It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Afghan Elections Postponed

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   
UN officials have confirmed that plans to hold Afghanistan's Parliamentary elections in May have failed. Some believe that the elections could be postponed for up to 6 months if things are not worked out quickly. Under Afghanistan's constitution, a poll must be announced 90 days in advance. That means the deadline for announcements of the planned parliamentary elections has passed and it must be rescheduled. The delays are the result of concerns over security and the borders of electoral districts. The plan being considered at present is feared to favor independent candidates and perhaps warlords.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
The poll was due to take place by 21 May, but logistical and security concerns have prevented President Hamid Karzai making an official announcement.

Important decisions still remain over voting systems, voter registration and electoral boundaries.

Correspondents say the planned system could favour independent candidates, including warlords, so officials may consider a switch to one more beneficial to emerging political parties.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is a really interesting problem. Will the districts represent the will of the people, or will they be gerrymandered to protect parties favorable to the nations overseeing the process (not just the US mind you).
I'm embarrassed to say also that I didn't even realize Afghanistan had yet to elect a parliament. How could Iraq beat Afghanistan to that? I don't believe I have the information to make a sound judgement, but this begs a question as to who should be blamed for the slow development. The UN? The US? The Afghan People? And what does the comparisson between Afghanistan and Iraq mean exactly? Is the Afghan system taking longer because it's being done right, or just because the country was in more of a shambles than Iraq? It looks like I have a lot of reading ahead of me on this subject.




posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   
No one should get the blame. The political process was rushed in Iraq because Bush and his cronies are trying to get the UN and Europen countries to take the role of US troops in Iraq.
Dead GIs dosnt help Bush in the polls.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   

No one should get the blame. The political process was rushed in Iraq because Bush and his cronies are trying to get the UN and Europen countries to take the role of US troops in Iraq. Dead GIs dosnt help Bush in the polls.


That would sort of be the point I guess though. Not to bash anybody or try to slant the coverage in any one particular way, but the question is there; just why has one nation had it so quickly while another had it so slow? I don't know for sure if I'm on board with the "we did it to get Europeans in" line of thinking, but if it were correct, wouldn't it put the "blame" basically on our hands (Americas) not for slowing down Afghanistan but for rushing Iraq. Afterall, given that assumption, we'd either be taking Afghanistan slower than we could, or rushing Iraq to failure- one of the two.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Vagabond the elections have been slowed down as you put it in Afghanistan due to the fact that there is no backlash with the voting public and allies the political process may have a better chance of success. Afghanistan faces many of the problems that Iraq dose I dont know if the security situation is any better in Afghanistan are the insurgents just concentrated in a smaller area in Iraq?

As for the blame game Tony Blair , John Howard must share the blame for the way post war Iraq was handled. Bush and his cronies are first to have there heads on the chopping block because they were the ones who rallyed Americas allies behind a costly side show.

I wont say its americas fault because its no better then saying Iraq will fail if the Iraqis dont fight for there freedom.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Somewhat changing the direction of our conversation, but what do you think about the direction this electoral districting might take? Some might say that if a certain area which historically or culturally could be defined as a legitimate district of its own wanted to elect the local warlord, then it would be gerrymandering to avoid such an outcome. On the other hand, some might argue that if a tribal area wants to elect the local warlord that it threatens to divide the nation and that they have to be balanced out somehow.
What say you? Is all "electoral engineering" bad, or might this be justified?



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
For the most part, news from Afghanistan has disappeared. it seems we tend to think that because we hear little of it, it was just a whopping success, and vague statements such as this

Correspondents say the planned system could favour independent candidates, including warlords, so officials may consider a switch to one more beneficial to emerging political parties.
do nothing to present the real picture.

We should be asking why the Taliban warlords are even being mentioned in the election process. The answer is because they control most of Aghanistan, and as far as I know the new democratic Afghanistan is still pretty much limited to Kabul, which makes it rather difficult to conduct a country wide election process.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Thanks Vagabond for bringing this piece of news, many people do not realize that business in Afghanistan were not over before we invaded Iraq.

The elections while successful were not what many expected, like xpert 11 said Afghanistan was forgotten after the Iraqi conflict, but even if Afghanistan does not have oil, per say they have vast amount of natural gas.

Like SomewhereinBetween pointed out we have almost not news coming from Afghanistan anymore.

It seems that Taliban and drug lords have been given trouble to the authorities in recent days.

This link has excellent latest news from Afghanistan.

www.myafghan.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
No one should get the blame. The political process was rushed in Iraq because Bush and his cronies are trying to get the UN and Europen countries to take the role of US troops in Iraq.
Dead GIs dosnt help Bush in the polls.


Bear in mind the very first thing you said in this topic (as bolded and underlined above).
After reading this post and your following posts, your just a walking contradiction today, ain't ya?





seekerof



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

as posted by Marg
This link has excellent latest news from Afghanistan.

www.myafghan.com...


"Excellent"?
How so, Marg?
It seems that the site you mention is not even carrying the news that is being reported in this topic thread?
Wouldn't what the BBC is reporting be of importance, and as such, be news worthy material for the site you mention, which supposedly is caring news from Afghanistan?




seekerof



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

"Excellent"?
How so, Marg?

seekerof


You have a problem with my link? then don't click on it, the link is about Afghanistan news that is what I said, if you have a problem with that then, that is your problem not mine, I did not said "Seekerof this link is for you" right?

They are latest news by days and they are up today. So I don't see what the problem is.


Should I call another mod to check it out?




[edit on 25-2-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Ah, the UN at it's best.

The US handles Iraq and has already held the elections.

The UN handles Afghanistan and buggers it up, claiming paperwork issues.

Oh yeah, that's Bush's fault too.

What the hell did the rest of the world do before Bush was elected? Who did they blame everything on? Or did they have to spread the blam and maybe look deeper instead of the reactionary responses?



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Somewhat changing the direction of our conversation, but what do you think about the direction this electoral districting might take? Some might say that if a certain area which historically or culturally could be defined as a legitimate district of its own wanted to elect the local warlord, then it would be gerrymandering to avoid such an outcome. On the other hand, some might argue that if a tribal area wants to elect the local warlord that it threatens to divide the nation and that they have to be balanced out somehow.
What say you? Is all "electoral engineering" bad, or might this be justified?


Sorry my fault didnt quite get what you said. I think that if a warlord is elected thats fine as long as he dosnt use arms or other methods to undermine the government . I think Afghanistan will end up like the USA and Aust there will be a number of state governments . It will be interesting to see if in the near-medium term the warlords understand and take part in the political process.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   


Bear in mind the very first thing you said in this topic (as bolded and underlined above).
After reading this post and your following posts, your just a walking contradiction today, ain't ya?


Not really you cant blame the Afgan people for the ruins there country is in no more then you can blame the average american for for the side show that grabs media interest. I suspect that Afghanistan is less developed then Iraq how many highways are there in Afghanistan?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join