PEACEW RKS

THE TALIBAN AND THE 2014 ELECTIONS 

IN AFGHANISTAN

Antonio Giustozzi

[ [
Cover photo: Tooryalai Weesa, governor of 

Kandahar province, voting in Kandahar City, 

Afghanistan, supplied by DVIDS

The views expressed in this report are those of 

the author alone. They do not necessarily reflect 

the views of the United States Institute of Peace.

United States Institute of Peace

2301 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20037

Phone: 202.457.1700

Fax: 202.429.6063

E-mail: usip_requests@usip.org

Web: www.usip.org

Peaceworks No. 94. First published 2014.

ISBN: 978-1-60127-216-4

© 2014 by the United States Institute of Peace

About the Report

This report examines the current debate within the Taliban 

movement about how to approach the 2014 national 

elections in Afghanistan. It charts the position of the 

various groupings within the Taliban and how they have 

interacted both with each other and with interlocutors 

outside the Taliban. This study, funded by the United 

States Institute of Peace, draws on extensive interviews 

conducted in Afghanistan in the spring of 2013 with 

various Taliban leaders, cadres, commanders, fighters, 

and community elders.

About the Author

Antonio Giustozzi has been researching Afghanistan 

since the 1990s, first at the London School of Economics 

and more recently at King’s College London. He is the 

author of numerous articles and several books, including 

a collection of essays on the Taliban (Decoding the New 

Taliban, 2009), the first study of the Taliban insurgency to 

be published (Koran, Kalashnikov and Laptop, 2008), a 

study of Afghanistan’s warlords (Empires of Mud, 2009), 

and a study of Afghanistan’s police (Policing Afghanistan, 

with Mohammad Isaqzadeh, 2013). 
PEACEWORKS • FEBRUARY 2014 • NO. 94

CONTENTS

Introduction ... 5

An Overview of the Taliban’s Internal Alignments ... 6

The Taliban’s Past Record with Elections ... 7

Debate about 2014 Elections and a Peace Settlement ... 13

Ideological Views about Elections and Negotiations ... 18

Conclusion ... 26

[All Taliban interviewed were in principle committed to a 

violent campaign to prevent or disrupt the 2014 elections. 

... Their degree of practical involvement varied widely.]

3

THE TALIBAN AND THE 2014 ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

Summary 

■ The Taliban are organized in a number of semiautonomous networks and centers of power, 

each able to contribute to the formulation of policy and sometimes even able to formulate 

policy autonomously. This presents challenges in determining exactly what approach the 

Taliban will take toward the 2014 national elections.

■ The Taliban have tried to disrupt previous elections, but they had little capacity to do so in 

2004 and 2005. In 2009 and 2010, they had a greater disruptive effect on the electoral 

process as a whole, though in a handful of cases they did reach deals with individual candidates and local communities.

■ For the first time, certain segments of the Taliban have begun to consider alternatives to a 

campaign of violent disruption of national elections and have even invested considerable 

effort in making alternatives viable from an organizational point of view.

■ Some “militarist” components of the Taliban, primarily the networks or alliances of networks led by the Haqqanis and by Abdul Qayum Zakir, continue to oppose the very idea 

of elections and always favor a campaign of violent disruption.

■ Among those Taliban more inclined to consider alternative approaches, different positions 

have emerged between the Peshawar Shura and an alliance of networks based in Quetta 

led by Akhtar Mansur.

■ By the end of the summer of 2013, all Taliban groupings had unified behind a common 

strategy of disrupting the elections, whether for ideological reasons or as a way to increase 

leverage vis-à-vis their interlocutors in Kabul.

■ There does not appear to have been much of a theoretical debate within the Taliban about 

the admissibility of elections. Instead, the elections of 2014 have been seen as a tactical 

opportunity to strengthen the image of the Taliban as a political organization, as opposed 

to a purely military organization.

5

THE TALIBAN AND THE 2014 ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

Introduction

The international community and Afghan political leaders alike see the 2014 Afghan national 

elections as crucial for the continuation of political stability in Afghanistan and for the success of 

the past decade’s statebuilding effort there. A major factor in determining the success or failure 

of these elections will be how the Taliban approach them, now that it is clear that the insurgent 

group has not been brought to the edge of defeat by the 2010 –11 surge in the south. In a sense, 

by stressing the importance of the elections and by committing itself to support them, the international community has locked itself into a conundrum. 

There are many problems associated with the electoral process. First, the security conditions 

might not be in place to carry out the elections in much of the country and particularly in Pashtun 

areas. Second, even if security conditions are sufficiently permissive, the elections might still be 

affected by fraud and malpractice—whether similar to or worse than that which occurred in the 

2009 elections—and could cause a major crisis inside the current ruling coalition. Third, electoral 

competition between different factions and groups could increase tension among government 

partners and different communities. At a time when Western influence is already significantly 

reduced, such a development would have negative implications for the stability of the country.

Divining the internal workings of the Taliban is a delicate process. The methodology of this 

study relies heavily on interviews. Two upper-level Taliban leaders, thirty-seven Taliban provincial and district cadres (a mix of military commissioners, members of the Taliban’s election disruption commission, network representatives, and a few group commanders), fourteen Taliban 

fighters, and twenty-six community elders were interviewed specifically for this project between 

the end of March and the first half of May 2013.1

The interviews were carried out by experienced Afghan interviewers with a long track record 

of reaching out to insurgents. The interviewees had to be kept anonymous for their own security 

and the security of the interviewers. The questionnaires were structured, but follow-up questions 

were allowed and encouraged. Twenty-five elders were interviewed from the selected districts 

in order to triangulate as much as possible the information provided by Taliban members about 

policy and practices.

Community elders are likely to hold only superficial information about the Taliban’s internal 

debates, but they are often witness to their actions. In order to cross-check the information given 

by the Taliban interviewees, all of the Taliban were interviewed separately. Further, contact with 

them was made through different channels to ensure a balance among Taliban networks. Given 

the difficulty of fully triangulating and confirming information, however, this methodology cannot guarantee that what is described in this report is representative of all the different components of the Taliban in a completely balanced way.

One issue faced when compiling this report was how to turn the terminology used by Afghan 

interlocutors into something coherent and widely understandable. Taliban and elders, for example, often referred in the interviews to “Afghan Taliban” and “Pakistani Taliban” or “Taliban who 

come from Pakistan.” This usuage has nothing to do with those organizations typically referred 

to as “Pakistani Taliban,” which primarily conduct antigovernment operations inside Pakistan. 

Rather, this terminology reflects degrees of dependence on Pakistan among Taliban factions. For 

example, to local Afghan Taliban fronts, the “Pakistani Taliban” might be Afghan members of the 

Taliban whom they judge to be on the payroll of foreign spy agencies or who spend the majority 

of their time inside Pakistan. In other instances, they might use this terminology simply to discredit rivals within the Taliban movement. To the elders, all Taliban who operate from Pakistan 

are “Pakistani Taliban.” This terminology is of course confusing and so is not extensively used in 

the report, though it inevitably appears in some of the quotes.
6

PEACEWORKS 94

An Overview of the Taliban’s Internal Alignments

In Taliban terminology, shuras (councils) are essentially representative organs that bring together 

power and interest groups within the Taliban.2 There are two main centers of power within the 

Taliban, the shuras of Quetta and Peshawar.3 Both the Quetta and Peshawar shuras include various networks gathered around charismatic warrior mullahs. In Quetta, the networks are formally 

recognized by the Taliban military leadership and have a role in the decision-making process. In 

Peshawar, the networks have been formally abolished and their structures merged. 

