Afghani affairs are as much of a political quagmire for today's political leaders as they were almost a century ago following the end of Britain's third unsuccessful attempt to conquer Afghanistan. Little appears to have progressed in the attempts to bring stability to a country in which the second presidential election, held one day after the ninety year anniversary of Britain's announcement, was characterized by lack of security, low voter turnout and widespread ballot stuffing, intimidation, and other electoral fraud.

Can this been seen as simply just another flawed election in a flawed state? Very few people held any hope of achieving their pre-election objectives. Observer officials conceded the election was flawed, admitting that there had been election corruption and that precautions designed to prevent fraud would be ineffective in many parts of the country where election monitors could not go. The international community accepted that fraud would be inevitable in the presidential election, but hoped that it could be minimised to an “acceptable level where it will not alter the final result”. Former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald E. Neumann put the odds of an election that would appear “good enough” at “50-50”. Clearly, the election stakes were much higher in the war-torn country than anyone initially anticipated. Organisations, observers and nations normally beyond reproach in electoral matters have been drawn into a messy and acrimonious war of accusations and counter-accusations. There were claims of US behind the scene manipulation, accusations of heavy handed tactics by the US to force a run off, of attempts to force a power sharing deal, unprecedented claims of interference within ECC processes and an allegation of a United Nations cover-up from a US diplomat dismissed from his post within the organsiation.

With the political paralysis showing little or no sign of ending and a future looming with no functioning government, it would be fair in the clear absence of a common acknowledged victory, to ask who exactly lost what in Afghanistan? A stable and legitimate government in Afghanistan is crucial to the peace and stability in the region in addition to being vital for the US and its allies to show that they have finally brought some semblance of democracy to the mountainous and troubled country. In the eyes of the local electorate, powerful international players, particularly the US, are suspected of attempting to determine who the next president will be. Equally, Afghanis see their leaders as trying to determine the outcome of the elections through patronage and deceit. The international community see the results in Afghanistan as a country out of control which from all sides produces calls for continued, or escalated military intervention contrasted to calls to count the financial and human costs of the military campaigns. There is a growing fear that should the results show the majority Karzai needs to retain the presidency is eroding, he will not accept the result plunging the country into an uncertain political future: a country which is the fulcrum of destabilisation in the region. Western governments are reported to be in discussion with Karzai urging him to accept the results.

At the present moment, all parties in this theater have lost. The next phase of the elections will be important for the US and its allies who will want a clear indication of a stable government in the country in order to re-evaluate their position in the ongoing battle against the Taliban and its impact on their wider ranging war on terror. What remains to be determined is whether anything can be gained from Afghanistan in the immediate future.

Nagaraj Bharawadj is a political analyst and director of Pasco's Asia Pacific region.