going to feel when he sees a 1.1 per cent winner?"



He is referring to one of Afghanistan's most absurd election rules. Known as the "assassination clause", it calls for the next-highest vote winner to replace any MP who dies. A similar rule applied to the election of delegates to a national political conference in 2002. Within four hours of the announcement of the successful candidates two were assassinated.



The diplomat shrugged: "But Karzai says none of this is a problem."


MORE

He is just trying to build a democracy, Afghan style. That was a good article.

He told the foreign diplomats he will do things his way. We will know soon enough whether he will be sorry - or not.

In any event, I suspect the international community will be involved there for a long, long time.