Karin von Hippel, a senior fellow for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., just returned from monitoring the elections in Afghanistan. She speaks with Daljit Dhaliwal about how the security situation affected the vote.

Also in Afghanistan today, General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, delivered an assessment of the war there. In a statement, McChrystal said “The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment, and resolve, and increased unity of effort.”

Can U.S. and NATO forces win the war in Afghanistan?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

Kenji Kohno is the Washington bureau chief of the Japanese television network NHK and discusses what this historic election means for Japan and U.S. relations.

Garrick Utley, president of the Levin Institute of the State University of New York and a former NBC News correspondent and anchor and Rana Foroohar, senior editor of Newsweek’s international editions overseeing coverage of business and economics, join Martin Savidge to discuss the top stories of the week.

Steve Chao reports for Al Jazeera English.

As Afghanistan prepared for this highly anticipated election last week, former Afghan foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah emerged as a legitimate threat to incumbent President Hamid Karzai – who has fallen out of favor with many Afghans, as well as Western leaders — and news media portrayed a run-off election as plausible.

But as results trickle in from last Thursday’s vote, in which some 7 million ballots were cast, the outcome remains unclear. Images of inked Afghan fingers gave way to claims of widespread fraud and intimidation. As the vote count continues, reports on the results have been contradictory.

For the full results of last week’s News Hunt, read their blog summarizing media coverage, check out the top rated stories and browse a full listing of all stories posted on the topic.

Explore our complete coverage of the election and war in Afghanistan.

Photo: Scott Bohlinger

Scott Bohlinger is a political analyst and writer who has lived in Afghanistan since 2006. He works for a non-governmental organization in Mazar-e Sharif, Afghanistan and has traveled extensively in the Middle East.

One of my favorite pastimes of late has been talking to people about who they’re voting for and why. Politics is universal, but political thoughts are heavily shaped and molded by cultural contexts. Whatever people’s education levels, they get the concept of political participation and voting, and I’ve found that they reject voting only insofar as they don’t think the vote will be respected.

The big difference I encounter here in Afghanistan is in how people talk about politics and their candidates, which seems surprising to somebody from the U.S., France or Iran.

In Afghanistan, with its multiplicity of figures in an ever-changing kaleidoscope of alliances and betrayals, the political landscape often appears inscrutable to the uninitiated. The reasons for these shifting currents are there, although outsiders don’t always properly appreciate them.

People who told me they would vote against Karzai because he was supported by former warlord Abdurrashid Dostum all of a sudden appeared teary-eyed alongside the road to watch his convoy a few days later when he returned from Turkey. The cause was simple: Their rational analysis of the pros and cons of his rule had been replaced by their emotional attachment to a man who had brought relative stability to this party of the country, when the rest was in chaos.

Photo: Scott Bohlinger

One day, while driving to the gym, my driver and I were looking at all the campaign posters and related activity in town, poking fun and sharing opinions. He didn’t have much definitive to say about any of the current contenders, but instead went on at length about some strongman whom he particularly liked during the Soviet occupation. The next day, he had a completely different story. Evidently, my driver had decided to throw his weight behind Karzai. Suddenly, it was Karzai who could do no wrong. “Karzai built everything in this country after the war — he’s honest, clean and has personality integrity.”

The argument against Karzai is that he hasn’t done enough and doesn’t possess any of those qualities, but I didn’t see the point in arguing that. So I asked my driver how he had been convinced of this. He must have had a conversation with his friends over qalyan (sheesha or water pipes) or heard the argument from an akhund (priest), I thought. His response was “No, that’s just the way things are.”

This is one story, but it typifies many others encounters that I’ve had. During a fast food break in Samangan, a man sat across from me while I was eating my kebab and extolled the virtues of a previous regime that he particularly liked for three reasons: 1) you could leave your door unlocked, 2) there was no theft and 3) so-and-so distributed swift and equitable justice.

