Kabul, 23 April, 2011 — Upon recommendation from the Supreme Court and approval of the President, a special elections court was formed on December 15, 2010 to investigate issues after the Wolesi Jirga elections.

The Court’s members consisted of five Supreme Court justices and 10 administrative personnel. In its first press conference on December 20, 2010, the chairperson of the Court called it a special court and said it was a legal entity based on Article 32 of the Law on the Organization and Jurisdiction of Courts. The formation of the Court elicited varying reactions. The members of the Wolesi Jirga called the formation of the elections court against the Constitution and electoral laws, while the objecting candidates welcomed its establishment.

Keeping in view the preservation of the integrity of the electoral system in the country, the Free and Fair Elections Foundation of Afghanistan (FEFA) expressed its deep concerns in a press release on December 16, 2010. FEFA called any form of interference or decision from the judiciary about the election’s process and results as contravening the law and electoral guidelines, asserting that the legal authority to investigate electoral concerns and announce election results lies only with electoral bodies. FEFA asserted its position through active participation in television and radio panels in the national and international media and called on the judicial organs to respect the country’s electoral system.

Immediately after the Special Court began its work on January 14, 2011, the Supreme Court, through letter no. 108 dated January 18, 2011, requested a number of offices to send representatives to participate in the work of the Special Court and strengthen its functions. Recipients of this letter included the electoral institutions (IEC and ECC provincial offices), FEFA, the provincial governor’s offices, the Ulema Council, the Directorates of the Provincial Councils, the directorates of pilgrimage and endowment, directorates of Education, the provincial Police Chief’s offices, National Directorate of Security, the Appeal Prosecution offices, provincial justice directorates , the AIHRC, UNAMA, and the Provincial Appeal Courts. In an official letter dated December 23, 2010, FEFA declined to join the group because of the nature of the group’s work, but expressed its willingness to participate in an exchange of ideas on solving the crisis.

Accordingly, in a meeting between the chairperson of the Special Court and FEFA’s executive director, FEFA presented its recommendations, which were premised on respect for the electoral system and limiting the Court’s decrees only to cases with clear evidence of criminal misconduct. FEFA stressed that it would support the Court’s decrees if the nature of its work does not harm the electoral framework but instead focuses on investigating instances of criminal misconduct during the elections.

In a press conference on January 6, 2011, the Special Court’s chairperson Sediqullah Haqeeq said that the Court received a total of 430 cases from the Attorney General and the objecting candidates. He said that upon examination, the Court had placed 30 of the cases in the Priority A category, 65 cases in Priority B, and 127 cases in Priority C. The cases included non-responsiveness to candidates’ complaints, widespread irregularities during the election process and not counting the votes cast in favor of some candidates.

Recounts Begin

After the press conference, the Court was expected to continue, despite pressures, to work on its original mandate: the investigation of criminal misconduct. But soon enough, on January 14, 2011, pursuant to an order from the Court, recounting of votes began in Takhar, Jawzjan, Paktia, Paktika, Sar-e Pul, Logar, Laghman, Kapisa, Parwan, Kunar, Nuristan and Khost. Recounting then extended to all provinces except Panjshir.

FEFA called this action by the Court illegal, expressing that the Court’s jurisdiction is only limited to investigation of criminal misconduct during the elections. FEFA said the recount was a clear interference in the electoral process. FEFA expressed its deep concerns about the beginning of a wrong precedent that could severely undermine the legitimacy of elections in the future, calling once again upon the Court to cease its illegal work.

FEFA’s Observation of the Recount in the Provinces

Since FEFA had declined to participate in the work of the Special Court, it was extremely difficult to directly observe the recount. In spite of this, FEFA made efforts to indirectly observe the process by speaking to representatives of the candidates and other parties involved in the recount.

FEFA devised a special interview format, instructing its observers to follow special procedures in collecting information from candidates’ representatives and officials involved in the recount. The format included a standard set of questions about the nature of the recount in the provinces.

The findings of FEFA’s observers did not include figures or statistics because observers did not witness the recounting firsthand, but the findings paint an overall picture of the process characterized by disorganization and lack of transparency. Procedures for the recount were not established beforehand in any of the provinces, and those involved in recount were not trained. In most provinces it was observed that representatives of the organs forming the provincial recount staff constantly changed. For example, a representative attending the recount today was replaced by another the next day.

It was also observed in most provinces that a final, official copy of the tally of votes from a specific ballot box was not provided to the representatives of candidates and others involved in the recount.

In some provinces, serious discrepancies were observed between the votes cast and the tallies of votes on the results sheet, indicating that some fraud occurred in favor of the objecting candidates. The most conspicuous instances of this occurred in the city of Maimana and Belcheragh District in Faryab; in the city of Cheghcheran and Doleina District in Ghor; in the city of Zaranj in Nimroz; in the districts of Wozah Zadran, Zurmat, Haji Aryub and Ahmadaba in Paktia; and in the districts of Pachira Gam and Hisarak Ghilzai in Nanarhar.