A key factor in this formal merger has been the centralization of revenue in the hands of the 

Peshawar Shura’s top leadership, who are reportedly directly supported by Pakistani authorities.4

 The centralization of resources has resulted in greater unity, even if Peshawar still consists 

of smaller component shuras (e.g., Shamsatoo, Tore Pagri, Ijraya). The notable exception is the 

Miran Shah Shura (better known as the Haqqani Network), which—by virtue of its military 

power, own sources of funding, and territorial concentration—has been able to negotiate more 

favorable terms with Peshawar and maintains a greater degree of operational autonomy, though 

it rarely claims any political autonomy.

At the time this report was written (June 2013), interviews carried out for this and other 

research projects described the Taliban as divided into four groups. The Peshawar Shura, as has 

already been discussed, remains substantially united, while the Quetta Shura was de facto split 

into the following three groups:

•	 Akhtar Mansur’s alliance, which includes Mansur’s own large network and the 

powerful Baradar and Dadullah networks; 

•	 Abdul Qayum Zakir’s alliance, which includes Zakir’s own large network and those 

of Sattar, Janan, Naim, and Ibrahim; and

•	 the Rahbari Shura (Leadership Council) in Quetta, which was once the main decision-making body of the Taliban—and for a period aligned with Mansur—but is 

now increasingly trying to play an autonomous role. The Rahbari Shura includes a 

number of old political leaders who individually have a modest following among the 

rank and file but who collectively are not a negligible force.

The two strongest Quetta factions—Mansur’s and Zakir’s—have separate sources of revenue, a 

fact that partly explains their split. Zakir has been supported by Pakistani authorities and by the 

Peshawar Shura, while Mansur has been reliant on his own fundraising inside Afghanistan and 

among the Afghan diaspora. Beyond the issue of funds, the main factor uniting the various networks (including Baradar’s and Dadullah’s) inside the Mansur Alliance is opposition to Abdul 

Qayum Zakir, the Taliban’s rising star, who has been accumulating power since his appointment 

as head of the Quetta Military Commission in 2009.5 Though Mansur’s faction was formerly 

aligned with the Rahbari Shura, neither his nor Zakir’s faction is strictly aligned with the Rahbari Shura, which has seen a decline in influence (and funds) over the years. 

When analyzing the Taliban’s internal politics, it is important to keep in mind the fluidity of 

alliances, particularly within and between Zakir and Mansur’s extended networks. For instance, 

during the research phase of this project in the spring of 2013, news came that Mullah Naim 

had split from Mansur’s alliance and allied with Zakir. In autumn 2012, the network of Dadullah had realigned from Zakir to Mansur.6

The political and military strengths of these alliances vary greatly. As of spring 2013, Mansur’s alliance and the Rahbari Shura likely did not account for more than a quarter of Taliban 

fighters. However, they wielded considerable influence among Pashtun communities, mainly in 

When analyzing the 

Taliban’s internal politics, it 

is important to keep in mind 

the fluidity of alliances.
7

THE TALIBAN AND THE 2014 ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

southern Afghanistan, because their leaders were seasoned political figures able to talk to community leaders. Zakir’s alliance and the Peshawar Shura, while accounting together for perhaps 

as many as three-quarters of Taliban fighters, were not as well connected with communities 

because of their extensive military background and focus. 8 

These differences in strength contributed to the creation of diverging interests with regard to 

the desirability of a political settlement of the conflict. The component that was strongest militarily (Zakir) believed Western disengagement from Afghanistan after 2014 would maximize 

its leverage and thus saw no reason to rush into negotiations, while the component that was 

weakest militarily (Mansur) saw the advantage of pushing for negotiations as soon as possible. 

In other words, the attitudes toward a political settlement for some Taliban leaders had as much 

to do with balances of power within the movement as it did with the relationship between the 

movement as a whole and the Kabul government that it was contesting.

The large majority of the Taliban, however, remained committed to the unity of the movement, a factor that has a major impact on limiting how far they are willing to go in pursuing 

their own private interests.9

The Taliban’s Past Record with Elections

In order to understand the internal Taliban debates over the 2014 elections, it is necessary first 

to look at how the Taliban have historically related to electoral processes, both as an Islamic 

Emirate and as an insurgent movement, and how they have communicated their message on 

elections to the public.

No elections were held during the Taliban Emirate (1994–2001), nor was there ever any real 

debate on the possibility of holding elections during this time or the need for them. Although a 

few interviewees put this down to the difficult environment (the Taliban was never able to gain 

full control of the country), the majority indicated that there was no need for elections within 

the emirate system of governance, built as it was around processes of consensual selection of 

leaders by a small group of men who considered themselves to be uniquely competent to act in 

accordance with what the Quran demanded. Others cited the lack of strong electoral traditions 

in Afghanistan and the deep rural and religious conservatism of the Taliban as structural factors 

that made elections a nonissue during this time. 

So, when the post-2001 electoral cycle started in 2004, the Taliban were, at first, without 

a definite position on an issue they had never fully considered. As such, their approach was 

largely reactive. If the elections were of great importance to the international community, the 

Taliban’s interest in them was largely a negative reflection of this foreign importance. Because 

Washington and other Western capitals had identified elections as important benchmarks of 

progress and success in Afghanistan, the Taliban saw them as necessary and convenient targets: 

very visible but vulnerable and soft at the same time. Even when the Taliban have lacked the operational capacity to significantly disrupt the elections (particularly during the 2004 presidential 

and 2005 parliamentary elections), they have regularly issued hostile statements to the press and 

threatened candidates and voters alike with death for the act of participating.

It is difficult to say with certainty how the Taliban would have approached elections if the international community had not placed such an emphasis on them. What emerges from the interviews 

for this report is that the Taliban seem to have regarded the elections with an attitude of indifference. 

When asked what was wrong with the elections, many Taliban cadres answered that foreign 

support and interference was the main issue. The Quetta-based Taliban political leadership has 

also publicly stated the same about the 2014 elections. Most recently, in an August 2013 Eid 

Differences in strength 

contributed to the creation 

of diverging interests with 

regard to the desirability of 

a political settlement.
8

PEACEWORKS 94

message, a statement under the name of Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar attacks the 

elections not because they are un-Islamic or fraudulent but essentially because they are not 

Afghan enough: “Our pious and mujahid people know that selection, de facto, takes place in 

Washington.” 10

These messages, however, are mostly posted online and meant for national and international 

audiences, not necessarily for local communities or even rank-and-file fighters. Even in areas 

in which the Taliban have a strong presence, elders were not especially knowledgeable about 

Taliban positions or policies in regards to political matters. There is, however, overlap between 

Taliban and community elders’ viewpoints on elections, particularly in conservative parts of the 

country in which both the Taliban and some elders believe, for instance, that women should not 

have the right to vote. 

Although Taliban teams are known to regularly visit villages and meet the local elders, this 

effort does not seem to be the main mode of Taliban political communication. Instead, the elders indicated how they believed that the Taliban often identified sympathetic mullahs in local 

mosques to express the Taliban’s line. At least as far as the villagers are concerned, other means 

of communication are of little relevance—websites are addressed to the mass media and donors/

fundraisers, while DVDs and CDs are targeted at recruitment and indoctrination. The content 

of such media can be very different from what the Taliban want to communicate to the rural 

population. 