It annoys me as a Westerner because I feel it sets up unrealistic expectations of leaders and therefore just perpetuates the cycle of violence. But these narratives help people structure the world around them to create meaning — even if they are myths. In Afghanistan, political power is often understood and explained through myths about individuals rather than through the specific issues they stand for.

- Scott Bohlinger

(View full post to see video)

Even before elections in Afghanistan got underway, questions were raised about the possibility of widespread fraud — though hundreds of international observers are in Afghanistan to ensure a free and fair process.

The question of fraud is an important one for the United States, which has a lot riding on the election.

James Bays of Worldfocus partner Al Jazeera English reports on voter fraud in Afghanistan.

In the run-up to this Thursday’s elections in Afghanistan, I’ve noticed a menagerie of political artwork and iconography. Every surface is increasingly plastered with political advertisements of all possible sorts, with even the most sacred surfaces growing more profane by the day.

Posters began to crowd empty walls and open spaces about a month ago. Slowly, they colonized billboards for other products. Even the portrait of Afghanistan’s glorified national martyr, Ahmad Shah Massoud, has been concealed by the cascade of paper and glue.

Two styles have seemed to emerge — stuff produced by Afghans and stuff produced for Afghans.

Because the Afghan society is largely illiterate, the images seem to carry the messages. The posters coming from Afghan campaigns remain simple and effective in their message. But public information campaigns seek to bolster participation in the elections and thereby the state’s legitimacy; they seem fraught with too much information and angst.

Photo: Scott Bohlinger

Locally, President Karzai’s chief challenger, Abdullah, has the backing of the powerful governor of the northern province of Balkh, Muhammad Atta. This simple message that a vote for Abdullah is a vote for Atta is forcefully on view everywhere where numerous pictures can be seen of the two men together. The standard picture of them shows Abdullah looking ahead (and at you) sternly and resolutely with Atta looking on towards him. The power relationship is clearly demarcated by Atta’s not weak but admiring expression — for should Abdullah win, Atta would indeed be subservient to him. The message is clear for even the most illiterate person or casual passerby, but for the literate there is also a written slogan that loosely translates to “Going the path of clarity is success.”

The other poster is a public service advertisement explaining the election process to people. It shows a smiling man of average demeanor and income (though smartly and traditionally dressed) casting ballots for the election. That much is clear. In its attempt to explain the voting process encyclopediacally, however, it gets bogged down in details, at once too confusing for the casual observer and too complicated for someone who takes the time to read its full contents.

Photo: Scott Bohlinger

In order to show when the polling stations are open, the man casts a different ballot into a different box with each hand, and above each shoulder is a clock with an arrow connecting them intending to show opening and closing times. The two ballots are meant to be for the two separate simultaneous elections — for the provincial councils and presidency. But the local joke is that the man must be poor because he is only casting two ballots.

On either side of the man is a text in Persian and Pashto — which neither I nor anyone else I know has taken the time to read because they’re never in a position to stand still and examine it with a critical eye. The poster is cluttered with a number of other symbols meant to explain the different ballots taking place, color-coordinating them and providing the number of an assistance hotline. There’s a nifty slogan at the bottom too, “your vote, your future.” Altogether, the attempt to explain everything to everyone in every possible way collapses into a cacophony of colors and symbols.

These different approaches to persuasion are seen in advertising for all manner of other products, from products to services to concepts in Afghanistan. What’s the difference?

The ads produced by those with a direct stake in winning is made by people closer to the audience it is attending to address.

The public service ad was well-intentioned, but made largely by foreign artists trying to adapt to local aesthetics, and the desire to explain gets bogged down in confusion. It is the product of focus groups and field testing, in a way that probably fits good technical standards but still misses its mark.

This is the worrying bit.

In the larger context of war, infrastructure and stability, the government of Afghanistan — as the technocratic product of a massive aid infusion and technocratic bureaucracies — falls short on the emotional plane where Afghans would like to see a state. It loses the feeling it needs to reach the average guy. Relatively few Afghans agree with the Taliban, but those who do have something the others lack: Enthusiasm.

