http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-11-01-voa3.cfm

<quotes>

Afghan opposition candidate Abdullah Abdullah says he will not take part in 
the presidential runoff election, creating new political turmoil just six 
days ahead of the vote.

He said a transparent election will not be possible without the changes he 
had demanded in the Afghan election commission.

Mr. Abdullah had demanded the removal of several top election officials 
allegedly involved in massive voting fraud in the original August 20 
presidential election, a step President Hamid Karzai rejected.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters Saturday in Jerusalem 
that a possible boycott of the vote was Mr. Abdullah's decision to make and 
would not compromise the legitimacy of the runoff.

</quotes>

It's difficult to say Abdullah does not have the moral highground; hard to 
see how this election would be any fairer when the alleged 'crooks' who 
tried to rig the first are in charge of the run-off.

As for Clinton's view that a default victory won't compromise the legitimacy 
of an election for President, that just seems laughable. Maybe it won't in 
terms of legal or political definition but that's unlikely to be the way 
many Afghans and others see it.

Had Abdullah thrown in the towel in the face of a fair fight that would have 
been a legitimate victory for Karazai. In facing the prospect of another 
rigging attempt, where votes falsely registered may be detected but those 
eliberately discarded cannot, Abdullah's refusal to play ball doesn't give 
Karzai any legitimacy. The question of who would have won on a level and 
fair playing field remains unanswered.

Mind you, Hilary has a peculiar view of "legitimacy"; while accepting 
elections in Palestine were fair and represented the will of the people, she 
urged the US and rest of the world to refuse to recognise the elected 
government.

That seems more in line with the American stereotype of 'legitimate means 
getting what we want' rather than any more objective viewpoint.

The Happy Hippy wrote:

> http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-11-01-voa3.cfm
> 
> <quotes>
> 
> Afghan opposition candidate Abdullah Abdullah says he will not take part
> in the presidential runoff election, creating new political turmoil just
> six days ahead of the vote.
> 
> He said a transparent election will not be possible without the changes he
> had demanded in the Afghan election commission.
> 
> Mr. Abdullah had demanded the removal of several top election officials
> allegedly involved in massive voting fraud in the original August 20
> presidential election, a step President Hamid Karzai rejected.
> 
> U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters Saturday in
> Jerusalem that a possible boycott of the vote was Mr. Abdullah's decision
> to make and would not compromise the legitimacy of the runoff.
> 
> </quotes>
> 
> It's difficult to say Abdullah does not have the moral highground; hard to
> see how this election would be any fairer when the alleged 'crooks' who
> tried to rig the first are in charge of the run-off.
> 
> As for Clinton's view that a default victory won't compromise the
> legitimacy of an election for President, that just seems laughable. Maybe
> it won't in terms of legal or political definition but that's unlikely to
> be the way many Afghans and others see it.
> 
> Had Abdullah thrown in the towel in the face of a fair fight that would
> have been a legitimate victory for Karazai. In facing the prospect of
> another rigging attempt, where votes falsely registered may be detected
> but those eliberately discarded cannot, Abdullah's refusal to play ball
> doesn't give Karzai any legitimacy. The question of who would have won on
> a level and fair playing field remains unanswered.
> 
> Mind you, Hilary has a peculiar view of "legitimacy"; while accepting
> elections in Palestine were fair and represented the will of the people,
> she urged the US and rest of the world to refuse to recognise the elected
> government.
> 
> That seems more in line with the American stereotype of 'legitimate means
> getting what we want' rather than any more objective viewpoint.

Surely the last shred of any justification for further deaths and injury in 
this war has just gone down the tubes.

Whatever notion of democracy either Westminster or Washington profess to 
have, they are both on record as not supporting the idea that an election 
which is rigged, or where there is only one candidate or one party to vote 
for, is democratic. Not after all the guff they have talked about getting 
rid of dictators.

To be sure, they do think that having a choice of two or even three parties 
whose policies are basically the same *is* democratic, but that's another 
story.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

"Robin T Cox"  wrote ...

[snip]

> Whatever notion of democracy either Westminster or Washington profess to
> have, they are both on record as not supporting the idea that an election
> which is rigged, or where there is only one candidate or one party to vote
> for, is democratic. Not after all the guff they have talked about getting
> rid of dictators.
>
> To be sure, they do think that having a choice of two or even three 
> parties
> whose policies are basically the same *is* democratic, but that's another
> story.

Funny old thing "democracy" - Karazi elected on 49.7%, Blair elected despite 
64.5% of votes not in his favour, Brown 'elected' on a nod. I expect Karzai 
could put up a convincing and entertaining argument if the questions of 
"corrupt democracy" and "legitimate mandate" raise their heads.

The Happy Hippy wrote:

> 
> "Robin T Cox"  wrote ...
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> Whatever notion of democracy either Westminster or Washington profess to
>> have, they are both on record as not supporting the idea that an election
>> which is rigged, or where there is only one candidate or one party to
>> vote for, is democratic. Not after all the guff they have talked about
>> getting rid of dictators.
>>
>> To be sure, they do think that having a choice of two or even three
>> parties
>> whose policies are basically the same *is* democratic, but that's another
>> story.
> 
> Funny old thing "democracy" - Karazi elected on 49.7%, Blair elected
> despite 64.5% of votes not in his favour, Brown 'elected' on a nod. I
> expect Karzai could put up a convincing and entertaining argument if the
> questions of "corrupt democracy" and "legitimate mandate" raise their
> heads.

True, and we haven't even mentioned 'Lord' Mandelson or GW 'hanging chads' 
Bush.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free