The 2004 Elections

The Taliban insurgency was still at an early stage in 2004, with only a couple of provinces, such 

as Zabul and Paktika, being seriously affected. The Taliban’s operational capacity to actually 

attack and intimidate voters was limited to these provinces and a few other districts, mainly 

in Ghazni and northern Helmand. One Taliban leader, a member of the Peshawar Shura, acknowledged that the insurgency was not being supported by neighboring countries and lacked 

the resources for a widespread campaign in 2004:

In that time no one wanted to make problems for elections. Pakistan did not want to disrupt 

the elections. We said, “Let’s see how much elections are beneficial for Afghanistan. People 

must not think that this was the first election and Taliban did not let it happen.”

The reference to Pakistan seems to indicate that the modest resources available at that time 

might have been a key factor in discouraging the Taliban from disrupting the elections, as opposed to Taliban open-mindedness as suggested in the quote. At the time, there were reports of 

tensions at the top of the Taliban over the failure to sabotage the elections.11 In addition, Pakistan might have had an important or decisive influence over that Taliban’s attitude. U.S. president George W. Bush reportedly warned Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf that he needed 

orderly elections in Afghanistan, and Musharraf complied by restricting movement across its 

border.12 The elders in Badghis and Helmand said that in 2004 the Taliban could only carry out 

propaganda against the elections in the mosques and through sympathetic mullahs. The exception was Musa Qala, where some violence occurred. In Ghazni, the Taliban urged villagers not 

to vote; they distributed “night letters” warning people not to vote, but these admittedly had little 

effect. In some cases, small-scale retaliation occurred after the elections.

The 2005 Elections

The insurgency started gaining momentum in 2005 and began to carry out attacks on a more 

significant scale. According to unverified data cited by a Taliban leader, 38 entire districts and 
9

THE TALIBAN AND THE 2014 ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

560 villages in other districts were prevented from voting in the parliamentary elections of that 

year (about 10 percent of the countryside). This leader also reported that a foreign sponsor paid 

large amounts of cash to the Taliban in 2005 to distribute to people and commanders in order 

to stop the parliamentary elections. The Taliban’s opposition to the elections was, at least in 

principle, total. In 2005, there was no reported case of the Taliban supporting any parliamentary candidate. This is contrary to what was reported in later elections (see below). 

However, even with a large infusion of external funding and greater Taliban reach, the impact of the 2005 disruption campaign when compared to 2004 was modest. Elders interviewed 

for this report confirmed that in 2005 the Taliban were more active but with limited effect. All 

of them stated that their individual districts had been affected (even in the north), but most 

of the anti-election activities consisted of allegedly pro-Taliban mullahs preaching in mosques 

against the elections and in the distribution of threatening night letters. 

Some violence was confirmed to have occurred in Helmand. In some cases, such as in Sayed 

Abad district (Wardak), the Taliban punished some villagers after the vote for having participated, but only a single village was fully prevented from voting. In Ghazni province, a candidate was 

killed before the elections, and two voters were executed after the elections. Even in a Taliban 

stronghold like Daychopan district of Zabul, the Taliban did not carry out any violence against 

the electoral process, although they did carry out propaganda against it and in particular against 

candidates who were not considered “good” Muslims. In Reg, one of the most remote districts 

of Kandahar, only six of eighty-five villages were not able to vote. 

While the Taliban insurgency was stronger in 2005 than in 2004, it still lacked the widespread military power and coordination to cause large-scale disruption. Had the elections been 

held just a year later, when the Taliban really began to expand operationally, they may have made 

a more concerted attempt at disruption. However, in 2005, as one Taliban commander noted 

when talking specifically of Ghazni province, the insurgency was too busy organizing itself and 

managing its own expansion and thus did not prioritize election disruption.

The 2009 Elections 

By 2009 the Taliban was well organized, resourced, and able to exert considerable control 

over sections of the population, particularly in the south and east. As such, the 2009 Taliban 

campaign against elections was different in both scale and style from 2005. More moderate 

persuasion, which characterized most of the Taliban’s effort in 2005, gave way to active intimidation and coercion. One month before the elections, “election commissioners” were appointed 

by Quetta to coordinate anti-election activities in the provinces. One Taliban leader claimed 

that the Taliban received money from progovernment sources to allow the elections to occur 

but that these sources were essentially outbid by external sponsors who offered more funding 

to disrupt the elections. The number of foreign countries reportedly supporting the Taliban’s 

campaign against the elections increased in 2009 to include several Arab Gulf countries. 

One Taliban leader claimed the insurgency prevented the 2009 elections from being held in 

sixty districts as well as many villages in other districts, mostly in the south, and that a total of 

four hundred electoral staff were killed and ten trucks with ballots were captured. Other Taliban 

cadres claimed that more than three hundred polling stations were attacked and ninety were 

shut down countrywide. 

In Helmand, 120 attacks were carried out against the electoral process. Eighty people were 

killed and twenty people had their fingers cut off in retaliation for voting, according to a cadre 

who operated there at the time. A commander claimed to have personally carried out twentyBy 2009, more moderate 

persuasion, which 

characterized most of 

the Taliban’s effort in 

2005, gave way to active 

intimidation and coercion.
10

PEACEWORKS 94

nine attacks against polling stations in Nad Ali and Marjah. In Kandahar alone, thirty elders 

and sixty election staffers were killed, according to one Talib’s account. In Nerkh (Wardak), two 

residents were killed for voting, according to residents. 

In many districts, elections could be held only in the more accessible villages. In Khakrez 

(Kandahar), only 30 out of 105 villages were able to access polling sites, according to the Taliban. A similar inability to vote was reported in other Kandahari districts, such as Shah Wali 

Kot, Maruf, Panjwai, and Spin Boldak. Elders who were interviewed confirmed at least some 

of these Taliban claims of declining rural participation and highlighted the case of Musa Qala 

(Helmand), where no voting occurred in 2009. In Reg, twenty of eighty-five villages were unable to vote in 2009, up from only six that had been disenfranchised in 2005. In areas with less 

of a Taliban presence, violence was more contained, but here, too, a number of villages could not 

vote: In Dawlatabad (Balkh), for example, the Taliban successfully kept villages from voting. 

Considering that the Independent Election Commission (IEC) reported that seven hundred polling stations stayed closed on Election Day because of security issues, Taliban claims 

about the number of polling stations closed down do not seem inflated. The veracity of the rest 

of the data appears dubious, however. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in 

Afghanistan and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, a total of twenty IEC 

officials were killed, a far cry from the four hundred claimed by the Taliban. Another twentytwo civilians were killed, some of whom were campaign staff of presidential candidates. But 

even if the Taliban had included them in the count, the gap between the two sets of data would 

remain huge.13

Despite the Taliban’s exaggerations, elders in general agreed that violence was much worse in 

2009 than in 2005, and in many districts, people were hurt for the first time as a consequence of 

their desire to vote. However, the 2009 campaign was still mostly focused on intimidation: For 

example, in Shirzad (Nangarhar), the Taliban ran a night letters campaign to intimidate elders.

The actual impact of the Taliban’s campaign should not be overestimated. In many areas, 

the main concern in 2009 was abuse and coercion by local strongmen acting often on behalf of 

certain candidates rather than the Taliban, even in much of the Pashtun belt. A Mohmand Dara 

(Nangarhar) elder recalled the rigging and manipulation of the vote, as local strongmen were 

selling their services to the different candidates.