- Scott Bohlinger

Read more about his experience overseas in his blog, Embedded in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan’s election is coming up on Thursday. Here in the northeastern part of the country, conducting an orderly election will be a difficult task, to say the least. This region, due to the high mountains and its shared border with Pakistan, is a well-known insurgent haven. Our enemies inhabit the high ground and getting up there to deal with them is tough.

Nearly every engagement here involves the insurgents shooting down at us from above. When that hasn’t been the case, the enemy has been shooting at us from inside a village on the other side of a valley. Fighting an enemy while he’s inside a village presents its own set of concerns.

Conducting day-to-day operations here is difficult. Holding an election here against the wishes of our numerous enemies will certainly be interesting. Not only are we sure to see more attacks, but we’re also sure to have less support in the form of air since those air assets are likely to be needed everywhere else as well.

Coalition forces just don’t have the numbers to control much of the vast hinterland in this northeastern part of the country. Those air assets in the form of attack and reconnaissance helicopters and fighter aircraft are a vital part of how we get things turned in our favor once the shooting begins, but we’ll make do with or without them.

Generally speaking, if we don’t have a paved road leading to an area, we don’t control it. Geographically, the province sits in the middle of a mountain range. The mountains are interspersed with valleys carved by streams fed by melting snow runoff. The only flat areas you’ll see around here are the areas around the streams. Those flat areas vary in width from a kilometer to maybe 10 meters across. Given the challenging topography, road building is a difficult task. Where roads have been put in, bases and security have followed. Without a paved road, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are regular, which prevents a strong U.S. presence.

We focus on the larger population centers, which are not surprisingly generally located in the larger valleys. Of the many small valleys branching off from the larger ones, we control the terrain at most a couple of kilometers in. Far down into some of these valleys, we haven’t had Americans go in years. This fact hasn’t stopped the unnamed, unseen planners on high from deciding to put election polling sites in some of these places. Exactly how we’re supposed to secure a place we don’t ever go, in addition to all the other sites in our normal area of operations, is a question which has occurred to many of us in recent weeks.

Thankfully, as the election creeps closer, reality is beginning to set in, and numerous planned polling stations are not going to be opened. We’ll consolidate some, and others will just not be available, necessitating the local people taking a longer trip to vote. It will be the courageous family that decides to take a trip down an unsecured road while bearing voter registration cards. The insurgents aren’t always in the mountains…they do come down to the roads to conduct checkpoints, often with an IED in the road between us and them to prevent our arrival in a timely manner to deal with them.

For an election you need ballots. It’s Afghanistan’s election, so U.S. forces aren’t supposed to escort or handle the ballots. As embedded trainers with the Afghan National Army (ANA), my unit is exempt from this guidance. And so, on our way to pick up the ballots yesterday, we got in a nice little enemy engagement, which resulted in one of our trucks getting a tire shot out, two antennas blasted off and a round of indeterminate caliber (we’re still debating what size it had to have been) cracking up our windshield. Armor is a good thing to have when the element of surprise is not on your side. The firefight was a nice way to welcome our recently-arrived replacements to the joys and adventures of life in Afghanistan.

We should have good security for most of the ballots and polling sites, but a few of those ballots are going to be headed a little further up the road into country we don’t venture…and are not going to venture for this election. The Afghan National Police (ANP) refuses to escort the ballots around here without our help, and in this case we’re not helping.

If not the Americans or the ANA or the ANP, who’s going to take the ballots up there and provide security for the election, you ask? Well, in Afghanistan, when the official government representatives aren’t doing the job, the responsibility falls to the traditional power brokers, i.e. the local elders. Turning over official election ballots to citizens who hold no official capacity may not be how things were drawn up by the 10-pound heads who wanted to hold an election in a war-torn country in the midst of raging insurgency, but as someone in the news stated recently, we shouldn’t let perfection be the enemy of progress.

If even the elders can’t guarantee the security of the ballots and the ballots end up getting burned in a bonfire in the square next to the village mosque — well, at least in that case, the insurgents have clearly shown themselves to be destructive agents and enemies of their peoples’ freedom of choice. In the past, just to make a point, we’ve dropped off humanitarian aid like schoolbooks in places where we thought it would get burned by the insurgents before the local people could get their hands on it. Something similar may end up happening with a small portion of the ballots.