During recounting it has been repeatedly observed that the discrepancies between the recount numbers and the number of votes in the ballot boxes of those objecting candidates who did not have complaints or representatives present during recounting, were not tallied and recorded. The most conspicuous examples of this occurred in Ghor, Nangarhar, Takhar, Khost, Kabul, Baghlan, Paktia, Jawzjan, Balkh, Badakhshan and Faryab.

Information also indicates that ballot boxes disqualified or quarantined by the Electoral Complaints Commission or the Independent Elections Commission due to clear fraud were not kept separate from ballot boxes deemed suspect by the Special Court. Similarly, ballot boxes that were disqualified due to clear fraud were counted and included in the results. Notable examples of this occurred in Maimana City and districts of Qaisar, Shirin Tagab, Pashtun Kot and Khwaja Sabz Posh in Faryab; Ajristan District in Ghazni; districts of Darra-e Souf-e Bala and Darra-e Souf-e Payeen in Samangan; Achin District in Nangarhar; Wozah Zadran District in Paktia; Zaranj City in Nimroz; and capital of khost Province.

Nonetheless, with the exception of Panjshir – which was not part of the original list of provinces to be recounted – the recount is complete in 32 provinces. Recount in the Kabul Province is near completion. The recount continues despite calls from Wolesi Jirga that the Special Court be dissolved based on Article 127 of the Constitution.

On March 22, 2011, Wolesi Jirga called the Attorney General for a question-and-answer session on the Court’s illegal work, calling him subsequently for interpellation. However, the Attorney General refused to come to Wolesi Jirga and deemed the interpellation unconstitutional.

Implications of the Ongoing Controversy

The heightening of tension among the three entities –the attorney general, the legislature and the judiciary– has increased concerns among the people and civil society organizations. Yet, no one seems to be heeding the larger negative consequences if the results of the recount are announced. Several important questions still remain, and the Special Court must address the hypotheticals these questions pose before announcing the results.

1. What would be the mechanism to deal with two candidates (objecting candidate and current MP) receiving an equal number of votes from a precinct after the recount? The lottery mechanism would not fair in such circumstance.

2. What is the procedure for handling instances where the vote totals on the official tally differ from that recorded by the representatives of candidates during the recount? And if more candidates object to the results of the recount, will another court be created and another recount ordered? And will this process drag onto a third special court? Or will the announcement of the results of the first recount be postponed due to these concerns?

3. Based on what mechanism will instances of criminal misconduct be distinguished from electoral violations? And if a winning candidate is accused of criminal misconduct, will he be able to retain his seat until the criminal court reaches a verdict? According to the Special Court’s latest announcement, such verdicts will be appealable up to the third tier; as such, expelling an elected parliamentarian before the verdict of the third court is illegal and against the principal of parliamentary immunity. The same hypothetical also applies to winning candidates who may have to vacate their seats for their objecting counterparts based on the decision of the Special Court. Another related question is how the Court will deal with instances where the objecting candidates are accused of criminal misconduct during the recount.

4. And, more importantly, how will it impact the country’s situation if, based on the Court’s findings, 30, 50, or 100 winning candidates are asked to vacate their seats for their objecting counterparts? What if the Court’s orders are not implemented? Who will be responsible for the potential negative consequences of all of this – the heads of the judiciary, executive and legislative in general, or the president?

FEFA’s Recommendations

Increased animosity between Wolesi Jirga, the Supreme Court and the Attorney General will further harm the standing of the government nationally and internationally. It is therefore in the interest of the three parties to prevent the further escalation of the current political crisis and come to a mutually agreeable solution.

FEFA not only deems the formation of the Special Court a damaging step in the wrong direction on electoral reform, but also holds that a transparent and acceptable result cannot be achieved from a recount with serious technical flaws in all of the provinces. FEFA recommends that the Special Court abstain from announcing the results of the recount and be dissolved immediately. Cases of serious criminal wrongdoing can and should be dealt with through the regular judicial channels.

Kabul, 25 March, 2011– Afghanistan’s leading women’s organizations should be included in the electoral reform process to ensure women’s concerns are not overlooked during elections, the Free and Fair Election Foundation (FEFA) said in a report released Thursday.

The 18-page report, titled ‘Women and Afghanistan’s 2010 Parliamentary Elections,’ details women’s experiences during every phase of last year’s disputed elections, from candidate registration through the seating of the new parliament. The report highlights serious shortfalls in the electoral system regarding women’s political rights and democratic participation. It calls for women’s organizations to be included from the outset of the electoral reform process due to begin next month with the creation of an electoral reform working group.

“Women’s concerns during elections must be addressed during the reform process,” said FEFA executive director Jandad Spinghar. “If women are left out of these important decisions, electoral reform will be incomplete and unsuccessful.”