In 2009, the Taliban were still largely disinclined to make any compromise with regard to 

the elections. As one cadre, an election commissioner in Nangarhar province, pointed out:

In 2009 there was one candidate with a Talib past, whose name was Salam Roketi, but 

we did not support him and we even showed opposition to him.

Compared with 2005, however, there was greater willingness to shelve principles when 

tactically convenient. In Mohmand Dara, for instance, the Taliban stopped their anti-election 

campaigns after the first round out of fear of favoring Abdullah Abdullah’s victory—the possibility of a “Tajik” head of state was seen as more of a threat than the elections themselves by 

the predominately Pashtun Taliban.14

A new development in 2009 was that the Karzai government, worried that the Taliban campaign to disrupt the elections would prevent Pashtuns from voting and thus hurt the incumbent, 

actively invited elders to approach the local Taliban and convince them to let people vote. The 

predominant view among the twenty-six elders interviewed was that their efforts to dissuade 

the Taliban in 2009 were not only fruitless but also risky and counterproductive (see table 1).

One Taliban fighter confirmed that in his area the elders were trying to contact the Taliban 

and that only out of consideration for the elders’ influence no violent retaliation took place 

against them. It would appear that the elders were quite cautious in their approaches, often only 
11

THE TALIBAN AND THE 2014 ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

pretending to ask for clarifications over the Taliban’s position. Some Taliban cadres adamantly 

denied having received requests from the elders and showed their irritation toward people who 

were less than committed to the jihad effort. As a representative of Janan’s network in Wardak 

province stated,

Do you think it is possible that elders who are living under our control would come and 

ask us to allow the Karzai elections? We are fighting and doing jihad to overthrow this 

government and bring over an Islamic government. We have lost our friends and mujahideen for this cause and then elders would come and ask us to allow the Karzai government election. The elders know that we hate these kinds of requests. 

The willingness of the elders to approach the Taliban appears to have varied from place to 

place. An interviewee from Shirzad (Nangarhar) said elders in his district were divided between those who sided with the Taliban’s anti-election position and those who believed the 

vote should be allowed. In general, though, few of the elders interviewed had much sympathy 

for the Taliban in 2009 and 2010; those who refused to lobby the Taliban were likely to have 

been motivated mainly by fear over insurgent reactions rather than any affinity for the Taliban 

position. Today, only one of twenty-six elders surveyed for this report agreed with the Taliban’s 

stance on the elections.15

As the elders’ willingness varied, so too did their ability to exercise some influence. Although 

information in this regard was scant, it would appear that local Taliban, operating among their 

communities of origin, might have been more susceptible to elder influence. Some of the Taliban interviewed admitted that in some instances elders might have been able to influence insurgent actions. One fighter from Mansur’s network admitted that his group was contacted by 

elders in the past and collaborated with them secretly. 

The 2010 Elections

During the 2010 parliamentary elections, the level of Taliban violence was comparable to 2009. 

The significant difference was that the Taliban allowed elections in certain areas and supported 

some candidates, allegedly at the direction of external sponsors. 

The most widely quoted case of Taliban supporting a candidate was in northern Helmand, 

where the brother of a prominent politician reportedly negotiated with some of the Taliban 

networks in Kajaki and Musa Qala districts to allow the vote to take place—whether the vote 

was fair or fixed (as widely reported) is not clear. External Taliban leadership reportedly authorized this deal. An elder in Daychopan (Zabul) reported that some Taliban were pushing for a 

Taliban did not listen. 54

Elder refused to talk to Taliban out of fear. 15

Elder refused out of sympathy with Taliban. 4

Taliban reacted with campaign of assassinations. 12

Elder was arrested. 4

Sometimes Taliban agreed. 15

Elder did not try to lobby. 4

Elder tried and Taliban asked for money. 4

 Note: Multiple answers were allowed.

Table 1: Results of Elders’ Attempt to Lobby the Taliban (in Percentages)

It would appear that local 

Taliban, operating among 

their communities of 

origin, might have been 

more susceptible to elder 

influence.
12

PEACEWORKS 94

particular candidate while others were trying to sabotage the elections altogether—suggesting 

some local disunity and, in this case, the noninvolvement of top leadership. 16

In some areas, the support of the Taliban appears to have been on a commercial basis. In 

Mohammad Agha and Baraki Barak (Logar), elders believe that some candidates made payments to some of the Taliban in exchange for being allowed to campaign, but this does not 

appear to have been a policy authorized by the Taliban leadership. 

With the Taliban allowing elections to occur in some areas, countrywide violence levels may 

have decreased in 2010 compared to 2009. However, where the campaign against the elections 

went ahead without compromise, the level of violence and intimidation might in fact have been 

even higher than in 2009. Interviews with elders seem to indicate exactly this. Elders pointed 

to a rise in violence in areas like Mohmand Dara (Nangarhar), where five people were executed 

and others had their fingers cut off, and Maruf (Kandahar), where twenty villagers were killed 

and a few more had their fingers cut. One elder in the Ajristan district of Ghazni province described the climax of intimidation as follows:

In the beginning the Taliban tried to convince people not to vote and not to participate 

in the election, but when we reached close to Election Day, the Taliban started threatening the villagers not to vote; otherwise they would kill those who voted.

The level of Taliban control, especially in rural areas, combined with the history of intimidation 

and punishment resulted in a greater number of villages being unable to vote than in years past. 

In Reg (Kandahar), the number of villages unable to vote rose to 37 out of 85. In Mohammad 

Agha (Logar), 20 of 60 villages could not vote. In Sayed Abad (Wardak), 25–30 villages were 

prevented from voting. In Sangin (Helmand), 76 of 96 villages were effectively disenfranchised 

as the Taliban intimidated and killed some of those who dared venture to the polling stations. In 

Nerkh (Wardak), half of the 60 villages could vote. In Ghazni, elders said that few Pashtuns voted, 

as confirmed by the fact that all of the parliamentary seats in this mixed Hazara-Pashtun province 

went to Hazaras. In Dand-i Ghori (Baghlan), one of the areas of the north worst affected by the 

violence, turnout was estimated at 20 percent by one elder and at almost nil by the Taliban.

The 2010 elections saw the continuation of the attempts by government officials to encourage elders to lobby the Taliban in favor of the electoral process; one elder in Dand-i Ghori 

(Baghlan) described the effort this way:

A group of elders in Dand-i-Ghori following my advice went to [the main district] 

Taliban commander in 2010. The elders told [him] that we will pay you tax and zakat 

(alms); we will let you operate in our district but now we don’t have anyone on the government side to defend our rights and bring development projects and other help to our 

district. The elders asked the Taliban to permit villagers to participate in the election and 

vote for someone from the district. But unfortunately [the Taliban commander] didn’t 

accept the elders’ offer and threatened the elders and the villagers that if anyone voted in 

the election, the Taliban would burn their house and cut their fingers off. 

In Moqur (Ghazni), one messenger sent by the elders to ask the Taliban for negotiations was 

executed on the spot. The Taliban confirmed that they sometimes reacted violently against elders who were advocating in favor of letting people vote, killing a number of elders in 2009–10. 

