Critical review of Afghan Presidential Election 2014


By:  Rohullah Sharifi




 free and fair presidential and parliamentary elections in any country represents the democratic institutionalization and people reign.  The large masses vote to select their rules and him/her countable for all his/her polities and policies. 

Afghanistan experienced two presidential and two parliamentarian elections in the past 13 years.

Afghan Presidential Election became one of the worst scenario in recent elections.  This created great chaos for national and international community and economic loss for the country.  After democratization of the country in the 2001 and political transformation, after more than a decade and having two presidential and two parliamentary elections the crisis arouse during the third presidential election.  Democracy accompanied with many positive and negative springs in the country.  The inflow of billions of international aid to Afghanistan resulted in reverse as well.

There are multidimensional complications that affected the election as:

1.   President Karzai was interested in sustaining his regime and staying in power for a couple of more years or someone who is trustworthy to Karzai.  Who will follow the same path and play politics of stick and carrot and softness to Taliban.

2.   The parties moved the election towards ethnic politics and ethnic victory instead of national solidarity and unity.  This similar conflict of interest led to civil wars of 1992 for supremacy and control of power and domination of one ethnic group over other ethnics.

3.   Independent Election Commission (IEC) according to constitution is neutral and impartial, but in all elections acted partial.  “To gain the confidence and trust of all stakeholders…the legal framework must guarantee maximum independence and neutrality of the IEC and define its authority, structure, and responsibility with as much clarity as possible”. (ref: author Zakria Barakzai, www.afghanistan-analysts.org)

4.   The conflict of interest between and among elites, warlords, business community and general public.  A) Elites want close circle of few educated influential figures.  B) The warlords feel threaten to their interest and power sharing and active part in the political arena during past 13 years.  The sustenance of conflict and weak rule of law in the country and benefit sharing of war economy by warlords.  This is a serious threat to their interest and deterrent to peace and a central strong government.  C) The businessmen provided generous funding to presidential candidates and having more interest in a weak government to continue the trade monopoly and preferential treatment. D) The general public demand for a strong government, reduce corruption and better services, security and peace, employment for large masses of unemployed. 

5.   The US inexcusable mistake is the support of warlords, weak figures and bringing them to political arena.  The vague government polity, some illiterate and incompetent politicians, opportunist bureaucrats, ministries became private enterprise with nepotism and same ethnic reign.

6.   The US, NATO, regional powers with diverse political and economic interest in the country supported particular strata e.g. US & NATO support to the private security companies in the country that mostly escorts the military convoys, provide security to diplomatic organizations and these companies run by warlords.  This strengthened their economic foundation, sustained the illegal use of weapon, circulation and militia sustenance.

7.   The stockpile of illegal weapons by warlords that threaten the fragile peace and government. Secondly there is no data available on the quantity to foreseen future potential risk & danger.

8.   The security enforcing agencies are badly affected more than any other time by ethnic politics and conflict of interest.  The impact of warlord, influential political parties in recruitment of former fighters in the security organs. 

9.   The majority of illiterate people that easily get influence by ethnic politics of few selfish leaders that encourage confrontation instead of peaceful coexistence during the elections and special events.

10.               The partiality of bureaucracy, law and security enforcement organs.

11.               The election law flaws and most not strengthen the Constitution guaranteed “free, universal, secret, and direct” vote.  “The election cycle prescribed by the constitution is simply not sustainable under the best conditions in Afghanistan.” (ref: author Zakria Barakzai, www.afghanistan-analysts.org)

12.               The security remained a challenge in each single election and take sacrifices from the voters.  “Security has been a major challenge in each Afghan election since 2005. In the 2009 presidential and provincial council elections and in the 2010 Wolesy Jirga elections, the worsening security situation was the main reason for the disenfranchisement of millions of would-be voters and the massive fraud that occurred”. (ref: et tal, www.afghanistan-analysts.org)




The election resulted in conflicts between two candidates and three major ethnicities as Tajiks, Pashtuns and Hazara. 

The fragile state and peace put at stick and tensions of direct confrontation arouse. This led to capital flew, economic deficiency, high inflation and unemployment rate. 

The international community and especially the US threat to stop the aid which badly affected the financial institutes of the country and in particular the arm forces as salaries are paid by major donor the US.

The formation of unity government that its’ too early to predict the workability or failure, cooperation or rivalry, continuation of Karzai regime or promised vicissitudes. 

The government of rule of law, justice, meritocracy, freedom and equality of opportunity to everyone.









 مدیر مسوول : انجنیر هما یوسفی
صاحب امتیاز : انجنیرنجیب یوسفی
کليه ی حقوق بر اساس قوانين کپی رايت  محفوظ و متعلق به «وطندار» می باشد