However imperfect, Afghanistan will have an election on August 20 and new elected officials will take up their posts sometime shortly thereafter. Undoubtedly, some of our enemies will abuse the election process and the general lack of security in this region to get themselves elected. But I reckon we’re on the right track if they’re playing by our rules and participating in the process, whatever their ultimate motives may be.

I’m just thankful I get to be here to see how this thing turns out.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

On Tuesday, with the election two days away and the campaign winding down, the Taliban launched a series of attacks on the capital city of Kabul. A suicide car bomber attacked a NATO convoy on the outskirts of the city, killing at least seven people and wounding another 50. Two mortar rounds also landed near the presidential palace.

U.S. President Barack Obama insists winning the war in Afghanistan is vital to America’s security interests, and a free and fair election no doubt would help that cause. But security concerns remain front and center.

Kimberly Marten, a professor of political science at Columbia University’s Barnard College, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the impending vote, U.S. strategy ahead of the election and the role of warlords.

Read what a U.S. Marine embedded trainer with the Afghan National Army had to say about the atmosphere ahead of elections: Securing the vote in volatile northeastern Afghanistan

On Tuesday, with the election two days away and the campaign winding down, the Taliban launched a series of attacks on the capital city of Kabul. A suicide car bomber attacked a NATO convoy on the outskirts of the city, killing at least seven people and wounding another 50. Two mortar rounds also landed near the presidential palace.

U.S. President Barack Obama insists winning the war in Afghanistan is vital to America’s security interests, and a free and fair election no doubt would help that cause. But security concerns remain front and center.

Zeina Khodr of Worldfocus partner Al Jazeera English reports on the dangers in the southern city of Kandahar — from the safety of her car.

The United States believes the elections will legitimize the government, now led by a staunch U.S. ally, Hamid Karzai, who is widely expected to be re-elected to another term. But the Taliban is doing all it can to disrupt the vote — making threats of violence to any Afghan that goes to the polls on August 20.

Alex Their, the director of the Future of Afghanistan Project at the United States Institute of Peace, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the security situation during the election and how the results might impact the American mission in the country.

Afghanistan is actually a collection of many ethnic groups — the two biggest being the Pashtuns and the Tajiks. Many people are expected to vote along ethnic lines. Zeina Khodr of Worldfocus partner Al Jazeera English reports on what leading candidates are doing to bring out the vote, with the help of tribal elders.

The remote-controlled bomb went off on a crowded street near a fruit market in Herat and apparently targeted the police chief as he drove into town.

This month has also gotten off to deadly start for American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, with a total of nine killed over the weekend. Afghanistan’s elections are less then three weeks away and the number of foreign troops in the country is increasing steadily.

Karin von Hippel, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the casualty rate in Afghanistan, the upcoming elections and the status of the massive offensive that was launched in the south.

(View full post to see video)

A large trial began this weekend for those arrested in the violence and protests that followed the election. They included many prominent politicians and religious figures. Meanwhile,  the U.S. is considering cutting off gasoline supplies to Iran if the country rejects offers to negotiate its nuclear program.

Trita Parsi, the founder and president of the National Iranian American Council, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the possibility of gas sanctions, the trial of protesters and the Obama administration’s attempt to engage in negotiations with Iran.

Elections in Iraqi Kurdistan.

On Sunday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ventured to the Kurdish autonomous region for the first time in years and promised to settle disputes that have threatened Iraq’s stability.

The Kurds want to expand the autonomous region to include oil-rich Kirkuk. Ahead of the July 25 elections that returned him to power, Kurdish President Massoud Barzani vowed never to ”compromise” on this sticking point.

The U.S. has put pressure on Iraqi and Kurdish leaders to resolve their issues prior to U.S. withdrawal.

But as Worldfocus contributing blogger Eric Davis writes, for many young Iraqi Kurds, divisions are rooted less in historical Kurdish-Arab relations and more in economic disparity.

