Political Transition and Calls for Electoral Reforms-II

Outlook Afghanistan op-ed published May 16 

Read Part I of this op-ed here.

Heading towards challenging times of power transition ahead, we need radical electoral reforms. The parliament should make the amended draft of Electoral Law, which has to be submitted by the Independent Election Commission soon, top working priority. Fundamental amendments should be introduced into the Electoral Law to clarify parameters of Presidential authority regarding the opening of election campaign, monitoring of polls and certification of results. Nowhere on earth a sitting President ‘certifies’ results of Presidential elections, except in our mobocracy. The Electoral Law also needs further clarification on structure and administrative procedure of the Independent Election Commission and Election Complaints Commission.

In 2009, parliament adopted a law calling for approval of IEC commissioners from parliament. It was rejected by President Karzai. The current commissioners’ political sympathy for President is no secret.

There are serious flaws in the structure and administration of Independent Election Commission. Nomination of its chairman and members should be subject to parliamentary approval. Presidential nominations should be based on consultations with legislative, political parties and civil society. Members should have the authority to vote and elect their Chairman and Executive Body, rather than it being appointed by the President.

Parliament should open debate on other radical electoral reforms such as party laws and overhaul of Single Non-transferable Vote (SNTV). The Proportion Representation System should be adopted. The Electoral Law should clarify and provide for a transitional administration if polling cannot be conducted within the constitutional calendar.

The incumbent President’s term will end on May 22, 2014. Law must provide legal provisions for a caretaker administration. In last presidential election, when polls were postponed, President Karzai simply continued serving in office in contrary to the constitutional provisions. The current Administration has intentionally kept the law unclear on such circumstances.

For some changes, we need constitutional reform on electoral affairs. Schedule of presidential, parliamentary and provincial council elections are needed to be amended in coordination with the challenges and limitations experienced in previous elections and with incorporation of new demographics.

It would take pages to repeat the story of 2009 Presidential elections debacle and 2010 parliamentary elections crisis. Results were delayed for months. The last two elections particularly undermined credibility of the entire process. However, in the last six elections held for presidency, parliament and provincial councils over the past decade, we have learned about range of structural flaws, logistical limitations and demographic changes which need to be updated and improved. Our infant dysfunctional democracy has to be institutionalized. For that, we need radical reforms, and electoral process is its fundamental to start with.

It will take years to achieve all requirements of an improved electoral process, beginning with an electoral database. The international community bogged with other issues and priorities in Afghanistan have ignored institutionalization and strengthening of the foundations of a democratic system. For instance, The “Annex II, Agreement on Provisional Arrangements in Afghanistan” of the Bonn Agreement signed in December, 2001 in Germany mentions that the UN should conduct census and develop voter registration, which never happened.

Lack of an accurate census database has slowed down the entire process. Work needs to be started on development of an advanced electoral database with voter registration through biometric ID. All of it can be possible when a census is conducted and biometric IDs issued throughout the country.

One of the constitutional requirements which the Karzai Administration has failed to implement is elections for district councils and municipality. The Government should start it from now, on a phased schedule with most secure provinces first. President Karzai has been appointing his favorites as district governors and mayors, while the constitution requires that these officials come on popular vote.

The parliament should start debate as soon as the new amended draft of Electoral Law is submitted for approval. They should prepare legislation for reforms by the end of the year and changes should be introduced by mid-2013, to bring into effect by coming Presidential polls.

Political Transition and Calls for Electoral Reforms-I

Outlook Afghanistan op-ed published May 15

As we get closer to the withdrawal deadline of US and NATO troops in 2014, security transition and political and economic stability tops among domestic concerns. Despite the US-Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement, NATO has an exit schedule but lacks a concrete post-withdrawal strategy. Transitory plans are based on assumptions of success in peace and reconciliation talks with the Taliban for a political settlement. There is not a Plan B scenario when insurgent attacks will increase, getting deadlier, and negotiations fail to reach a breakthrough by 2014. Flawed as it has been, a major blunder made in the negotiations is that political opposition is left out in the entire process. International stakeholders and the Karzai Administration are moving with contrary objectives and interests out of it. The two dominant groups in the Palace circle have their own designs for manipulation of the situation.

