The BBC said that the Afghan election audit is awesome:
The agreement to hold a complete audit to deal with allegations of widespread fraud requires another huge logistical effort.
Awesome scale of auditing every Afghan vote, BBC
To back up the claim that the audit is awesome, BBC cited facts and figures and stuff.
Voice of America said there were a few glitches:
The internationally supervised, slow-moving audit of 8.1 million Afghan votes from last month’s disputed presidential runoff resumed Sunday, a day after differences between the rival candidates over ballot scrutiny led to its temporary suspension.
Afghan Presidential Vote Audit Continues Despite Glitches, Voice of America
But the
New York Times said that the Afghan election audit is a mess:
Seemingly endless squabbles are interrupted by full-scale shouting matches. Campaign aides mutter suspiciously about what foreign visitors might be up to. And ballot boxes are piling up, waiting to be cracked open and examined for signs of fraud.
In two spartan, stifling warehouses on the edge of Kabul, hundreds of Afghans, Americans and Europeans are engaged in a last-ditch attempt to salvage an acceptably democratic result from an election dispute that has been tumbling toward a street fight, or worse.
Afghanistan’s Election Result Hinges on a Squabble-Prone Audit, New York Times
The United Nations said that criteria have been proposed. A whole
set of criteria, actually:
As the audit of the Afghan presidential election resumed today, the United Nations proposed a set of criteria to the country’s main electoral body for separating valid votes from fraudulent ballots cast in the June presidential run-off.
Amid audit delay, UN in Afghanistan proposes criteria for ordering recounts, UN News Centre
Afghanistan Analysts Network said that what the United Nations said is not as bland as it seems:
The calm words masked just how big a step this was – an international organisation seeing itself forced to step in to try to sort out the auditing mess after the first week had brought almost no progress.
Audit stopped, re-started, UN intervenes, Afghanistan Analysts Network
And also that the UN had to carefully work around the awkward issue of foreign interference:
UNAMA carefully explained the basis for its involvement (in what looked like a pre-emptive defence against any charge of foreign interference): the agreement reached by the two candidates, Dr Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani, on 12 July through the good offices of United States Secretary of State John Kerry had asked the UN, in the words of Thursday’s statement, “to propose the manner for the supervision of the audit. In making its proposals, the agreement requires the UN to consult with both candidates.”
More stuff said about the Afghan election audit, after the thing.
New York Times thought that who that tall, bearded foreigner with no badge was, at the Afghan election audit, was not news fit to print:
And who was that tall, bearded foreigner with no badge?
Pajhwok, though, was willing to say (and tell us) which side
the bearded foreigner with no badge was on:
The Change and Continuity team, led by Ashraf Ghani, on Tuesday claimed the Reform and Unanimity team had appointed foreigners as observers for the ongoing vote audit, a claim Abdullah’s camp dismissed.
A member of the Change and Continuity team, Halim Fidaee, told Pajhwok Afghan News that they had evidence showing Abdullah had appointed a number of foreigners as observers to work in his interest.
Abdullah camp denies appointing foreigners, Pajhwok
New York Times has more simple questions:
Does writing “insh’allah” — God willing — next to the name of a candidate on a ballot constitute a legitimate vote?
For which Afghanistan Analysts Network has analysis:
Candidate agents had been arguing over whether a vote was invalidated by the voter writing his or her name, or signing or writing a word or a phrase like insha’allah or so-and-so zindabad (long live so-and-so), instead of the regular tick mark. This should have been relatively easy to decide on. IEC rules are clear – as the IEC spokesman, Nur Muhammad Nur said, a ballot paper marked in a way that shows the identity of the voter is not valid.
But which just leads back to more questions:
But aside from this, it is difficult to see why the teams were arguing over the issue. Could either imagine gaining an advantage, one way or the another, by wanting more lee-way in the marks a voter could validly make? Could they predict their supporters would have been more likely to have ticked the ballot, added zindabad or written their names? Still, the issue ended in the audit being suspended for a day.
You know how, for years, Hamid Karzai has been called the Mayor of Kabul? That in a fractured and divided Afghanistan, where all power is local, Karzai's influence did not extend beyond the capital city?
After Karzai was installed into power, his actual authority outside the capital city of Kabul was said to be so limited that he was often derided as the "Mayor of Kabul".
Hamid Karzai, Wikipedia
Well, Hamid Karzai's powers have recently been upgraded. From 2002 through next month, Hamid Karzai was more like
a King.
As a 2003 U.S. diplomatic cable reported, the U.S. ambassador told a French constitutional expert that "Afghanistan needed a strong President given all the vectors of power" and to avoid "endless crises." With U.S. support, then-President Hamid Karzai stripped out provisions for a prime minister in the draft constitution. He also arrogated to himself powers that made him, in effect, King Karzai, with the ability to appoint "high-ranking officials" and a big chunk of parliament.
Afghanistan Needs Some Local Control, Bloomberg
The United States-backed and guided Afghan constitution that was put in place a decade ago created a powerful, almost king-like authority for Hamid Karzai, the man hand-picked by the George W. Bush administration to run the country.
Did Kerry just ditch America's vision for Afghanistan?, Christian Science Monitor
The old arrangement, decided on by the United States, some warlords, and some technocrats, in some back rooms, that Afghanistan should have a President, has been replaced by a new arrangement, decided on by the United States, some warlords, and some technocrats, in some back rooms, that Afghanistan should have a Prime Minister instead.
Radio Free Europe says that this idea should at least be questioned, though.
In theory, the formation of such a parliamentary system should enshrine a more equitable distribution of power. But it promises to be a risky and protracted undertaking, and even if the transition to a parliamentary system is a smooth one, there is no guarantee it will work.
Parliamentary System A Risky Solution For Afghanistan, Radio Free Europe