By C. Bryson Hull
KABUL (Reuters) - Rocket attacks across Afghanistan on Saturday heralded the opening of a parliamentary election the Taliban have vowed to disrupt and which will be a test of government credibility and the strength of its security forces.
Here are some scenarios on how the voting could play out:
MAJOR VIOLENCE, LOW TURNOUT:
The Taliban have threatened to derail the process and attacked and intimidated candidates, campaign workers, voters and election officials before voting, warning of violence against those who participate in the election.
A series of rocket attacks marked the start of polling on Saturday, in a pattern similar to the 2009 presidential election which, like the 2005 parliamentary vote, the Taliban were unable to obstruct completely.
Last year, however, attacks and threats did result in low turnout in Taliban strongholds in the south and east, the heartland of ethnic majority Pashtuns.
If the scale of violence reaches massive levels, it could have a serious effect on turnout that disenfranchises more voters. Already, at least 1,000 of a planned 6,835 polling stations were not opened due to security fears.
A significant number of voters unable to cast ballots because of the violence would affect the election's credibility seriously.
Turnout may also suffer from cynicism among Afghans that democracy is a farce, especially after the fraud-marred presidential election last year.
MODERATE VIOLENCE, MODERATE TURNOUT, MODERATE FRAUD:
Afghanistan is a country at war and has limited infrastructure amid some of the world's most forbidding terrain, so pulling off a nationwide election is no mean feat.
In that context, the definition of a successful election changes. U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura has said a turnout of between 28 percent and 40 percent should be considered a success.
He made that comment when the registered number of voters was estimated at around 17.5 million. Afghanistan's election commission said on Thursday there were only 11.4 million eligible voters, but gave no explanation for the discrepancy.
Some fraud can be expected since campaigning in Afghanistan's young democracy often consists of candidates offering money directly to voters, with the highest bidder winning their vote. Traditional patronage systems also play a big role.
Since Saturday's early violence was on par with the 2009 presidential poll, this seems a more likely outcome when taken together with the presence of nearly 150,000 foreign troops alongside nearly 300,000 Afghan police and soldiers
RAMPANT FRAUD BUT MINIMAL VIOLENCE:
It is still possible there will be widespread fraud but minimal violence, lessening the focus on turnout. But another fraud-hit poll would still be judged a failure and further strain relations between President Hamid Karzai and his Western backers.
Washington and its allies in Afghanistan were infuriated by the vote-rigging surrounding Karzai's re-election, and graft in his government remains a major point of friction.
There is a perception among many Afghans that Karzai's government, and politicians in general, are only in it for personal enrichment and not national development.
It also makes it easier for the Taliban to exploit the political landscape.
Since greater government stability will be a big factor in Washington's strategy review in December, in which the scale and pace of troop withdrawals are likely to be examined, more fraud could make an eventual U.S. pullout more difficult.
The only certainty is that it will be a long and drawn-out process, with preliminary results not expected before October 8 and a final result not before October 30. Those dates could be pushed back further if, as expected, there are thousands of complaints from disgruntled losers among the 2,500-odd candidates.
(Editing by Paul Tait)