However, regardless of the results of peace talks with Taliban, the political opposition that consists of three major blocks—The National Coalition led by Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, National Front led by Massoud, Muhaqiq and Dostum and Rights and Justice Party of former leftists and intellectuals—are anticipating a smooth political transition in 2014, the election year when President Karzai cannot participate for third term as per the Constitution.

There are talks of early polls discussed among inner circles of President Karzai. Last month after a meeting with NATO Secretary General Rasmussen, he mentioned possibility of early elections. With huge security threats, the power transition in Kabul is also a challenge for the international community. There is less optimism about talks with Taliban to succeed in a settlement on terms acceptable to of the Karzai Administration, political opposition groups and the international community. Therefore, it is required of the situation that polls be held before the bulk of US and NATO troops withdraw to ensure its security.

President Karzai’s tenure will end in May 2014, and constitution requires the polls to be held by the end of 2014. President cannot change election schedule. However, if Karzai resigns, it is possible to conduct earlier election. He has time and again reiterated that he cannot be and will not attempt to be nominated for elections. But opposition groups have expressed concerns that manipulation designs are underway in the Palace. President’s brother Qayom Karzai might be a nominee. Other options include power-sharing deals with one of the factions of opposition.  It will be welcoming if President Karzai resigns, and supports his brother or bring any other candidate from among his circle, and an earlier election is scheduled. But an adventure with manipulation of the constitution through bogus Loya Jirga-ism or attempts of deal-making with any opposition group to arrange a ‘solution’ for the two-term limit to remain in power would derail the hard-won political legitimacy and credibility of the entire system.

Two important political blocks, the National Coalition and National Front in a joint press conference two weeks ago said changing the election dates is unconstitutional, unless President resigns, which they would welcome. They issued a joint charter of demands with following proposals:

• Amendments in Electoral Law and the Law of Organization and Authority of the Independent Election Commission (IEC)
• Computerization of voter lists countrywide
• Conduct the electoral process in partnership with the international community/UN
• Security transition plan and US/NATO withdrawal schedule must consider election challenges in particular.
• National population census and distribution of electronic national ID cards be completed six months prior to elections.
• As per the Constitution, elections of provincial and district councils, and municipalities must be held before Presidential polls.

Free and Fair Election Foundation for Afghanistan (FEFA) has also called for reforms in the Electoral Law. IEC has issued a new draft with amendments, which are yet to be presented to the parliament and approved. The amendments do not include major proposals from organizations like FEFA and political parties.

There are concerns about impartiality of the IEC commissioners and its administrative procedure. Opposition parties have expressed concerns on neutrality of five IEC commissioners appointed earlier in January. They are considered supporters of President Karzai. With the amendments introduced in the Electoral Law, the Karzai Administration wants to limit participation of international community in the monitoring and transition process for a free and fair elections.

After the joint press conference and talks of alliance between National Coalition and National Front, the third major group Right and Justice Party also called for major electoral reforms. In a press conference last week, Right and Justice leadership said they would field a consensus candidate for polls. They called for establishment of an Electoral Reforms Commission.

All opposition groups are calling for legal participation of political parties in the elections. It is the biggest crack in our political system that parties have no legitimate role in the electoral process and parliamentary affairs. It is time the Government heed to the demands of opposition groups and take practical steps for reforms. Legal role of political parties is inevitable for political transparency and credibility. It will increase mass political participation and activism, generating awareness, something that an overly centralized concentration of power in the Presidential office, which is more like an electoral authoritarianism, does not want. The international community must push for steps to ensure long-term political stability in Afghanistan, which should not be ignored for transitory strategies.