Although women ran for office in record numbers during the 2010 parliamentary elections, FEFA’s observers found that women faced greater obstacles than men did when registering to vote, lodging official complaints against candidates and in obtaining protection from law enforcement. Neither the Independent Election Commission nor the Electoral Complaints Commission was able to recruit enough women staff and shortages in provincial election offices had an especially restrictive effect on the participation of women from rural areas.

Escalating armed conflict also encroached on women’s political participation. The campaigns of women candidates in 2010 were more constrained by insecurity than the campaigns of male candidates, and women threatened by insurgents and local powerbrokers received only grudging support from law enforcement according to FEFA’s observers nationwide.

Women candidates were threatened and harassed by insurgents, powerbrokers, rival candidates and prejudiced members of their own communities. They were subjected to anonymous phone threats, Taliban night letters, and accusations of religious and sexual impropriety from rival candidates and clerics.

In light of the widespread intimidation and harassment aimed at women during the 2010 elections, an inclusive approach to electoral security planning is needed for future elections, FEFA said, calling on the security agencies to carry out individual security assessments for all candidates in advance of the next campaign season.

The results of the violent and disputed 2010 elections were mixed for Afghan women. The second parliament includes 69 women parliamentarians –one more than its predecessor– but fewer sitting women parliamentarians were top vote-getters this time.

Reform is urgently needed to protect fragile gains in women’s political rights, FEFA said. When the electoral reform working group is established, the largest and most active women’s organizations in the country should be given not only a seat at the table but also a real say in decision-making. International donors should also support long-term civic education for women and initiatives to boost the numbers and skills of women observers and election workers.

“Women are half our population,” Spinghar said. “Our democracy will not move forward if they are left behind.”

Kabul, 26 January, 2011 – The Free and Fair Election Foundation welcomed the inauguration of parliament Wednesday, following the resolution of a months-long standoff between the electoral institutions and the presidential palace.

“We welcome this outcome, which reaffirms the constitutional separation of powers and the checks and balances that are fundamental to any democratic state,” said FEFA chairman Nader Nadery. “Now, the new parliament must serve the people of Afghanistan honestly, transparently and in a manner that respects the great risks voters took on Election Day. It is also important that investigations into serious election crimes continue through the proper legal channels.”

Wednesday’s inauguration seemed uncertain just days before. The post-election political crisis gained momentum last week when the president announced that the already long-delayed inauguration of the parliament would be postponed until February 22 to give a special election dispute court more time to investigate complaints by losing candidates from the 2010 elections.

In response, more than 200 of the 249 parliamentarians-elect banded together and vowed to open the new legislative session with or without the president’s approval, and to convene in an alternative venue if they were barred access to the assembly chambers. Under Afghanistan’s constitution and electoral law, the special court, a chamber of the High Court created at the behest of the president, has no jurisdiction over electoral disputes. Only the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) has the authority to adjudicate electoral disputes, and criminal cases should be channeled through the criminal justice system.

The president ended the confrontation by announcing that the new parliament would be inaugurated on Wednesday. The ceremony went ahead as scheduled, opening the legislature’s five-year term. During the 2010 parliamentary elections, FEFA’s nearly 7,000 observers recorded hundreds of instances of candidates intimidating rivals and voters, violating election laws, and orchestrating violence. FEFA submitted extensive documentation of many of these cases to the ECC. “Today’s inauguration prevented the escalation of a political crisis, but it should not become a victory for impunity,” Nadery said.

In the wake of this second disputed national election, FEFA has called on the Afghan government and its international partners to immediately begin the process of reforming Afghanistan’s electoral system for future elections.

Kabul, 25 December, 2010– Most Kabul province candidates during this year’s parliamentary election campaigns drastically under-reported their campaign expenditures to the Independent Election Commission (IEC) and many engaged in vote buying and abused state resources, the Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan (FEFA) said in a report released on December 16.

FEFA, which monitored the campaigns of 22 candidates in Kabul, found that 62 percent of those candidates reported campaign expenditures smaller than what observers recorded through parallel expenditure tracking.  On average, the difference between the candidates’ reported expenditures and figures monitors calculated through parallel expense tracking was 3,700,000 Afghanis, or approximately $82,155.

For some candidates, the gap between reported and actual campaign expenditures was even more dramatic. One candidate FEFA followed throughout the campaign season reported spending 1, 798,00 Afghanis , $39,708, while campaign finance monitors calculated that this candidate spent 11,019,000 Afghanis, $243,352, on banners, posters and billboards alone. He later won a seat in the next parliament.

Vote buying in different forms was widely documented by monitors. The most common form of vote buying was candidates offering services or cash to influential individuals who could organize community bulk votes for specific candidates.

In some areas of Kabul, candidates donated money to construct or renovate mosques, and, in exchange, mullahs were expected to campaign for the candidate, especially during Friday prayers. Community elders were also paid to obtain bulk votes. One candidate paid $1,000 to two community elders of Qala-e-Wahid in District 13 to secure the support of that village.