In general, it would appear that the Taliban hardened their attitude in 2010 toward elders pleading for the elections to be allowed. A Taliban cadre in Baghlan explained the Taliban’s irritation: 

I told them that instead of coming and joining us in the jihad, instead of buying weapons 

for us to continue the jihad against the foreign troops and the Afghan government, you 

come and ask us to let the elections happen. . . . It was a very funny request. In fact, they 

all know that we have been fighting against this terrible government for a long time. Lots 

of our friends were martyred and wounded in this way, but those villagers without thinking, they came and asked us to let the election happen. 
13

THE TALIBAN AND THE 2014 ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

General Considerations on 2004–2010

Though the Taliban has, on principle, opposed all four of Afghanistan’s national elections, their 

ability to disrupt these elections has changed throughout the years. In 2004, while there may 

have been a wait and see attitude, interviews with elders suggest that this was more an issue of 

ability rather than will, and thus propaganda and intimidation rather than direct violence was 

the method they were forced to employ.

By 2009 and 2010, the Taliban were better funded and organized and able to openly attack 

polling sites, candidates, voters, and elections officials. Their claims for 2009 and 2010, however, 

seem inflated in terms of the damage done. Asked why the level of violence inflicted by the 

Taliban was somewhat lower than expected on the basis of their military capabilities, all the 

Taliban interviewees in Afghanistan stated that it was simply a matter of Kabul underreporting 

the scale of the problem. 

Pakistan-based Taliban, on the other hand, pointed to a lack of coordination and planning 

among leadership and ad hoc implementation at the ground level. 

A Peshawar-based interviewee stated that the Quetta Shura wanted to disrupt the elections 

but that it was not sufficiently organized to achieve its aims. The Quetta interviewee claimed 

that Taliban leaders authorized local Taliban to tolerate the electoral process in some cases in 

2010 but that this was not a Taliban policy and no coherent statements, either publicly or privately to front commanders and shadow governors, were made in this regard. Instead, this authorization of tolerance seems to have been the result of high-level dealings between individual 

Taliban leaders and particular political elites in Afghanistan with family members running for 

office or some other personal or economic stake in the elections.

The same ad hoc economic arrangements were at work on a smaller scale at the district 

level. Where community leaders were able to lobby effectively for Taliban tolerance of electoral 

processes seems to have been mostly the result of personal connections to local Taliban or cash 

payments from candidates. 

In addition to these internal, interest-based splits on whether to attack the polls, differences 

also arose in 2009 and 2010 between the Peshawar and Quetta shuras. According to the Peshawar source, in 2009 and 2010, Peshawar was mostly in favor of allowing the elections to take 

place, with the exception of a key military leader, Dost Mohammed, who insisted he would in 

any case carry out a campaign against the elections in Kunar and Nuristan. Quetta, by contrast, 

was unanimously in favor of disrupting the elections, even if it might have turned a blind eye 

when some leaders cut secret deals. 

But it is important not to read too much about the Taliban’s views of elections and democracy from Peshawar’s tolerant stance. Outside Kunar and Nuristan (Dost Mohammed’s strongholds), their military position was rather weak, and a full-fledged campaign against the elections 

would have exposed this weakness. Today, the Peshawar Shura is stronger, more organized, and, 

as will be explored in the next section, taking a more activist role in 2014 election disruption 

than Quetta.

Debate about the 2014 Elections and a Peace Settlement

In the spring and early summer of 2013 when field research was conducted, all Taliban interviewed were in principle committed to a violent campaign to prevent or disrupt the 2014 

elections. However, as will be discussed, their degree of practical involvement to achieving 

this end varied widely. 

Though the Taliban has, on 

principle, opposed all four 

of Afghanistan’s national 

elections, their ability to 

disrupt these elections 

has changed throughout 

the years.
14

PEACEWORKS 94

On the other side, the government of Afghanistan was reportedly approaching elders to 

lobby local Taliban to allow voting. Among elders there appears to be even less appetite than in 

2009 and 2010 to petition the Taliban. This reluctance is due to the mostly ineffectual and dangerous attempts to convince the Taliban in the past. There was no evidence, at least in mid-2013, 

that the Taliban—Peshawar and Quetta cadres—would be more receptive to local entreaties. A 

mahaz (front) commander for Abdul Qayum Zakir stated openly that elders who insisted on 

supporting the electoral process could be targeted for killing. 

Differences in Planning among Taliban

Zakir’s alliance in Quetta was reported to be the component of the Taliban most vehemently 

opposed to the electoral process even before research for this report began, due to the uncompromising jihadist stance of Zakir himself. As of spring 2013, the position of the Peshawar 

Shura with regard to the elections coincided with Zakir’s. 

Peshawar has been leading the formulation of an elections disruption strategy, which was 

presented to, and accepted by, Zakir. Peshawar and Zakir’s position as of spring 2013 was that 

both peace negotiations and peaceful elections were a nonstarter as long as “foreigners” were in 

Afghanistan. The line is that a successful electoral process would be seen as America’s victory 

and that elections could be assumed to deliver only what “the Americans want.” 

This line was communicated to the cadres on the ground and from them transmitted further 

to the Taliban rank and file and to the general population. Noted one of Zakir’s cadres, 

The conditions from the Taliban side are obviously that the United States should leave 

Afghanistan and be ashamed of their act in Afghanistan. They should release the 

Taliban prisoners. They should recognize the Islamic Emirate internationally and accept 

their defeat in Afghanistan. They should say, “We are defeated by the Taliban and we 

don’t have the tolerance to fight against the Taliban.”

The possibility of political inclusion via the elections meant little because the government 

was seen as America’s puppet and thus inclusion as fundamentally unrealistic. A Peshawar cadre 

argued that because an American withdrawal would not happen before the elections, he believed the decision to violently sabotage the elections would hold until polling day.

The uncompromising stance on the elections and on negotiations was driven by selfconfidence. As an individual close to the Peshwar Shura stated,

We want to take power by force. We are succeeding in our strategies. Americans and 

their forces are escaping and they are afraid.

A cadre from Wardak shared this view, believing that Peshawar would not negotiate a deal 

until a complete withdrawal of foreign troops occurs. That is not believed to happen by 2014, 

but if it did, he says, they would easily win the war, so negotiations would likely not be needed. 

Taliban who would like to allow the elections in exchange for concessions were described as 

opportunistic. As one cadre associated with Zakir stated,

There are some Taliban who think elections are happening anyway, so we must talk with 

the government and get some money, but we said, “No, this is not true.” Taliban must 

not support the elections and so too the people of Afghanistan and all must leave the 

ballot boxes empty and no one should participate. 

Others stated that those who want to negotiate are not real Taliban. A cadre in a front under 

the command of Zakir expressed the most extreme view. He stated that he would oppose peace 

even if Mullah Omar was declaring it and that he would oppose the elections under the current 

system even if Mullah Omar was a candidate. 
15

THE TALIBAN AND THE 2014 ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

Disruption Planning

According to the Peshawar Shura interviewee, an “electoral office” of the Peshawar Shura was 

established in mid-February 2013. The office, as of April 2013, had seventeen staff members in 

charge of as many provinces in the east, southeast, northeast, and Kabul regions. The electoral 

office’s avowed purpose was to prevent the 2014 elections from taking place. Five hundred 

million Pakistani rupees ($5 million) had been allocated to create a network of “electoral commissions” inside Afghanistan. 

Another source claimed that a massive budget had been assigned to the Peshawar Shura 

electoral office and that Zakir was expecting his own budget to be assigned soon. Taliban “election commissioners” have reportedly become the second highest-ranking Taliban officials in a 

district or province after “military commissioners.” Their presence on the ground was confirmed 

by independent sources. According to a cadre in Peshawar, the rationale for establishing an electoral office in the Peshawar Shura, with a considerable budget, included the need to

1. improve information gathering about the electoral process, the organization presiding 

over it, and the candidates;

2. improve the discipline of the Taliban in the field in implementing the orders transmitted by the leadership concerning the elections, as in previous years a number of 

commanders were only pretending to be sabotaging the electoral effort;

3. improve the ability to sabotage the electoral effort through the systematic infiltration 

of the electoral commission. 