To be continued…

Strategic Pact and Uncertainties

Outlook Afghanistan op-ed published May 08

President Obama’s short stay in Kabul was more of a symbolic political visit on the eve of Osama bin Laden’s first death anniversary. Addressing Americans from Afghanistan before launching reelection campaign, President Obama reminded them that he sent the Navy SEALs to kill Osama.

He said the tide of insurgency has turned and the Taliban’s momentum has been broken. He spoke to Americans with a victorious tone, about a situation that is more of a quagmire of uncertainties for us in Afghanistan. It shows the sophisticated reach and strength of the Taliban who were successful to launch an attack in Kabul as soon as President Obama’s arrival was breaking news on Afghan media. Several, including some foreign security guards were killed when some insurgents breached the high-security zone of Kabul and attacked Green Village, a compound where foreign aid workers and diplomatic staff live.

Talking about the security transition and Afghan forces taking control, he mentioned the decrease in size of Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) in 2015, a plan proposed by the Obama Administration to reduce the burden of military costs on the US and its NATO allies. Details of the plan might be endorsed in the NATO Chicago Summit next week.

The size of ANSF is projected to reach 352,000 before October this year, of which 195,000 number of Afghan National Army has already been completed. The Obama Administration is considering a plan to downsize ANSF to 230,000, reducing a third of it starting gradually from 2015 to 2017. It is estimated that the current strength of ANSF will cost annually about $10billion. But the reduced size of ANSF has an estimated $4.2billion annual cost. The United States is urging its NATO allies to contribute about 1 billion Euros to this, while Washington would channel about $3 billion. But among NATO allies, only Britain has pledged $110million annually. It is expected that Afghanistan add about $500million to $1billion annually to the cost of its security forces.

However, Afghan security officials have been critical of the Obama Administration’s plan to heavily downsize the ANSF. Afghan officials say the plans are a conceptual model based on certain assumptions of improved security and a possible deal with insurgents for a political settlement.

Presidents Obama and Karzai also signed the US-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA). After two years of contentious negotiations on Afghan-control of US-run prisons in Afghanistan and the limits of Special Forces’ night raids agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding on the Transfer of US Detention Facilities and the Memorandum of Understanding on Afghanization of the Special Operations, the announcement of SPA was expected to bring a sigh of relief.

But the SPA is a general framework short of specifics. It talks about the generals of US-Afghanistan relations after ISAF withdrawal in 2014. Details of the US military presence and commitment to Afghanistan will be part of another Bilateral Security Agreement to be finalized by next year.

Domestically, the SPA has been criticized. We could not expect more than this from the ruling circle who have made sure to secure their domestic narrow-interests in the SPA. President Karzai at the press conference next day was saying the SPA clearly rejects change of system in Afghanistan.

One instance is the intentional wrong translation of some terms in the English, Pashto and Dari versions of the SPA. At the end of the text, it is mentioned that all three translations are equally authenticated. The original SPA text in English says “Afghanistan shall strengthen the integrity and capacity of its democratic institutions and processes, including by taking tangible steps to further the efficiency and effectiveness of its three branches of state within its ‘unitary’ system of government, and supporting development of a vibrant civil society, including a free and open media.”

In Dari and Pashto versions, they have replaced ‘unitary’ with ‘central’ (markazi). All major political opposition blocks are calling for decentralization of power, with more administrative authorities to local governance bodies and parliamentary form of government. They are strongly criticizing this part of the SPA. But the fact is that our visionless rulers with narrow-interests are playing domestic politics with the strategic agreement between Afghanistan and the US.

It must have been push by the Palace negotiators to avoid a single mention of the Taliban in the SPA. It glosses over by mentioning “Al-Qaeda and affiliates” avoiding the name of Taliban or other insurgents, keeping room for manipulations of Karzai and Co’s power-sharing designs to strike deal with elements of the Taliban and Hizb-e-Islami after 2014.

But the question is, why should Afghanistan’s system of Government be mentioned in a strategic partnership agreement with any country? It is a matter of constitutional and internal affairs that can be changed on popular demand, not a concern for our strategic relations with the US.

