CAMPAIGN HARVESTS: MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS OF OCTOBER 2004
Hamida Aman
(Kabul, March 2006)
In spring 2004, when the official date of the Afghan presidential elections was finally announced in line with the timetable of the Bonn Agreements, very few would have bet on the success of this novel phenomenon in the country’s history. The challenges facing the poll organizers – Afghan authorities and the international community – were on par with their hopes: incomplete pacification of the provinces (Taliban and armed militias), lack of a democratic tradition, disappearance of the political elites (war and exile), poor means of communication, widespread illiteracy and, not least, complex logistics.
Amid all these uncertainties (to put it mildly), the Afghan communications agency Awaz (‘The Voice’) was mandated by the United Nations to alleviate another major problem: the weak media coverage of certain candidates in the election.
Two types of candidate for the country’s highest office were easily identifiable: those supported by a political structure mostly issuing from the jihad, and those representing civil society, with no organization to back up their campaign. There was a blatant disproportion in the funding of and the logistics available to these two types, even if their broadcasting time was guaranteed and monitored by the Afghan Electoral Commission.
The task of Awaz was to restore the balance by offering all candidates the same publicity opportunities (design and production of election material) and hence some equality of media access, and to advise the rival campaign teams on their communications strategy.
The media resources for a national election campaign were certainly limited:
Considering the low literacy rate, the strong oral tradition and the paltry level of TV ownership outside the big cities, the radio was undoubtedly the medium best suited to electioneering. In fact, encouraged by an international community eager to appear democratic, all the radio and television networks broadcast political material in great abundance (talk shows, radio and TV debates, questions from the public).
Though often disjointed and rarely constructive, these programmes aroused real enthusiasm. The public appreciated the unique opportunity to question the high and mighty who had made the country tremble for decades without ever having to give an account of themselves. It must be said that very few politicians relished this tricky exercise in dialogue with the people.
But the real campaign revolution came with the election posters that mushroomed on the walls of the country. Costing little to produce, they made it possible to occupy a physical space and to stay there. It is also amusing to note that campaign teams generally showed plenty of civic spirit in carefully pasting their material alongside, not on top of, that of their opponents.
Yet it was here that the difference between the candidates was most cruelly felt and the work of Awaz bore most of its fruit. For whereas the candidates of political parties visibly benefited from experience, funding and logistical backup, sometimes even direct support from abroad, those coming from civil society had to make do with black-and-white photocopies churned out on a table somewhere and crammed with text that was often unclear (especially for the large numbers of illiterate voters). The Awaz project – which fielded professionals in political marketing, graphic design and photography – allowed such candidates to improve their posters and slogans, while providing the means to print significant numbers (20,000– 30,000 posters, depending on size and design).
As for the media coverage of actual election programmes, it was first of all necessary for the candidate to have one.
TOO MANY WORDS FOR SO MANY EVILS
In a country so afflicted with illiteracy, few politicians escaped the temptation to outdo their opponents in the language they used. The themes of national unity, liberty, security and prosperity constituted the entire programmes of all the candidates, hammered out all the more forcefully and ardently to mask the total absence of a political project.
In fact, the election campaign soon began to revolve around the personalities and life histories of the candidates, all of whom contrived to position themselves on the social-ethnic chessboard and to assemble an electorate around membership of a particular community, even if, in their media appearances, they preached national unity and avoided playing too blatantly on community affiliations.
It was also important to position oneself in relation to the tortured history of Afghanistan, by declaring either that one had not been involved in the waging of war (for candidates from civil society) or that one had taken an active part in the jihad (for the candidates of political parties).
As to the tools of communication, it seemed evident that the representatives of political parties – who had mostly exercised some military or tribal power in the past – had learned how to tame the media and were perfectly skilled in verbal exercises, whereas for most of those from civil society this was their first experience of a microphone, a camera or even a crowd. The Awaz project, which also involved the production of radio and TV clips, enabled them to get used to these instruments of propaganda and use them to their own advantage.
It did not take long, however, for a dispute to break out over claims that the media (largely in government hands) were giving greater coverage and preferential treatment to the head of the interim government, Hamid Karzai. Although his speaking time, like that of the other presidential candidates, was fixed and monitored by the Afghan Electoral Commission, it was undoubtedly tricky for the media to draw a line between his activities as head of government and those as candidate for office.
Massouda Jalal, the only female candidate for the presidency, received huge attention from the foreign media, which saw her as a kind of Pasionaria loaded with the symbols of the struggle of Afghan women. Her nomination for the post of Minister of Women’s Affairs is certainly not unrelated to this spotlighting in the media.
Despite the equitable access of candidates to the media, it is difficult today to measure its real impact on people’s minds. On the ground it was often the heads of communities (villages or tribes) who had the last word, by virtue of the influence and authority they traditionally held over their constituents. It goes without saying that these leaders were fiercely wooed by the various candidates, whose fate they held in their hands.