Afghanistan's 17% mandate

The 17% Mandate

During Afghanistan's Aug. 20 election, one-third of the registered voters turned out and, of those, roughly half cast their ballots for Hamid Karzai, the incumbent and recently declared winner.

Let's do the math: Half of one-third yields about 17%. [That's democracy?]

This means, 17% of registered voters cast their ballots for Karzai, which of course doesn't count those who were not registered. But, I suppose, in any democratic country, those who don't register are assumed by analysts to be too lazy to vote, too busy to vote, or (too?) willing to accept the mandate of their voting peers.

But that "analysis" doesn't take into account the use of indelible purple ink. Interesting story, that. In its infinite wisdom, the Afghan election authorities (chosen by - guess who? - Karzai) mandated that those who vote have to have a finger dipped in (supposedly) indelible purple ink to prevent them from voting twice.

Doesn't that sound a little strange to you? I mean, if the Taliban was trying to discourage voting, why mark these voters for their convenience?

I can see two possible reasons:

• If voters in areas controlled by Taliban wouldn't turn out to vote, due to having to be marked so conspicuously, Karzai supporters manning those polling stations could stuff the ballot boxes without running the risk of overstuffing (that is, having more Karzai votes cast than voters eligible to vote at those stations).

• Not all "indelible" inks are created equal. Ground observers report that in certain areas, ink was provided which was easily washed off, allowing voters to cast multiple ballots. All Karzai had to do was provide the truly-indelible ink in his opponents' strongholds.

President Obammer* congratulates this cheater

We are treated to the spectacle of President Obammer* saying, "I congratulated [my emphasis] him on his election for a second term as president of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan."

However, I must hasten to add: Obammer* and Karzai are comparable in at least one way, as discernible by this clue:

"Karzai promises reform - but without specifics" - title of article posted by the Associated Press today.

Karzai and Obammer* are weak on specifics: Karzai promises reform without specifics, while Obammer* promised change you can believe in - also without specifics. Such similarities are not mere coincidence but are manifestations of the law of karma. Too bad. It didn't have to be this way. There was an alternative:

We would have been out of Afghanistan by now had I been elected US President. Actually, we would have been completely out before the end of April 2009. According to Point TWO of my legally-enforceable, 47-point contract:

QUOTE:

Within 90 days of my inauguration, all U.S. military forces will be completely withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of the "situation on the ground." This withdrawal also applies to any covert operatives currently operating in Iran.

[My entire contract is at http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle-for-us-president ]

:UNQUOTE.

Too much democracy

Maybe the United States and the rest of the civilized world community (the part that counts) can gloat about a 17% mandate. Maybe Hillary Clinton can spin, as a good thing, an election handed to an incumbent resulting from a "personal decision" made by the chief opponent.  This conveniently overlooks that opponent's charge that the runoff election could not be fairly run.

I wonder, though, how much pressure President Karzai could possibly feel from his base in the future. He still has in place the mechanism to cheat and will have, without doubt, the continued blessing of the United States and allies to use this mechanism. Who's going to stop him? Especially with our troops there to enforce his will?

Oh well, we're not too keen on democracy ourselves. Not really. Or at least, our elites aren't. Why else do you think the institution of the US Senate was created? Answer: To thwart the will of the people. Though our quaint history books tell us: "...to prevent an emotional public from getting carried away." Right...

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"We have too much work which needs to be done at home to be farting around in Afghanistan. And we'd be healthy enough to do it had my Single Payer health insurance plan passed, financed in large part by our cessation of war games in the Middle East. What's that, you say? Hot off the presses: US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won't commit to passing a US health-care overhaul this year. Oh, well. As they say in politics, "stuff happens" or doesn't, as the case may be - which isn't exactly change, but you can definitely believe in it" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.