Amrullah Saleh says by avoiding mention of Taliban, some Palace elements are furthering the agenda of their neighboring foreign patrons to ignore the safe havens of insurgents and their leadership across the border. He adds that after ten years of ruling, the Palace has no definition of national security for Afghanistan and a vision for enemy and friend.

Besides all these, the NATO summit in Chicago was supposed to come up with concrete security plans and commitments after its fundamentals were to be detailed in the US-Afghanistan SPA, but uncertainty seems to loom for another year.

The US and NATO are in rush with an exit formula, but without a concrete post-withdrawal strategy. It is not clear how many US troops will stay in Afghanistan. There are no clear US commitments on military and economic support to Afghanistan in the SPA, and it will not be any clear in the NATO Chicago Summit too. NATO countries should come up with clear pledges of continuation of aid to Afghanistan.

The decrease of ANSF strength should be based on ground realities and conditions of improved security. Long-term stability and security should take precedence over cutting costs in determining US support for ANSF. It cannot be based on assumptions of success in talks with Taliban and better cooperation from Pakistan. There is no Plan B for a scenario when insurgency will increase much deadlier after 2014 while Afghan forces will be reduced to half and the bulk of US and NATO troops will withdraw.

Persecution of Minorities in Pakistan: A Failed State

Outlook Afghanistan op-ed published May 03

Persecution of minorities is not a new phenomenon in Pakistan. After partition from India  as a movement of ‘equal rights for the Muslims of sub-continent’, religious and ethnic minorities were not only declared third-class citizens through state legislations, but they have also faced brutal violence since the day of Pakistan’s birth.

Religious radicalism was promoted as a state policy on a very fundamental level. School text books taught a whitewashed history, promoting hatred against non-Muslims, particularly Hindus. Christians were never accepted more than a social class of sewerage-drain sweepers in Pakistan. Terror groups were created for intervention in Kashmir, and Jihadi radicalism was let grow deep in society.

The first ideological blow to the crack was independence of Bangladesh in 1971, when the majority Muslim Bengalis separated after more than a decade with the Punjab-dominated military and bureaucracy that controlled the then East and West Pakistan. Though troubles had erupted consecutively in parts of Balochistan and Sindh too, junta dictatorships that ruled for more than half of Pakistan’s age have suppressed it through military operations.

After secession of Bangladesh, another radical downward spiral for Pakistan as a state was when its National Assembly declared Ahmadi Muslims as non-Muslim in 1974, not only making them third-class citizens deprived of many rights and systematically discriminated against in state laws, but also invoking the wrath of religious radicals grown loose in the last two decades, particularly the Kashmir-oriented Jihadism during the first and second Indo-Pak wars in 1948 and 1971. Since then, Ahmadis have been persecuted routinely, both by mobs and courts in blasphemy cases. The violence against Ahmadis has increased in recent years. Last year Punjab Governor Salman Taseer was murdered for his defense of a Christian women Asia Bibi accused of blasphemy. He was killed by one of his own security guards, who later confessed that the Governor was killed because of his advocacy for the Christian woman.

The small numbers of Hindus are another minority community facing discrimination on every level in Pakistani society. Recently human rights activist Marvi Sirmed in a press conference in Islamabad highlighted the large-scale kidnapping and forced conversion of Hindu girls to Islam in Sindh. Many Hindus have migrated abroad during the last decade from rural parts of Sindh and Balochistan.

Rivalry with India has been the mindset behind Pakistani security establishment’s promotion of religious extremism. The decade-long rule of General Zia-ul-Haq promoted radicalism to its peak. Followed by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Jihadism started with state sponsorship had now spread to every nook and corner of Pakistan. And during that era, sectarian terror groups like Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi were created, and Shias became another Jihadi target in Pakistan after Ahmadis, Christians and Hindus. Thousands have been killed in the merciless sectarian violence during last few decades. Leaders of these terror groups roam free around the country. Pakistani Supreme Court recently released Malik Ishaq, leader of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, an Al-Qaeda allied banned outfit.