In order to turn the hostility to the elections into an effective operational plan, Zakir decided 

to allow the Peshawar Shura to open electoral offices even in the south. An agreement was 

reached in spring 2013 between Peshawar and Quetta, according to which the electoral office in 

Peshawar would open local branches in some of Quetta’s areas too: the north, Zabul, and parts 

of Ghazni. In the remaining areas, the disruption of the electoral effort would be left to selected 

Taliban commanders and networks connected to one of Afghanistan’s neighbors. This compromise seemed intended to allow Mansur’s alliance to avowedly stay out of the anti-elections campaign in order not to damage its negotiating efforts with Kabul and foreign diplomats, while at 

the same time still allowing for substantial sabotage to occur. In practice, it will be difficult to 

attribute acts of violence to specific Taliban networks. 

As spring 2013 approached, according to a cadre in Peshawar, Taliban cadres from the provinces were called back to Pakistan to be briefed about the elections plan:

I think around a month or month and half ago, I was called for a meeting in Pakistan. 

All the influential figures of the Taliban attended. . . . The agenda was the 2014 elections and how the mujahideen should play a role in the coming election. Our leaders 

and influential figures told us . . . to prevent and spend all our energy, a week before the 

election and on the day of election, until we completely prevent 100 percent the elections in our districts and provinces. 

By mid-spring the campaign of intimidation was ongoing, and orders had been issued to the 

field commander. An elder confirmed that elders were clearly told by the Taliban in their areas 

that the elections would be banned, warning them not to work for the IEC or campaign for any 

candidate. An elections officer described his resources and tasks in this way:

I got one million dollars budget to prevent the election and talk with the villagers and 

elders in the districts of the province to which I am assigned. I have forty people under 

my control, and I distribute three or four people to every district. I also talked with 

network leaders, military commissioners, village elders, and the tribal shura.
16

PEACEWORKS 94

The Taliban election commissioners said that their instructions involved talking to elders 

and convincing them not to participate in the elections and to burn their cards. They mentioned 

a plan to inject ten thousand additional fighters in 2014, tasked to disrupt the elections. It is not 

clear whether these ten thousand would be in addition to the usual spring-summer surge, which 

sees Taliban numbers easily double in most provinces, or whether it would represent an early 

spring surge (the elections are scheduled for April 5, 2014). A Taliban logistician in Ghazni 

stated that he was ordered to stockpile weapons and ammunition for the elections of 2014, with 

an eye to a major Taliban offensive then.

The Peshawar Shura told the various Taliban networks that if they were found to be tolerating the elections or negotiating with Kabul, they would cut off all funding from Peshawar. In 

fact, some sources indicated that the Peshawar Shura threatened to attack anybody supporting 

the elections, including Taliban. By June 2013, there were already some concrete examples of 

Taliban being punished for unwarranted contacts and agreements. Cadres who talked to Kabul 

politicians in Wardak and Ghazni were sacked and arrested. The most prominent among them 

was Abdul Fahim (military commissioner of Wardak), who reportedly made a deal with a Kabul 

politician to facilitate the elections, but who was then arrested and sacked. 

This narrative, however, is not necessarily the whole story. The procedure adopted for buying 

and registering voter cards is revealing. The Taliban election commissioners in the districts had a 

budget to buy voter cards from the elders, usually at around $10 each. The elders would meet the 

Taliban to offer their stock of cards, which were counted. Copies of the cards were sent to the 

office back in Peshawar for the records. Once the allocated budget had been spent, the election 

commissioners would receive an additional allocation of cash to buy more cards. 

One interviewee claimed he had $100,000 to spend and bought ten thousand cards; he was 

sending the records back to receive more money and buy more cards. What is interesting is that 

the cards were not immediately taken away from the elders and destroyed but left in their hands. 

What would be the purpose of doing so, if the option of asking them to vote for somebody was not 

being still considered? The interviewee insisted that his orders were to prevent the elections, not to 

favor any particular candidate, but he admitted that if he were ordered to tell the elders to vote for 

somebody, he would do so. Some Taliban cadres admitted that if they were directed to allow the 

elections to take place and support a particular candidate, they would follow these orders.

This possibility has to be seen in light of the fact that a Taliban source in Khost (controlled 

by the Peshawar Shura) mentioned in late 2012 that a debate was going on within the Peshawar 

Shura leadership on whether to support a candidate in the 2014 elections. At that time, a decision 

had not been made, but the information suggests that the Peshawar Shura’s hard-line opposition 

to the elections as of June 2013 had not been the only option discussed within the shura.17

Such ambiguities were not found among Zakir’s ranks, however. At their mildest, a few 

cadres sounded indifferent to the electoral process. A cadre of Zakir in Nangarhar, for example, 

expressed his readiness to support the electoral process if he was ordered to do so. In general, 

however, Zakir’s cadres were solidly behind the plan to disrupt the elections.

Apart from allowing Peshawar to open its own electoral branches in the south, the only 

other decision taken by Zakir concerning the elections derived from the joint Zakir-Peshawar 

assessment of the “inefficiency” of Quetta in preventing the previous elections: Plans were made 

to rotate Taliban around as much as possible in the run-up to the 2014 election, so that the elders would not be able to influence the local Taliban as they had before. The apparent lack of indoctrination efforts might explain why some of Zakir’s cadres on the ground appear to lack clear 

directions concerning what the right things to say about the elections might be. A representative 

of Sattar in Ghazni, for example, stated that he had yet to receive instructions concerning 2014, 
17

THE TALIBAN AND THE 2014 ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

even if there was an electoral commissioner of the Peshawar Shura in his province lobbying for 

a campaign against the elections. He expressed his readiness to do whatever his leaders ordered 

him to do. A member of Zakir’s mahaz in Logar also expressed his uncertainty over what the 

orders concerning the elections would be. 

Mansur’s Alliance in Quetta and the Rahbari Shura

One Taliban leader claimed that representatives of Mansur met President Hamid Karzai in 

Qatar at the end of March 2013 and discussed the elections, peace, national unity, and how 

to resolve the existing problems, but he did not want to confirm whether Mansur himself 

attended.18 According to him, Karzai stated that there must be elections in all the Pashtun 

areas and that is why Karzai needed the support of Mansur’s alliance. Mansur’s alliance considered on this basis that the best strategy was to talk to Kabul and reach a political deal. The 

interviewed leader said that some conditions were presented by Mansur’s delegation to Karzai, 

which if accepted would earn Mansur’s groups acceptance of the electoral process. Conditions 

included the release of Taliban prisoners from the Bagram detention facility and Pul-e Charki 

prison, a number of ministerial posts and ambassadorships, changes in the constitution, and 

the departure of all foreign forces from Afghan soil, or at least from Kandahar, Helmand, and 

Shindand (Herat).

The interviewee said Quetta has been negotiating for three years with Kabul and was ready to 

make peace as soon as its conditions were accepted. This could also happen before the elections. 

The vice president of the High Peace Council, Qazi Amin Waqad, reportedly offered Mansur’s 

Taliban three ministerial positions in exchange for an agreement with Kabul. The same source asserted that during Karzai’s visit to Qatar, Karzai offered to postpone the elections through a Loya 

Jirga that would allow him to prolong his mandate until some agreement with the Taliban was 

reached. That appears to have been in response to the view expressed by Mansur’s alliance that if 

an agreement is not reached before the elections, it will never be reached.