As analysts continue to focus on Iraq’s ethnic divisions, they consistently fail to ask the very simple but important question: why do such divisions exist? Assuming that none of us believe in sociobiology, namely that Arabs and Kurds (and other Iraqi ethnic groups) emerge from the womb disliking or even hating each other, the core question of what drives ethnic divisions in Iraq needs to be raised. Unfortunately, it rarely is, in part because analysts continue to concentrate on elites, to the detriment of studying public opinion and non-elite political parties and civil society organizations.

The recent Kurdish Regional Government (K.R.G.) Assembly Elections, that were held on July 25th, demonstrated that most Kurds are less worried about Iraq’s Arabs to the south than the lack of jobs in Iraq’s 3 northern Kurdish provinces and the pervasive corruption and autocracy that characterizes the two parties, the Kurdish Democratic Party (K.D.P.), and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (P.U.K.), that have ruled the semi-autonomous K.R.G. since the U.S. imposed a “No-Fly Zone” in 1991.

Because analysts largely ignore the political economy of Iraqi Kurdistan (and that of the south as well), they have little to say about the underlying dynamics of Kurdish politics. […]

All interviews indicate that Kurds are fed up with the corruption and authoritarian rule of the K.R.G., presided over by president and K.D.P. leader, Masoud Barzani. Despite the fact that Masoud Barzani’s father, Mullah Mustafa, still holds almost mythic status among older Kurds for his efforts to achieve an independent Kurdish state in the late 1940s and after, younger Kurds are more concerned with jobs and the ability to express themselves than with a history that none of them experienced. […]

Indeed, this was what I discovered when I visited the K.R.G. Few Kurds were concerned with Arab-Kurdish relations. In my research in the north I discovered that many young Arabs who have moved with their families to the north, as a result of sectarian violence in the south, have made friendships with young Kurds without any problems. A delegation of Iraqi youth that recently visited the U.S. was comprised of many young Kurds who also indicated that they had no difficulty forming friendships with Arabs their own age when I spoke with them. While Kurdish-Arab relations does not seem high on the agenda of most Kurds, virtually all complained about corruption and lack of jobs.

Indeed, I found many professionals, including lawyers and engineers, who were forced to take second jobs to support their families. With the proceeds from oil contracts known to be divided 3 ways, between the K.R.G., foreign investors and “other,” Kurds completely understand the extent to which oil wealth is taken from the public purse for illegitimate ends. On the political side, Kurds implored me not to return to the U.S. and speak of “Kurdish democracy,” since they argued that civil society organizations require a government permit and that K.R.G. officials are constantly looking over the shoulders of all members of such organizations to monitor their activities.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Kurdistan كوردستان under a Creative Commons license.

Indonesia’s election is its second after 60 years of dictatorial governments.

On Wednesday, Indonesia – the world’s third-largest democracy – went to the polls in its second direct election.

Indonesia had long suffered at the hands of dictators, from founding leader Sukarno to his successor, General Suharto, who was plagued by allegations of corruption and political oppression.

But since the country’s first direct election in 2004, Indonesia has set an example of stability in an otherwise chaotic region, due in large part to ethnic harmony and its dynamic open-party system.

So far, preliminary results from the election suggest that incumbent President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is leading with 54 percent of the vote.

Dr. Sandra Hamid is a senior director at The Asia Foundation and wrote on election day to describe the mood in Indonesia.

Televised debates have been held, the campaigning has concluded, and Indonesians will vote for their president today. [...]After a year of on-going legislative and presidential campaigning, many voters would prefer this election to be won in one round. “Let’s get this over with, and move on,” a friend told me yesterday. Another friend’s Facebook status read, “I want Election Day to come soon so we won’t have to hear about it anymore.” Many Indonesians have expressed a sense of election fatigue, having recently been through the tumult of local elections, April’s national legislative elections, and now the presidential campaign. The campaigns, debates, and constant news coverage – and, for those of us living in cities and urban centers, the traffic caused by street campaigning – have become almost unbearable. SBY’s supporters are capitalizing on this sentiment, and are pushing it even further by suggesting that one round is more economical. “Vote for the incumbent, and the country will save some money” his supporters say.