One ethnic minority group under routine sectarian attacks in Pakistan is the Hazaras of Quetta. According to media reports and human rights organizations, more than 700 members of this community of 600,000 people have been killed since 2001. LeJ claims responsibility for all attacks. The previously targeted attacks on professionals and activists have now taken a new merciless turn on ordinary people with suicide attacks in residential areas.

Their visible racial features make them a turkey-shoot for LeJ operatives who are on a killing spree with impunity. Victims from Quetta tell me the routine attacks have traumatized people. The besieged minority community members have stopped traveling from one part of the city to another. Thousands have migrated abroad, many taking the deadly routes to western countries through illegal ways to seek asylum. Over a hundred have been killed in recent incidents of boat-drowning in sea waters of Indonesia and Australia.

The extent of violence has affected an entire ethnic minority group. In the poorest region of Pakistan, when the only breadwinner is killed, the entire family suffers as no one remains to feed them. Locals tell me they are living under constant threat and fear.  In a spate of attacks during last three weeks, about 40 Hazaras have been killed.

The question is, how can Pakistan’s security institutions fail to stop such a systematic killing which some have started calling a genocide-in-making? A bunch of sectarian terrorists besiege an entire community, and the whole state security apparatus fail. It is mind blowing. A humanitarian crisis is unfolding before the civilized world, but they have chosen to close their eyes and remain silent about it. In 21^st century, such a brutal persecution of a minority group is nothing less than the severity of Jewish Holocaust under Nazis.

It is not mere failure of Pakistani security institutions.  Quetta is the provincial capital of Balochistan. Pakistan Army has a Corp of over 60,000 troops stationed in the city. The strong military intelligence Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has its regional station there.  The city is also home to headquarters of the paramilitary Frontier Corps and Police. Victims accuse, if it is not complicity, how a bunch of LeJ terrorists can kill with impunity in such huge presence of security institutions. I cannot believe that Pakistani intelligence agencies are unaware of the hideouts of LeJ operatives.  But not a single killer has been prosecuted in last ten years of consecutive systematic killings.

Due to lack of coverage of such a horrible humanitarian crisis in international media, there has not been due reaction. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have released several reports about the crisis, but the champions of human rights in Western capitals have chosen to remain silent.

There have been protest demonstrations across cities in Europe, Australia and Asian countries during last two weeks. Former British Home Secretary and current Labour MP Alan Johnson joined such a protest in London on Monday, April 30. He said, “I am here to stand in solidarity with Hazaras who face ethnic cleaning in Balochistan yet the government of Pakistan is showing no concern. In the last 10 years more than 700 Hazaras have been killed which is a scandal. The government doesn’t seem concerned and has shown no interest in catching the killers.” Another demo is organized on May 4 in front of the UN Headquarters in New York. The international community should raise voice to pressurize the Pakistani Government and stop a genocide-in-making in 21^st century.

Our Brothers

Outlook Afghanistan op-ed published April 24, 2012

The recent Taliban attacks targeting Western embassies and parliament in Kabul, and government buildings in other provinces on April 15 has caused a revived confidence, support and pride of ordinary Afghans for our National Security Forces. The fact that Special Forces units and police gunned down 36 terrorists with minimum ISAF air support and least civilian and security forces’ casualties show the increasing capability of our forces, particularly the elite Special Forces units who are no less in performance than special operation forces of other regional countries.

It took the Special Service Group (SSG) of Pakistan Army nineteen hours to clear the Generals Headquarters in Rawalpindi when it came under attack in October 2009 by a group of nine militants. Nine commandos and three civilians were killed. Similarly, the bunch of LeT terrorists took Mumbai city hostage for three days killing 164 people in 2008 attacks. Of course the Afghan forces cannot be compared, but we have to keep in mind that It has been just a decade that the Afghan Security Forces were established. The Special Forces units are as new as a few years. But they have been performing extraordinary.

