News

Pro-Palestine Encampment Represents First Major Test for Harvard President Alan Garber

News

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu Condemns Antisemitism at U.S. Colleges Amid Encampment at Harvard

News

‘A Joke’: Nikole Hannah-Jones Says Harvard Should Spend More on Legacy of Slavery Initiative

News

Massachusetts ACLU Demands Harvard Reinstate PSC in Letter

News

LIVE UPDATES: Pro-Palestine Protesters Begin Encampment in Harvard Yard

Editorials

Democratic Failure

Abdullah’s withdrawal from Afghanistan’s elections further undermines legitimacy

By The Crimson Staff

The Afghan theater is quickly becoming the main act in the Obama administration’s Middle East policy. As a result, the success of U.S. efforts in the region is inextricably tied to that of the Afghan government and its establishment as a legitimate authority. Unfortunately, the recent withdrawal of Abdullah Abdullah from the Afghan presidential race represents a poor decision on Abdullah’s part and a step back on Afghanistan’s road to recovery. Abdullah’s decision not to challenge incumbent Hamid Karzai in a runoff election can be explained as a principled protest of the widespread fraud present in the electoral proceedings, but it also means the controversial Karzai’s legitimacy as a ruler will not be popularly affirmed, but instead ordained by electoral officials suspected of corruption and fraud.

This peculiar turn of events has left Afghanistan with a leader who, after discounting illegitimate ballots, did not meet the 50 percent vote threshold required to be declared president of Afghanistan after the first round of voting. While there was no guarantee that fraud would not plague the runoff as well, Abdullah’s participation in a second round of voting would have enhanced the legitimacy of the election. A runoff, which would have been subject to intense public scrutiny, would have at least represented a new opportunity for a more open election and given the victor some level of legitimacy that is not currently present.

Without a viable opposition opponent like Abdullah, an election would have been pointless. So while Abdullah’s decision may have been a politically expedient tactic, especially considering his probable loss, it is neither a service to the Afghan people nor to the stability of its government.

While he will continue to govern his tumultuous nation, it is entirely unclear that Hamid Karzai is capable of presiding over a stable Afghanistan. As America determines its policy in the region moving forward, it should not be any more confident in Afghanistan’s leader than in its electoral process and should avoid depending on the country’s shaky government for support.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags
Editorials