Local non-profit organizations were implicated in some instances of vote buying. Monitors reported that one organization, which had previously distributed voter ID cards in impoverished neighborhoods, later reclaimed the voter I.D. cards in exchange for 30 Afghanis each. The organization then sold thousands of these cards to candidates and gave a small portion of profits to the original card holders. Another charitable organization distributed food in exchange of 700 voter I.D. cards for a specific candidate linked to the organization.

Despite bans on government officials taking part in campaigns, FEFA’s field monitors documented misuses of authority and state resources at every level of government. Ministers, heads of district councils, education administrators, and other officials assisted the campaigns of their chosen candidates.

One minister was observed his relative, a Kabul candidate, to use government vehicles for campaign transport. The minister also encourages his staff to vote for his favorite candidate and ordered subordinates to make government facilities available to the candidate.

The police showed similar disregard for electoral regulations banning their participation in campaigns and were observed participating in campaign rallies while on duty and in uniform. In one case, monitors documented police officers obstructing the movement of their favored candidate’s rival in order to disrupt the rival’s campaign activities.

FEFA launched the ‘Monitoring Campaign Finance in the 2010 Wolesi Jirga Elections’ project before the start of the campaign season with the support of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES). The project was the first of its kind in Afghanistan and aimed to examine candidates’ compliance with electoral regulations regarding expenditures and state resources.

In its final report from the project, FEFA laid out recommendations for future elections, including stricter sanctions for candidates caught violating campaign finance regulations, increased efforts to educate candidates and IEC staff about existing regulations, and wider campaign finance monitoring by civil society.

Kabul, 24 November, 2010– As Afghanistan’s largest domestic election monitor, the Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghansitan (FEFA) observed numerous irregularities at every stage of this year’s electoral process, from the nomination of candidates through the adjudication of complaints. With the final results of the parliamentary elections announced, it is time for all stakeholders to commit to and begin the process of electoral reform.

The electoral process of 2010 has reached its end, but present momentum for reforming the broken electoral system must be maintained for the sake of Afghanistan’s democracy. The fact that so many voters and candidates feel injustice at the conclusion of this fourth national election underscores the necessity and urgency of systemic change.

The electoral institutions should conduct their work with greater transparency, the procedure for vetting candidates for ties to illegal armed groups should be overhauled, observers and candidates’ representatives should be given greater access to all processes of elections, greater protection must be provided to threatened individuals involved in the electoral process at all stages of the process, and the independence and technical capacities of the electoral institutions must be strengthened.

There is no time to waste. If reform is to be successful for future elections, it must begin now and address the concerns of all aggrieved parties.

Kabul – November 2010

Introduction

After verifying hundreds of serious reports of Election Day irregularities, FEFA headquarters staff prepared packages of evidence and information and submitted these packages to the Independent Election Commission (IEC) and Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) for follow-up. In keeping with its mission to observe every phase of this year’s elections, FEFA ensured its observers were present during ballot counting, tallying, and recounting as well. This short report summarizes FEFA’s post-Election Day observation activities and findings and makes recommendations to stakeholders for improving the final stages of the electoral process.

Submission of Information and Evidence Regarding Election Day Irregularities

FEFA’s first evidence package went to the IEC and ECC on September 23 and contained information regarding cases involving 400 polling centers in 28 provinces. The second package went out on October 6 and contained information regarding 490 cases in 31 provinces. The third package included 693 detailed, written accounts from observers and 13 CDs of video and photographic evidence of irregularities. In total, FEFA has submitted evidence on 890 serious cases in 31 provinces to both electoral bodies. Most of these cases involved ballot-stuffing, intimidation of voters, use of fake voter cards, and proxy voting.

Intimidation of Observers

Since Election Day, several FEFA observers have been threatened by candidates, candidates’ agents, and powerbrokers. Observers involved in submitting evidence of fraud have received threats in at least 6 provinces. A powerbroker candidate in one province sent gunmen to the home of a FEFA observer and threatened the observer in person. In another province, agents of a senior national political figure made threatening phone calls to a FEFA district coordinator.

FEFA has reported these incidents to the local police where safe to do so, and to the security institutions at the provincial and national levels where necessary.

Comparison of Results Sheets with Results Published by the IEC

According to electoral regulation, at least 4 results sheets are supposed to be prepared for each polling station. One sheet is placed in the document pouch of the Tamper-Evident Bag (TEB), one is stored in the IEC provincial warehouse, one is posted near the polling station for general viewing, and one is given to observers and candidates’ agents. However, in more than half of all polling stations covered by FEFA observers, IEC staff prepared only 3 copies of the results sheet and did not give any to observers and candidates’ agents. According to observers, most of the posted results sheets were immediately seized by candidates, preventing voters from checking the results immediately after counting.

Nevertheless, observers were able to send 782 results sheets to headquarters and FEFA compared these sheets with the results later published on the IEC website. Of the sheets FEFA obtained, 248 were blank, 28 were altered in some way (for example: results erased or crossed out) and 81 did not match those published online by the IEC.