There is a perception that our forces are being trained by the best military mentors—NATO—in the world, but the US strategy of building Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) during the last ten years has had deep flaws, mainly focusing quantity rather than quality. Even now with the rush of withdrawal strategy, they are still reluctant to build our Air Force and provide ANSF with best equipment. The Special Operations units have been trained well and we see the result. It is a separate topic to be addressed.

In the war of perception, the latest attacks in Kabul generated greater support for ANSF among ordinary Afghans. For the first time, I see volunteer youth groups campaigning to cover the walls of Kabul with billboards, posters and banners praising ANSF with pride. The larger public perception was reflected in media reports. The widespread photo of one commando with his bloodied knees after the fight with insurgents has emerged as a symbol of ordinary Afghan’s pride and confidence in our troops. One particular photo viral on social media among Afghans portrayed something deeper than symbolic heroism. A photo of Taliban suicide bomber in women dressing was titled “Karzai’s Brother”, next to the photo of the wounded commando titled “Our Brother”.

Actually it’s not surprising that President Karzai, despite the continued bloodshed of militants, once again called them “brothers”, a day after the April 15 attacks. If I was a soldier with ANSF, I would wonder why I am fighting the “brothers” of my Commander-in-Chief.

In spite of all its problems of lack of professionalism and resources, the ideology and will to fight the enemy is the most important factor to hold our national security forces strong institutionally. Some analysts fear disintegration of ANSF after the US and NATO withdrawal in 2014 and our descent into chaos. With such a Commander-in-Chief, the concerns of fragility of our forces are very valid. When our President calls militants—who our forces are trained to fight—”brothers” in public, the definition of enemy gets blurred. And this cracks the very foundation of our security institutions.

When the news flashed on screens that Kandahar MP Naeem Lalai Hamidzai has taken position on the rooftop of parliament and fighting next to ANA troops against the militants who had stormed an under-construction building beside parliament, I was glad. I thought it was an important but symbolic public message of showing support to our forces by fighting beside them against the enemy.

However, later I watched the video of MP Lalai Hamidzai holding a machinegun, with a cup of green tea put beside him, opening burst of firing to every direction. A group of ANA soldiers and his private guards are laughing, while an officer on walky-talky urging the MP to stop firing as it could kill police who were engaged with militants inside the building, while one of Hamidzai’s guards filming all this drama. Then I realized it was a publicity stunt, as stupid as the Taliban commander in Paktika who had turned self in for $100-reward on ‘wanted’ poster.

President Karzai’s public remarks about his “brothers” are no surprise as he does not trust ANSF. Former NDS Chief Amrullah Saleh in an excellent analysis of politicization of our security forces on BBC Farsi and Al Jazeera has written; ”When the president ventures out to pay a visit to a unit of the national police, national army, or intelligence, his personal security detail, called the President Protection Service (PPS), disarms everyone in advance. It sends the message that the only loyal unit to the president and the system is the PPS, comprised of 750 people who guard and protect him.”

The latest Taliban attack is a late reminder that our National Security Forces have been long deprived of the much-important, even if symbolic, public support. It is a reminder that we, ordinary Afghans, need to rally mass awareness campaign of support for our security forces, no matter if our President blurs the difference between “brother” and enemy.

Budget Rejection

The parliament has rejected proposed budget for 1391 for the second time on Monday. It was first rejected on March 18 asking the Finance Ministry for some amendments. The quorum was 126 MPs, out of whom 123 voted against the proposed budget, while only 3 approved of it. MPs were mostly critical of the bailout package for Kabul Bank and uneven allocations of development funds for provinces against the constitutional term of equal and balanced development for all parts of the country.

Following are some major points of contention mentioned in the official disapproval letter of Wolesi Jirga to Finance Ministry:

• Bailout package for Kabul Bank is illegal and cannot be endorsed
• The “balanced development” principle is violated in provincial budgets distribution.
• More appropriate amount of budget should be allocated for Ministry of Education and Ministry of Higher Education.