Not everyone agrees, of course. This issue was directly taken up by one of SBY’s challengers, Jusuf Kalla, who is currently the president’s own vice-president, during the final televised debate. The claim by the incumbent’s team that they will only need one round to secure a victory is perceived as arrogant by many.

But most Indonesians feel that SBY’s likely victory is not about arrogance, election fatigue, or being economical. Instead, it’s about the high approval rating Indonesians have given the government for over six months. SBY’s numbers are nothing short of robust. Various polls have shown him to be in the lead since late 2008, and most Indonesians surveyed think that whether this election goes to one round or two, SBY will remain in office.

To grasp the significance of this, one should understand the context of Indonesia’s elections, where people are unlikely to vote for incumbents. In the recent local elections for governors and mayors, more than 40 percent of incumbents had to pack their bags and leave office after one term. And in the April 2009 legislative elections, more than 60 percent of legislators were voted out of office. Indonesians have clearly used elections to reward, and punish, politicians. We may not always end up with better leaders, but the underlying message is clear: if we do not think you deliver, you will be voted out.

If the opinion polls prove correct, Indonesian voters will have sent a strong message to the incumbent that they want to see more of the same. The linkages between approval ratings and the government’s pro-poor policies are clear. For example, in response to increased fuel prices last year, the government provided aid for the poor. Following this the president’s ratings improved, reflecting widespread approval of the policy. It may not be too far-fetched to say that voters credited the president for the benefit they have received from the government’s policies. It seems that, contrary to the views of many political pundits who portray Indonesian voters as being traditional and primordial, the SBY phenomenon may demonstrate that Indonesian voters do in fact make rational decisions based on what they perceive the government has done for them.

In that context, if SBY wins his second term, his victory will show the amazing levels of support the Indonesian people have for their president. The next question is: how will SBY use his popularity to make tough decisions in the challenging times ahead? During his campaign, he promised he would lead this complex and diverse country through the current global economic crisis. But what exactly does this mean? Will Indonesia see more – and faster – reform? SBY’s choices for cabinet positions will provide hints to some of these questions but, for now, let us see if indeed Indonesians make history in today’s presidential election.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user isa e under a Creative Commons license.

It has been almost three weeks since the disputed presidential election in Iran.

It’s been almost three weeks since the disputed presidential election in Iran. On Thursday, the government announced that seven more people had been arrested for provoking violence during the protests that followed.

While the demonstrations have ended, the voices of protest have not been silenced. In a statement, opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi said again that he considers the government illegitimate.

Sanaz Arjomand is an Iranian-American college student who has spent the summer in Iran with family. In the recent election, she voted for Mousavi. Some of her family members, though, are ardent Ahmadinejad supporters — leading to heated debates in this Iranian home.

What the other side sees

My cousin and my mom warned me before I came to this house. “They’re very religious…their father is very much a part of the regime…are you sure you’ll be comfortable?” With my American bravado, I promised to grin and bear it. They’re family, after all.

When asked who I voted for, I answered honestly that I voted for Moussavi, and did my best not to answer when asked why I didn’t (and don’t) like Ahmadinejad. Things started heating up when, in response to my hesitation, the oldest daughter answered for me that I didn’t like him because others told me not to. I listened to her mother tell me that there was no cheating in the election, that because Ahmadinejad really reached out to the poorer areas (i.e. handed out chickens and potatoes, I thought) he had legitimately won. I didn’t bring up the findings of the Guardian Council, that in their partial review 50 cities had more than 100 percent of the population vote.

The real blow came after a little discussion of my disapproval of Ahmadinejad’s foreign actions. I was absolutely floored when the lady of the house started badmouthing President Obama. I value his idealistic and innovative leadership, and I told her so. Although I could understand her suspiscion towards politicians, I tried to tell her that corruption here doesn’t necessarily mean that every politician in the world is corrupt. I was annoyed by her warnings that after 10 years word would come out about all of Obama’s shady dealings. What sent me over the edge, and unfortunatly and embarassingly made me raise my voice, was her accusation that Zionist lobbyists brought Obama to power!