Tallying

Four phases comprise the tallying process. In phase 1, TEBs are delivered and opened. In phase 2, suspicious and incomplete shipments are inspected. In phase 3, decisions are taken to quarantine suspicious TEBs. In phase 4, the results sheets are scanned, databased, and uploaded to the IEC website.

FEFA observers were present in the tally center to witness the inspection of 5,583 Tamper-Evident Bags (TEBs) from across the country. Article 57 of Afghanistan’s Electoral Law states that the IEC “can include or permanently exclude the quarantined ballot boxes from the counting process after inspection in the presence of observers and representatives of political parties and candidates.” However, IEC staff granted observers only limited access to the processes of phases 2 and 3 of tallying, and observers were not able to determine whether tallying proceeded according to the electoral regulations for every TEB.

From the observation they were able to conduct, FEFA observers reported serious problems with 442 TEBs including: TEBs returned to the tally center out of their original boxes, tally sheets and complaints forms missing from TEBs, and TEBs returned without identifying documentation. When observers asked IEC staff present to explain the absence of tally sheets, the IEC staff refused to provide explanations.

Recounting

FEFA observers monitored recounting the recounting of 1,828 ballot boxes from 29 provinces. For ballot boxes from at least 23 provinces, observers reported serious recounting problems such as missing reconciliation sheets and complaints forms, obvious discrepancies between tally sheet totals and votes contained in recounted ballot boxes, candidates’ agents blocked from observing recounts, ballot boxes recounted without IEC authorization, ballot boxes kept in quarantine after being ordered recounted, ballot boxes recounted without representatives of the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) present, and observers barred from signing reconciliation forms. For most of these categories, observers reported hundreds of ballot boxes affected.

Further concerns were raised by observers over the IEC-ordered recounting of at least 181 ballot boxes –some of which had been recounted once already– after the announcement of the preliminary results on October 20. FEFA submitted the identifying information for these ballot boxes to the ECC on November 1 for follow-up as the ECC is the only body legally authorized to order recounts after the announcement of the preliminary results.

Recommendations

• FEFA calls on the IEC to fully cooperate with the ECC in investigations of electoral violations and to resist political pressure to announce the final results early without full verification of legitimate votes.

• FEFA calls on the IEC to refrain from recounting ballot boxes without ECC authorization and provide explanations to ECC for any ballot boxes previously recounted without ECC authorization.

• FEFA calls on the IEC to fully respect the legally-protected role of observers and candidates’ agents by maximizing their access to the remainder of the electoral process.

• FEFA requests the ECC to refer serious fraud, intimidation and violence cases to the proper judicial authorities so those involved in illegal and violent acts are held accountable.

• FEFA calls on all state institutions, especially the president, to support the impartial and independent operation of the ECC as it identifies and investigates fraud cases and takes decisions on complaints.

• FEFA calls on the international community to voice strong support for a thorough and impartial complaints process, and provide any necessary technical assistance to the ECC in carrying out investigations.

Kabul, October 28, 2010 –The Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan (FEFA) expressed concern Thursday regarding the recounting and exclusion of ballots from the September 18 parliamentary elections and called on the electoral institutions to demonstrate greater transparency as the 2010 electoral process enters its final weeks.

FEFA, which that fielded the largest number of NGO observers on Election Day and throughout campaign season, said the recounting and exclusion process was mishandled in many areas of the country. In at least 23 provinces, observers reported serious recounting problems such as missing reconciliation sheets and complaints forms, discrepancies between tally sheet totals and votes contained in recounted ballot boxes, candidates’ agents blocked from observing recounts, and observers barred from signing reconciliation forms. Observers reported hundreds of ballot boxes affected in each category.

“The lack of transparency shown by Independent Election Commission (IEC) officials in many areas and the lack of respect shown for the role of non-governmental observers and candidates’ agents is alarming and at odds with the Electoral Law,” said FEFA executive director Jandad Spinghar.

Article 57 of Afghanistan’s Electoral Law states that the IEC ‘can include or permanently exclude the quarantined ballot boxes from the counting process after inspection in the presence of observers and representatives of political parties and candidates.’

The discrepancy between the estimated voter turnout announced shortly after Election Day and the number given with the preliminary results on October 20 also worried observers. Initially, the IEC estimated around 4 million votes were cast on Election Day. That estimate jumped to more than 5 million when the preliminary results were announced. FEFA attempted to contact the IEC for clarification on the matter, but was unsuccessful.

“We again call on the IEC to provide a full and public explanation of how it arrived at the final voter turnout estimate,” Spinghar said.

FEFA also called on the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) to investigate and respond to all complaints related to the IEC’s insufficient transparency before the announcement of the final results in the coming weeks.

More than 4,500 complaints were submitted to the ECC this year, and 295 candidates, including 25 sitting parliamentarians, are currently under investigation for electoral fraud.