Last year when Finance Minister Zakhilwal was under fire from MPs about the $73million bailout package for Kabul Bank, he had promised to recompense the payment, but not only the government has taken no action against all those who were responsible for the corruption that led to collapse of Kabul Bank, rather the Finance Ministry has once again come up with an unbelievably ridiculous bailout package of $80million this year. No serious progress has been made in the investigation and trial of Kabul Bank shareholders. It was their irregularities and corruption that almost took the banking system down in the country.  Now why should the taxpayers’ money go to recover the amount gone to luxurious villas of Dubai? The bigwigs in the Government who were shareholders of Kabul Bank have not paid their loans back. The influential ones were not even charged for an investigation and trial.

The huge amount allocated for the Supreme Court and Attorney General’s office is also criticized by MPs. Another major point of contention is the budget for Presidential Palace, particularly the allocation for security. The amount for security guards of the Palace is more than the budget for parliament! Its more than the amount of budget allocated for many ministries. The amount for budget of Presidential security and Palace administrative expenses is about $80 million, while for the entire Ministry of Commerce and Trade its $14million and Ministry of Women Affairs $4million.So more than $15million of the Palace budget is allocated for Presidential Protection Service, which alone surpasses the amount for many ministries combined.

Though the Finance Ministry after first rejection of the budget by parliament amended with addition of $2 million for the Ministry of Higher Education, $2 million for Health Ministry and $5 million for the road construction projects in Herat that MPs had asked for, but other major changes requested about the Kabul Bank bailout package and “balanced development” for provinces have been ignored.

MPs should have a special sessions on the Palace budget and discuss legislative introductions. The amount for Presidential Office constitute more than one percent of our all national budget. President Karzai is the only President in the world who has more than 100 advisors. According to an investigative report by Afghan journalist Malyar Sadiq Azad of 1TV, President Karzai has 110 advisers, most of whom rarely see him. Each of them get $5000 monthly salary with luxurious benefits. They enjoy a vehicle, two body guards, three service personnel and other benefits. Some of them have been allotted luxurious villas in Sherpur, while others have offices in Shashdarak paying 12000 USD rent monthly. More than $4million is allocated for salaries of the army of Karzai’s advisers. Only 10 of these advisors meet the President regularly and are asked for actual advice on affairs of the Government, while the remaining 100 are fill-in-the-blanks in Karzai’s patronage politics of networking to buy power brokers and regional influential figures and a waste of the national budget.

The objection on imbalanced development budget allocated for provinces is not new. For the last several years, budget gets rejected for this reason. The parliament should take a more practical step by bringing a no-confidence motion against Finance Minister Zakhilwal.

Our rulers have no regard for democratic institutions. The Presidential Palace does not give a damn about resolutions of the parliament. It again proves that the nature of centrality of power to one person in our administrative system is the root cause of an incapable government that has failed the system.

The Government is violating the Constitution by ignoring some clauses on balanced development. Some provinces have been receiving all the attention and mega-million projects in the last decade, but the poorest parts of the country have been totally ignored.

The parliament is doing what it should do. If the Government had taken the parliament serious, the budget draft proposal should not have been rejected for second time. But in a country like Afghanistan, the Government will not shut down even if the budget approval takes months as it was the case last year. The Government must respect the representatives of masses and Constitution, and not make a mockery of the system.

Kandahar Massacre: Their Disregard and Our Hypocrisy

Much have been written and said about the Kandahar massacre. The American soldier Robert Bales has been officially charged with 17 counts of murder, six counts of assault and attempted murder. In an interview to a US radio, the journalist told me Bales’ lawyer wants to visit Panjwai and “investigate” family members of those murdered. He says actions of his “clients” were not premeditated, and Bales has history of brain injury and does not fully understand the allegations against him.

Family members of the victims have been paid ‘assistance’ money of $50,000 for each of the slain, and $11,000 for injured by the US. The Afghan Government had earlier compensated the victims with $2000 for each murdered, and $1000 for those injured. A Government delegation visited the families and offered condolence. They came under a Taliban attack briefly in the area. I happened to see a video of the incident, in which an angry local villager was asking an ANA soldier to give him his weapon to fight with those who had attacked. The delegation included two brothers of President Karzai, Chief of Army Staff and other senior Government officials.