Mansur’s group was ready to support a presidential candidate as long as he was a “Muslim” 

and did not have any relationship with Western forces. These qualities seem to be interpreted 

quite liberally, as all the names under consideration by Mansur had held positions in the government and had some relation with the West. 

A candidate linked to Hizb-i Islami would be acceptable, even if Mansur’s men have some 

problems with this party, as Hizbis are “better than the Afghan government anyway.” It was, 

however, judged premature to talk about a Taliban candidate in 2014 unless a peace deal with all 

Taliban was reached prior to the polls. Among the cadres, support for potential Hizb-i Islami 

candidates is not uncommon. Whether or not the candidate to be endorsed in 2014 openly 

talked about peace with the Taliban was not judged to be important because the Taliban expected most of the candidates to be positive about peace talks anyway.

The interviewed leader further stated that they could only guarantee not to attack the elections as far as their own directly controlled forces were concerned; Kabul would have to talk to the 

other factions of the Taliban to achieve a comprehensive agreement. In general, he seemed to be 

trying to dampen any optimism of what an eventual agreement over the elections could achieve: 

He pointed out that in many areas people were against the elections because of the “cruelty of the 

foreigners” and the corruption of the government. If there was a deal on the elections, he estimated 

that violence could decrease by perhaps 40 percent, but that it would not stop altogether, because 

of designs of the neighboring countries: He claimed that the Peshawar Taliban were under tight 

control of a foreign security service and were therefore all against elections. Zakir too was against 

the elections because, in the interviewee’s opinion, he was fully paid by foreign intelligence.
18

PEACEWORKS 94

In addition, the interviewed leader admitted that there were some people in Mansur’s own 

turf, within the Rahbari Shura and Baradar mahaz, who were against the elections. In this regard, Mullah Naim was opposed to Akhtar Mansur’s talks with Karzai over the elections and 

negotiated with Zakir about joining his alliance. Naim’s men in fact confirmed that Naim had 

decided to realign with Zakir in spring 2013. 

Perhaps more importantly, there have also been defections toward Zakir’s camp among 

the ranks of the Dadullah and Baradar mahaz. In addition to being reported by Zakir’s associates, some of the interviewed cadres corroborated the possibility of such defections. In 

Baghlan, some of Dadullah’s mahaz commanders were reported not to be against blocking 

the elections. Dadullah’s representative in a district of Baghlan said that he had no final orders 

yet, adding that he was willing to support the elections if so ordered. However, he said that he 

hoped the villagers would not participate in the elections. In Kajaki, a Dadullah mahaz cadre 

had an intermediate position on the elections, rejecting both Zakir’s position of disrupting 

them and the Mansur alliance’s inclination to negotiate, criticizing the leadership for selling 

itself for money. 

In Ghazni, too, one of Dadullah’s representatives stated his intent not to attack the electoral 

process, but at the same time he voiced his distaste for the negotiating efforts of the leaders 

and his belief that they were selling out for opportunistic reasons. In Logar, some of Dadullah’s 

cadres seemed intent on disrupting the elections, like the Peshawar Shura and Zakir, but others were willing to follow orders not to do so, and one even stated that he would not attack the 

electoral process in any case if a foreign withdrawal was implemented because “I took up arms 

to fight the foreigners.” In Logar, both Dadullah’s and Baradar’s commanders were divided over 

the elections. In Nangarhar, Dadullah’s mahaz appears to be opposed to elections, according to 

Taliban election official. 

At the opposite end of the Taliban spectrum, there are reportedly Taliban who promised 

elders their support for the elections: An elder in Reg said that Afghan Taliban attended a 

meeting with possible presidential candidate Qayyum Karzai and stated their intent to allow 

the elections, blaming “Pakistani Taliban” like Zakir for fomenting insecurity for external minders. The fact that Mansur had not issued clear guidelines by April 2013 was causing confusion 

among his cadres. That could explain why many of them, at the time of being interviewed, still 

adopted an aggressive attitude, particularly in Dadullah’s mahaz but not only there. A Dadullah 

mahaz cadre in Daychopan (Zabul) said that he was still waiting for orders from Mansur and 

that up to then there were no real differences between different mahaz concerning the elections; 

only if the requests of Akhtar Mansur’s alliance were accepted by Karzai, then a real difference with Zakir’s would emerge. Similarly, the Baradar mahaz’s representative in two districts 

of Kandahar said that it was not yet clear what they would do with regard to the elections, 

although he believed that the withdrawal of foreign troops was still condition sine qua non for 

supporting the elections. 

As of early summer 2013, it appeared that individual mahaz commanders were not receiving 

a coherent message from upper-level leadership about the elections; this might be because no 

message has yet been articulated due to fluidity in regional politics, the absence of clear presidential candidates, changing dynamics surrounding peace negotiations, or simply because the elections were still too distant to warrant a definite decision. There seemed, however, to be a concern 

for the consequences of disunity within the Taliban’s ranks and therefore a desire for a unified 

position, whatever that might ultimately be. 

As of early summer 2013, 

it appeared that individual 

mahaz commanders were 

not receiving a coherent 

message from upper-level 

leadership about 

the elections.
19

THE TALIBAN AND THE 2014 ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

Ideological Views about Elections and Negotiations

Taliban Views

The Peshawar Shura and Zakir’s Alliance

The line that Taliban cadres have been told to propagate by the Peshawar Shura to justify 

opposition to the electoral process was one of objection to fraudulent elections and foreign 

interference in the process. According to one cadre,

Taliban are not against elections. We say that we support a fair and clean election. The 

elections should be an Islamic election; foreign countries should not be involved in the 

elections and the staff of the election commission should be real Muslims and should not 

be sympathizers of any candidates. Unfortunately, the elections that were run by the 

Karzai government with the support of foreign countries were completely based on fraud. 

The elections were funded by the Americans, and all the staff of the election commission 

were sympathizers of the different candidates—the warlords, criminals, and the rich 

people who pay money to buy their own election as president or member of Parliament, 

and these kind of people win the election by their force, money and fraud. . . . It’s very 

clear that this election will also be rigged by the Afghan government and America. 

America is not crazy to spend its money on the elections and let someone win the election 

who is not in favor of America. 

Some Taliban cadres even hinted that the Taliban might have always wanted to have elections:

When the Islamic Emirate of Taliban had the control of Afghanistan, the Taliban 

couldn’t find that chance to hold the election. The Taliban was a new-born government 

and we needed to first solve internal problems. The Taliban needed to collect the weapons from the people and the Taliban was fighting in some provinces and districts of 

Afghanistan. ... I am sure that if our government continued two more years, the Taliban 

would hold an election for electing the president of Afghanistan. ... If we win the war 

and again take control of Afghanistan, we cannot hold an election for a few years, but 

then we would have an election also.

Alternatively, they suggest that the Taliban might accept elections in the future, allowing everybody to run except for “criminals.” Elders sometimes accepted this line as credible. One elder 

commented that “the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan is good for independence 

and liberty of Afghanistan,” because “the presence of international troops in the country is the 

reason behind the fighting and killing of innocent civilians in the country.” He was confident 

that after the withdrawal of the foreign troops from the country, there will be less fighting, and 

“there might be possibility of peace between Taliban and Afghan government.”

