RSS | Newsletters | Facebook CAP en Español
Center for American Progress Center for American Progress
Issues National SecurityRegions & Countries South & Central Asia

Keep Pushing Effective Governance in Afghanistan

SOURCE: AP/Musadeq Sadeq

Intense international pressure was critical to Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s decision to let the constitutional process to run its course and allow for a second round of voting.

After weeks of intense international scrutiny and domestic political upheaval following Afghanistan’s August 20 presidential elections, incumbent President Hamid Karzai and the Independent Election Commission of Afghanistan announced that they would accept the results of a recount led by the Electoral Complaints Commission, a joint international-Afghan body investigating fraud charges during the election that claims Karzai did not receive enough valid votes to win. A second round of voting is now scheduled for November 7 between Karzai and lead challenger Abdullah Abdullah.

While this new round offers a potential way forward for the country, it is unlikely to erase the Karzai administration’s self-inflicted damage to its credibility. The Afghan government’s legitimacy can only be restored through a renewed focus on effective governance, a reduction in corruption, and a further adherence to the rule of law, not simply through a power-sharing agreement between Karzai and his rivals or a second round of elections.

The extremely narrow window of time to organize for the next round will seriously test both the Afghan election bureaucracy and the international community’s ability to organize and provide security for another round of voting. It remains to be seen whether voters will turn out in sufficient numbers and authorities will take sufficient steps to limit a repeat of initial abuses—most notably the widespread use of “ghost polling stations”—and provide sufficient legitimacy for the runoff’s outcome. A United Nations decision to fire nearly 200 poll district election administrators linked to fraud in the first round could be a step toward accountability, but it also further increases logistical difficulties.

Intense international pressure on the Karzai government was critical to President Karzai’s decision to let the constitutional process to run its course and allow for a second round of voting. The Obama administration’s deliberations over its strategy in Afghanistan, a product of waning domestic support for the eight-year conflict and the election fiasco, have offered a very public warning to the Karzai administration that international support without serious efforts at reform cannot be guaranteed.

The day prior to the public release of the Electoral Complaints Commission’s results, top officials within the Obama administration such as Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Congress clearly stated that any decision on an increase in U.S. troops and resources for Afghanistan—as Karzai has sought—would be dependent on a resolution of the election dispute.

Conservatives critics who seek to lambaste the administration for “dithering” over Afghanistan ignore the fact that U.S. influence over the Karzai government is at its peak prior to any commitments for troop deployments. By leveraging this temporary influence, the U.S. and international community have managed to help Karzai at least minimally adhere to the rule of law in Afghanistan.

The international community’s challenge will ultimately be to maintain the pressure on Karzai while developing a more robust representative political system capable of resisting the insurgency’s political campaign against the Kabul government. While donors and Afghan government officials have repeatedly pledged to prioritize good governance in Afghanistan—a point General Stanley McChrystal emphasized as crucial for any successful counterinsurgency strategy—efforts to date to impose meaningful conditions on government performance and force concrete reforms have been only sporadically effective. The international community must continue to use its significant leverage to demand governance reform moving forward.

More from CAP on Afghanistan:

To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

Print: Katie Peters (economy, education, and health care)
202.741.6285 or kpeters1@americanprogress.org

Print: Christina DiPasquale (foreign policy and security, energy)
202.481.8181 or cdipasquale@americanprogress.org

Print: Laura Pereyra (ethnic media, immigration)
202.741.6258 or lpereyra@americanprogress.org

Radio: Anne Shoup
202.481.7146 or ashoup@americanprogress.org

TV: Lindsay Hamilton
202.483.2675 or lhamilton@americanprogress.org

Web: Andrea Peterson
202.481.8119 or apeterson@americanprogress.org

Subscribe to RSS Feeds

RSS IconSite-Wide and Issue-Specific RSS Feeds

Related Materials

Getting Smarter on China , by Rudy deLeon, Melanie Hart, Ali Fisher

The Obama Administration’s National Security Strategy

How to Stop the Bloodshed in Syria, by Sarah Margon, Brian Katulis

The Obama Administration's National Security Policy

Event: A Discussion on the Obama Administration's National Security Policy

Also by Caroline Wadhams

The Big Loser at Bonn Will Be Pakistan, December 3, 2011

Milestones for Transition in Afghanistan 2012–2014, December 2, 2011

What Former Afghan Leader Rabbani Knew About Pakistan and Peace, October 3, 2011

Also by Colin Cookman

The Pakistan Aid Dilemma, December 16, 2011

The Limits of U.S. Assistance to Pakistan, July 18, 2011

Unanswered Questions in Obama's Afghanistan Policy, June 23, 2011

Also by Peter Juul

China’s Quiet Role in Pressuring Iran, February 8, 2012

Obama’s Leaner National Security Strategy Got the Job Done in 2011, January 23, 2012

U.S. Military Strategy Shifts Focus, December 20, 2011