The US military and civilian officials have responded irresponsibly to this tragic incident. Regardless of the controversy that Robert Bales was alone or it was a group of soldiers who went to the houses and killed 16 people, it would have been proper if some senior US officials had joined the Afghan delegation to offer condolence to elders of the area during the funeral. I wonder what the cultural and religious advisors of the US military do. Later a group of area elders and family members of the victims were invited to Kabul by President Karzai. The US military and Embassy officials did not bother to meet them for a formal condolence offering. It might sound ridiculous from an ordinary Western perspective, but it got symbolic and traditional importance in our part of the world, when the guilty side visits the victims during funeral and offer sincere apology.

In contrary, the US officials and media were talking more about reaction and protests across Afghanistan, rather than looking into the human side of this tragic incident. My friend Ahmad Shuja puts it in the following words:

“The debate following the Kandahar massacre shows that Americans at home and in Afghanistan still don’t quite understand the meaning of events in that country. Domestically, the calls for a swifter withdrawal is not only divorced from the realities of logistical constraints but also display a reckless disregard for the negative consequences of a hasty pullout on Afghans. In Afghanistan, an instinct of fear pervades the US and ISAF reaction, which leads them to ignore the grief of the victims.

This approach is precisely the wrong one because disregarding the human suffering and concentrating on “Afghan anger” and threat of a “backlash” dehumanizes the people affected by this incident and paints them not as victims but as potential aggressors. From a practical standpoint, it is especially counterproductive that the mission charged with protecting the civilians is taking the fear approach, because it separates them from the population and prevents a more human connection with the population in grief.”

The ignorance is not exclusive to the US military and civilian officials and political elite. Another friend Josh Shahryar has summarized the disregard of the victims of Kandahar by the mainstream US media in following words:

“What disgusts me as an Afghan is the degree to which the victims of this massacre have been ignored. Imagine if this was a serial killer who committed this crime in a suburb of Chicago? By now, you’d have pictures of every victim, published in neat collages in every major newspaper in the US. The US mainstream media has people on the ground in Afghanistan. They also have access. Yet they have not documented names or pictures or stories. Afghan tragedies have been left for Afghans to cover, even when that tragedy is caused by an American.”

Josh points to an editorial on the Kandahar massacre published by the National Review Online referring to Afghans as “primitive”, and says:

“An American soldier goes to Afghanistan and massacres 16 civilians inside their homes, then burns their bodies. And we are the ones who are primitive”.

Almost a week after the incident, Wall Street Journal has been the only US media outlet to have interviewed the victims in Panjwai. Seeing the way mainstream US media have covered this massacre, I am not surprised that Robert Bales’ lawyer actually wants to visit Afghanistan and “investigate” family members of the victims for his “client”. There is little doubt Bales’ action were not premeditated. But his lawyer will try best to prove that Bales has mental problems and should go away with 16 murders.

In Afghanistan, people have been patient and there were no riots as feared by US officials and media pundits. But Afghan media should highlight the hypocrisy of our political and religious leadership and ordinary people regarding our reaction on such issues.

Taliban kill civilians every day. A day after the Panjwai massacre, an IED by the Taliban killed 5 women and 4 children in Uruzgan. The next day a blast killed several innocent people in Helmand. Taliban blow up mosques, they are responsible for majority of civilian casualties, but I remember only few cases in which people took to streets chanting against Taliban atrocities. If only President Karzai would have invited victims of any of the daily Taliban atrocities, media had highlighted in the way they reported Panjwai massacre, and people had protested like the riots after Quran burning, Taliban would think twice before sending a suicide bomber and killing civilians. If the US officials and media have shown utter disregard and ignorance, our hypocrisy has not been less in degree. Rather our collective hypocrisy has been more harmful than their disregard.