I was furious. What made her think that? Did she read it somewhere? Was there a study published? No. She got her information from none other than the Iranian state media. This is where my volume went up. The state controls your media, I told her. They’re creating a common enemy so that you’re too scared to confront their dictatorial control.

I shouldn’t have said it. She knew to let matters cool down after that, saying that my view was one way to look at it, sure. I listened politely as her older daughter then calmly told me of Moussavi’s frailities, of his political spin and his revolution-era Islamic zeal. That’s fine, and I don’t doubt for a moment that Moussavi and even his wife got caught up as was explained. What I cared about when I voted was a new face for Iran, the hope that brought young people out into the streets because they thought their vote could make a difference, could change their country into something livable, something at least a tiny bit better than it is now.

- Sanaz Arjomand

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Poseyal Knight of the DESPOSYNI under a Creative Commons license.

Voters headed to the polls in Argentina.

Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner suffered a setback in congressional elections on Sunday, with her Peronist party losing control of both houses.

She and her husband — former President Nestor Kirchner, who lost a bid for a congressional seat — have dominated Argentina’s political landscape for years. But a sagging economy and ongoing battles with farmers over export taxes have taken their toll on Kirchner’s approval rating.

For more, listen to our online radio show on Argentina’s farming crisis.

Oliver Balch is a freelance journalist based in Argentina. He writes at the “Frontline Club” about the implications of the election results.

Kirchners On the Ropes

I waited and waited and waited last night for Argentine strong-man Nestor Kirchner to speak. Just after midnight, I joined the general flow of people towards the door. All was quiet at campaign HQ. That boded ill for the country’s ruling party. Things, obviously, had not gone well at the mid-term polls.

The scene couldn’t have been more different from two years ago. In the same conference hall in the same Buenos Aires hotel, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (Nestor’s wife) had waved to the cameras and blown kisses to the millions who had voted for her.

The popularity of Argentina’s first elected female president (known simply by her first name, ‘Cristina’) has plummeted since that triumphant night in 2007. A protracted conflict with the country’s all-powerful rural bloc last year cost her dearly. She’s never really bounced back.

Yesterday’s mid-term was her chance to turn that around and breath new life into the “K Model” of politics. It didn’t happen that way. A centre-right coalition headed by dissident Peronist Francisco de Narvaez and backed by the business tycoon Mauricio Macri (former chairman of Boca Juniors) pipped the Kirchners to the post.

Analysts are busily assessing what the result means. One thing is clear. This is good for Argentine democracy. Congress has become an increasingly lame dog under the Kirchner reign, which began with Nestor’s election in 2003. Both enjoyed a parliamentary majority in the Lower House. Now that’s gone.

Logic would suppose that they will need to tone down their centrist presidential style and seek to rebuild alliances in Congress. But logic and politics are uneasy bedfellows, especially in Argentina. The new deputies elected yesterday won’t sit until December (the midterms were brought forward from October to July 28). A deluge of policies could feasibly be pushed through between now and then.

The worst case scenario would be that the Kirchners refuse to take the parliamentary route. With strong support among the ‘social classes’, as Argentina’s disenfranchised are called here, they could seek to rule through the street. It would be the first time. Argentine political activists like nothing better than a march or strike. The electorate might have shown a disgruntlement with the Kirchners, but the unions remain behind them. It’s amazing how much trouble transport workers can make if they decide to down tools (or, worse, block roads).

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user blmurch under a Creative Commons license.

At a news conference, the president said what has happened in Iran is “profound,” and he was more critical than he has been of the election and the violence against demonstrators that followed.

Iran’s security forces have been intensifying their crackdown in recent days, sometimes brutally.

Richard Bulliet, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Columbia University, joins Martin Savidge to discuss what the future holds for Iran’s protesters and what role the U.S. will play.