Kabul, October 21, 2010–The preliminary results of the 2010 parliamentary elections attest to an alarming level of fraud nationwide and the need for a thorough examination of complaints, the Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan (FEFA) said Thursday. The Independent Election Commission (IEC) released the preliminary poll results for the entire country on October 20. More than a million ballots were excluded during tallying and recounting.

FEFA commended the IEC for working to identify a large number of fraudulent votes. At the same time, FEFA expressed concern regarding the dramatic increase in estimated voter turnout between the days just after voting and the release of the preliminary results. The election administration body initially estimated that approximately 4 million voters turned out on Election Day. That estimate jumped to more than 5 million when the preliminary results were announced.

“The IEC needs to provide a clear explanation for this change,” said FEFA executive director Jandad Spinghar.

FEFA observers in some provinces reported that IEC staff did not show official recount orders to candidates’ agents before initiating recounting and in other areas blocked them from observing recounts, prompting FEFA to express concern over the transparency of recounting.

Final election results are expected to be released on October 30, after the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) has decided on more than 4,500 complaints submitted to it by individuals and organizations. Two-hundred and twenty-four candidates, some of them powerful political figures, are currently under investigation for electoral fraud. On October 24, the ECC will send its decisions to the IEC.

“The ECC’s role is most important now, between the preliminary results and final results,” said Spinghar. “Election Day wrongdoing and inequalities can be balanced to some extent through the complaints process.”

FEFA’s Recommendations:

1)      FEFA urges the ECC to resist political pressure to expedite the complaints process at the expense of justice.

2)      FEFA urges the ECC to seriously consider evidence submitted by non-governmental organizations and observers when taking decisions on complaints.

3)      FEFA urges the IEC to provide evidence to the ECC in a timely manner to allow for thorough examinations of all serious complaints.

4)      FEFA calls on the IEC to provide an explanation for the dramatic increase in estimated voter turnout announced with the preliminary results.

5)      FEFA urges the Afghan Government to respect the independence of the electoral bodies and to sanction any government official found to be exerting political pressure on the IEC or ECC.

FEFA Chairman Nader Nadery discussed the elections with Kabul Weekly Editor Fahim Dashty and former UN Deputy Special Representative to Afghanistan Peter Galbraith on Al Jazeera’s Inside Story September 19.

Kabul — September 20, 2010

The experience of the 2009 elections as undermined by pervasive fraud and high-level malfeasance determined the general expectations of the 2010 parliamentary elections. Definitively proclaiming how this year’s elections went in comparison to last year’s presidential and provincial council elections will require time, careful analysis of data collected by observers, and consideration of both international standards and the many challenges of holding elections in Afghanistan.  Moreover, this year’s elections are not yet over. The electoral process is just that, a process, and it does not conclude with Election Day. The post-Election Day complaints phase has only just begun and the final results are not expected for another 6 weeks.

On Election Day 2010, FEFA observed voting and counting with nearly 7,000 observers at approximately 60 percent of polling stations nationwide in 3,538 polling centers. These observers reported to FEFA throughout the day by phone and SMS.

At this point, FEFA is ready to make preliminary statements about how the September 18 vote went. At the same time, FEFA urges all stakeholders and the media to withhold “better” or “worse” judgments until the entire electoral process is complete, and to look at different aspects of the elections individually in addition to making assessments of the process as a whole.

The participation of voters and the security arrangements put in place for voting were the most encouraging aspects of Election Day. Against the backdrop of a violent campaign season, millions bravely voted anyway, demonstrating again that the people of Afghanistan are strongly committed to democracy. However, regrettably, a large segment of the electorate was disenfranchised by insecurity and logistical failures. Protecting the integrity of the votes that were cast and bringing the electoral process to a just conclusion should now be the top priorities of all stakeholders.

Security

Attacks by insurgents and powerbrokers against civilians involved in the elections marked the parliamentary campaigns and, on September 18, voters went to the polls after months of warnings of Election Day violence from insurgents and powerbrokers.

The security forces performed their protection duties well overall and are credited with preventing wide-scale disruptive violence and enabling voting in some insecure areas. Still, many powerbrokers and insurgents carried through their pre-election threats of violence and disruption.

Insurgent Attacks

Observers reported 276 security incidents at and around voting places in 32 provinces that directly affected the proceedings of the election by forcing polling centers to close and limiting voters’ movement. The majority of these incidents occurred in Badghis, Baghlan, Ghazni, Kandahar, Khost, Kunduz, Kunar, Logar, Nangarhar, Maidan Wardak, and Zabul.

Taliban blew up polling centers in Kunar, Khost and Kandahar and captured centers in Badghis, Baghlan, Kunduz and Laghman, shutting down voting in the communities those centers served.  Rocket attacks against polling centers in populated areas of Nangarhar and Kunar killed several civilians and sent others fleeing for their lives. In Badghis, Balkh, and Logar, Taliban kidnapped election workers and observers. Some –the exact number is unknown—are still being held, and the bodies of 3 abducted IEC staff from Balkh were found on September 19.

Powerbroker Attacks

Powerbrokers and their supporters carried out 157 serious acts of violence in 28 provinces with the highest number of incidents reported in Badghis, Daikundi, Faryab, Ghazni, Ghor, some district of Kabul, Maidan Wardak, Paktia, Paktika, Takhar, and Zabul. In some districts of Daikundi, Ghor, Herat, and Nangarhar, gunmen disrupted voting and seized ballot boxes.

Violence against Observers

Observers reported these incidents in the face of direct threats, and several were subjected to violence. Five FEFA observers were assaulted on Election Day by candidate agents and powerbrokers in Daikundi, Farah, Kandahar, Ghazni and Takhar. Two others were kidnapped by Taliban.

Participation

Given the vast differences in security among Afghanistan’s 34 provinces and 398 districts, voter turnout was similarly varied across the country, according to phone reports from observers. The regions with the lowest reported voter turnout were those experiencing the most intense conflict, the south and southeast.

Observers said they observer higher turnout in administrative centers –where security forces were concentrated in the greatest numbers– than in the rural areas where insurgents could stage more attacks against underprotected populations and powerbrokers could compel the electorate uninhibited.

However, these trends were not universal. A few very insecure provinces saw pockets of high voter turnout. Observers in relatively secure Jaghori district in Ghazni reported moderately high voter turnout in sharp contrast to the extremely low voter turnout reported in much of the rest of the province.  Observers in Helmand also reported greater than expected turnout in the provincial center.

The highest levels of voter turnout were reported by observers in the central region and in the more secure provinces of the north and east. Provinces such as Badakhshan and Bamiyan, with relatively good security in most urban and rural areas, saw large numbers of confident voters, as did less secure Laghman, Nangarhar and Takhar.

Women voters were fewer than male voters almost everywhere, though the ratios skewed most dramatically in the most insecure southern and southeastern provinces,  such as Paktika, where many polling centers reported almost no women voters. Within these areas, the disparity between the number of male and female voters was most severe in polling centers without female IEC staff.

Electoral Violations and Irregularities

Intimidation

Electoral violations and irregularities were once again widely registered. Observers reported more than 300 instances of intimidation and coercion of voters, candidates, candidates’ agents and observers by local powerbrokers in 34 provinces. The highest numbers of incidents were seen in Badakhshan, Farah, Faryab, Ghor, Kabul, Kunduz, Nangarhar, Takhar, Uruzgan and Zabul.

Most acts of Election Day intimidation throughout the country were carried out by individuals with known links to illegal armed groups, demonstrating both the shortfalls of the Demobilization, Disarmament and Reintegration (DDR) and Disbandment of Illegal Armed Groups (DIAG) processes and the failure of electoral vetting to identify and exclude from the candidate rolls those individuals most likely to use force to sway the electoral process in their favor.

Fraud took many forms; ballot-stuffing, proxy voting, underage voting, the use of fake voter identification cards, repeat voting, and interference by candidates and officials during voting and counting.

Ballot- Stuffing

Ballot-stuffing was reported in 280 polling centers in 28 provinces, with the highest number of reports in the provinces of Baghlan, Faryab, Ghazni, Ghor, Herat, some districts of Kabul, Kandahar, Khost, Kunduz, Logar, Nangarhar, Nuristan, Paktika and Uruzgan.

Proxy Voting

A problem nationwide, proxy voting was most concentrated in the extremely insecure provinces of the south and southeast, where few women voted but women’s ballots were commonly cast by their male relatives. Observers in 390 polling centers in 24 provinces reported large numbers of proxy votes for women cast by men. Most of these votes were cast in sites where female poll workers were absent. The most serious reports of proxy voting came from Badakhshan, Daikundi, Ghor, Helmand, Kabul, Kandahar, Kapisa, Khost, Laghman, Logar, Maidan Wardak, Paktika, Uruzgan and Zabul

Underage Voting

FEFA’s observers registered multiple voting by underage voters in 1,259 polling centers in 31 provinces. The most serious cases were reported in Balkh, Bamiyan, Daikundi, Faryab, Ghor, Kunduz, Laghman, Nangarhar, Paktia, Paktika, Sari Pul, Takhar, Uruzgan and Zabul.

Fake Voter Cards

News reports of fake voter cards printed in Pakistan and Iran and shipped to Afghanistan for use by candidates to commit fraud dominated the election headlines in the week before Election Day. Though police prevented a number of these attempts and made arrests of some individuals possessing fake voter cards, in most cases those in possession of fake cards were let go without being referred to the relevant authorities for further investigation into the origin and intended use of the cards. FEFA’s observers registered the use of fake voting cards in at least 352 polling centers in 22 provinces with the greatest concentration of reports in Ghazni, Ghor, Kabul, Kunar, Laghman, Nangarhar, Paktia, Takhar and Zabul.

Repeat Voting

Repeat voting was reported in 1,228 polling centers in 32 provinces, with the most serious cases reported at polling centers in Farah, Faryab, Ghazni, Ghor, Herat, Kandahar, Kapisa, Kunar, Laghman, Nangarhar, Nimroz, Paktia, Parwan, and Zabul.

Obstruction of Observers

Obstructing observers was another means used to distort the vote outcome. Observers in Jawzjan, Kabul, Khost, Parwan and Takhar reported that they were barred from polling centers for at least part of the day, ejected from centers by election workers, and harassed by candidate agents.

Election Administration

This year’s poll was the first completely Afghan-run national election, and the Independent Election Commission (IEC) was under pressure to prove that it had carried out reforms recommended after the election administration body was found culpable in the widespread fraud of last year’s elections. It will not be possible to fully assess the IEC’s administration of this year’s elections until much later in the electoral process, but FEFA can comment on some aspects of the IEC’s performance on Election Day.

On the positive side, the IEC, with the support of the security forces, was able to open approximately 90 percent of polling centers nationwide amid daunting security and logistical challenges. However, the IEC still fell far short of carrying out its mandate professionally and impartially in many areas.

Late Openings

Observers reported that 1,500 polling centers opened late.  The province with the greatest number of reported late openings Nuristan, with delays in some cases as long as three hours.

Washable Ink

FEFA observers reported widespread failure to provide effectively indelible ink to mark voters’ fingers. In 489 polling centers in 29, the dark ink used to mark the fingers of voters and prevent repeat voting easily washed off. Washable ink was reported most extensively in Badakhshan, Balkh, Ghor, Herat, Kabul, Nimroz, Panjshir, Takhar, and Uruzgan.

Essential Materials Missing

FEFA’s observers reported absence of essential materials in 315 centers in 19 provinces, with serious cases in Badakhshan, Baghlan, Bamiyan, Daikundi, Faryab, Ghazni, Herat, Jawzjan, Kabul, Nimroz, Panjshir, Samangan and Sari Pul. According to observers in Lal Wa Sarjangal district in Ghor and district 6 of Kabul, some polling centers in those areas lacked official stamps.

Multiple polling centers in at least five provinces – Balkh, Ghazni, Herat, Kabul and Nangarhar ­– ran out of ballots while voters were stilling queuing to vote and centers in those provinces closed before the official time. Voters in areas that experienced severe ballot shortages expressed concern that their constituencies were being deliberately disenfranchised.

Logistical failures also included the incorrect dispatch of one province’s sensitive materials to another. For example, election materials for Badghis were sent to Bamiyan by mistake.

Absence of Female Staff

FEFA’s observed registered a complete absence of female IEC staff at 1,062 polling stations across the country, with the largest number of serious cases in Paktia, Paktika and Uruzgan. As previously stated, the absence of female poll workers exacerbated the problem of proxy voting.

IEC Staff Bias

Observers reported that IEC staff violated the principle of non-partiality in their work again. Examples ranged from relatively minor infractions such as providing greater access to agents of favored candidates, to extreme examples of IEC workers closing polling centers and stuffing hundreds of ballots for local powerbrokers. According to observers’ phone reports, biased conduct on the part of IEC staff was most prevalent in Badakhshan, Badghis, Baghlan, Faryab, Ghor, Herat, Kabul, Kunduz, Laghman, Nangarhar, Parwan, Takhar and Uruzgan. Also troubling was the reported refusal of IEC staff in many affected polling centers to provide complaint forms to voters and candidates.

Delayed Counting

The decision whether to proceed with counting of ballots was decided on center-by-center basis, with no single schedule or procedure applied throughout the country. While counting was underway shortly after the closing of polls in some areas, in others it was postponed until the next day. FEFA’s observers reported that in 243 polling centers in 25 provinces the counting process did not go ahead in accordance with the guidelines set out by the IEC. Among observers and candidates, cases of delayed counting raised fears of ballot tampering, as many of the affected ballot boxes were stored overnight unauthorized locations.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Taking the aforementioned issues into account, FEFA has serious concerns about the quality of the elections. As tallying begins and the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) begins to consider Election Day complaints, FEFA makes the following recommendations.

• FEFA calls on all state institutions, especially the president, to support the impartial and independent operation of the ECC as it identifies and investigates fraud cases and adjudicates complaints.

• FEFA requests the ECC to refer serious fraud, intimidation and violence cases to the proper judicial authorities so those involved in illegal and violent acts are held accountable.

• FEFA urges the ECC to carry out investigations transparently and resist political pressure to expedite the complaints adjudication process.

• FEFA calls on the IEC to fully cooperate with the ECC in investigations of fraud and coercion and to resist political pressure to announce the final results early without full verification of legitimate votes.

• FEFA calls on the international community to denounce identified acts of fraud, regardless of their perpetrator, and provide technical assistance to the ECC and IEC in verifying the results of the elections and carrying out investigations.