These Taliban views might not be representative. It was more common to hear from Taliban 

cadres more sombre and absolutist viewpoints: 

•	 “We want an Islamic government, but this is a democratic government.”

•	 “In Islam there is no democracy.”

•	 “Most of the people are unhappy with the elections happening in the country. It is 

only those westernized people who accept these elections.” 

•	 “The process of election is incompatible with Islam because they give people illicit 

liberties. For example, women are going to the polling stations and women are participating in the election, so we can say this is incompatible with Islam.”

•	 “People gave votes to Karzai, but he did not defend our Holy Book Quran Sharif, 

which was burnt in many places by foreign forces such as in Bagram Airport. These 

elections give so much independence to people that many wedding halls are established, but no madrasas. Because of these elections that drinking wine, illegal relationships, and illegal activities take place without restriction.”
20

PEACEWORKS 94

One reason for disbelieving that elections could bring any good was the failure of “good” 

candidates to get votes. According to one cadre, “You see the candidates who are working for 

country and who were real Muslims do not get three votes.”

The views of one member of the Peshawar Shura was particularly authoritative because of 

his high-level position. He claimed that Western-style elections had thus far only led Afghanistan down the wrong path and that most Afghans were tired of elections and accompanying 

corruption and were not interested in participating. The aim, according to him, was to take 

Kabul and organize an Islamic government in Afghanistan. The Taliban drew comfort from the 

fact that in their view the Pakistani establishment was against elections in Afghanistan because 

it too saw American influence as a danger. He seemed to believe that in a Taliban government there could be elections with large participation and without corruption, but also without 

women’s participation. 

When asked to qualify his views, even one of the “liberal” Taliban cadre in Peshawar sounded more in line with the hard-liners:

The Taliban have a different system and different government policy. If the Taliban were 

the government again, Mullah Mohammad Omar Akhund would be the leader again. 

We never held an election to replace Mullah Omar in the past, and it would never happen 

in the future either. If the Taliban made a coalition government and shared the government with all the nationalities of Afghanistan, maybe we would have parliamentary elections, but I am not sure that we would have a presidential election, because it is impossible 

to replace our Amir-ul-Momenin [leader of the faithful, Mullah Mohammed Omar]. 

The model these Taliban seemed to have in mind is sometimes an Islamic autocracy, sometimes a limited democracy:

•	 “If elections are good, why are there no elections in Saudi Arabia?”

•	 “Maybe we would follow the Iranian system of a leader and president . . . we would 

have an elected president under control of Mullah Mohammad Omar Akhund.”

Elections might be compatible with Islam, said one cadre, because after all the Taliban leadership has always been doing internal elections. One notes the confusion between general elections and internal leadership selection as being very common among Zakir’s Taliban, which 

could reflect a lack of serious discussion about the issue. 

Mansur’s Alliance

One Quetta Shura member stated that elections can be acceptable if there is no foreign interference. 

It is all about supporting the right person, a good Muslim. His thinking about elections in principle 

is, however, indistinguishable from that of the more conservative members of Zakir’s coalition:

If the Taliban were the government, we would not do elections because when there is an 

Islamic government, there is no need of elections. . . . If we wanted to do elections, we 

would do the elections like we did in Islamabad when we appointed Zakir military leader 

of the Taliban. 

Interestingly, this leader of Mansur’s alliance did not seem to have thought very hard about 

how a peace process would look beyond an agreement among leaders. For the military wing of 

the Taliban, for example, Mansur’s alliance does not seem to have developed a clear position 

regarding reintegration or demobilization of Taliban fighters. The Mansur alliance interviewee 

was thinking in terms of reintegration or the creation of a new paramilitary force similar to the 

local police but certainly not of merging Taliban fighters into the Afghanistan National Army. 

Cadres associated with Mansur’s alliance were also mostly hostile to elections in principle. 

Only one commander associated with the Rahbari Shura held moderate views:
21

THE TALIBAN AND THE 2014 ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

If the peace talks reach positive results, the Taliban won’t have a problem with the Kabul 

government and therefore they won’t attack the government. If there is a share for the 

Taliban in the government and the system is Islamic, there is no threat from the Taliban. 

After the withdrawal of the international troops, the Taliban will solve their problems with 

the Kabul government through negotiations and talks. . . . The Taliban also think that the 

elections are good for the people of Afghanistan, but they have a problem with the fraud 

associated with elections. . . . The presence of U.S. troops in the country makes the elections 

illegitimate because there is the possibility of interference and manipulation by the U.S. 

government in the elections. . . . The Taliban will have their own elections after the international troops leave. They will publicize them and convince people to participate. 

Otherwise the picture looked similar to the one discussed earlier for Zakir’s alliance and the 

Peshawar Shura. Most of the interviewees belonged to Dadullah’s network, the largest within 

Mansur’s alliance but also characterized as hard-line until autumn 2012. This might explain why 

these cadres all sounded hostile to elections, with arguments such as the following:

•	 “When there is an Islamic government, there is no need of elections.”

•	 “There is no need for elections because Afghanistan is a poor country. The money 

that is spent on the election, it must be given to the people who do not have food.”

•	 “The only election necessary would be standing a few good Taliban individuals and 

selecting from them, or perhaps a Loya Jirga.”

Yet the single cadre from the nominally less hard-line Baradar network sounded exactly the 

same: “When a country is so economically weak, there is no need of an election. . . . If we wanted 

to have elections, we would collect good scholars and do an election between ourselves.” 

These statements seem to confirm that the greater tolerance for the electoral process among 

the leaders of Mansur’s alliance might indeed be purely tactical, not reflecting widespread feelings within the rank and file and not percolating down the ranks at least for now.

The Taliban’s Rank and File

Except for some team and group commanders aligned with the major alliances discussed in 

this report, the Taliban rank and file were usually oblivious to the internal debates that characterize the movement, and their views were often not aligned with those of the leaders. In 

Nangarhar, for example, only the Peshawar Shura and Zakir’s alliance were active, but the 

fighters interviewed showed a wider range of views than their leaders. None argued against 

elections in principle, and some of their arguments resembled those of Mansur’s alliance and 

of the Rahbari Shura, which has no presence in Nangarhar. 

•	 “Elections are allowable in Islam, but without women’s participation, and all candidates should be educated in Islamic studies.”

•	 “Elections are allowable in Islam, but only candidates with religious education should 

be allowed.”

•	 “We need a president who would defend the rights of Pashtuns.”

•	 “If the president was a real Muslim, the Taliban might support him.”

•	 “Elections are possible, but should take place once peace is established so that all the 

people can participate.” 

•	 “The Taliban would not attack the electoral process after a foreign withdrawal, but 

Taliban who are from Pakistan will not accept elections in any case, because they 

operate in Pakistan’s interest, which is to prevent Afghanistan’s development.”

•	 “Right now the elections are for northerners and Dari speakers.” 

The Taliban rank and file 

were usually oblivious to 

the internal debates that 

characterize the movement, 

and their views were often 

not aligned with those 

of the leaders. 
22

PEACEWORKS 94

On negotiations with the Karzai government to end fighting, however, the views of the 

Nangarhar rank and file were more in line with Peshawar and Zakir. A fighter from Achin 

district said he would not stop fighting until an Islamic government was in place. A cadre from 

Shirzad district was keen to keep fighting after the foreign withdrawal, until victory or an agreement was reached, on the grounds that the Afghan government was corrupt and un-Islamic. A 

different fighter from the same district said that negotiations might succeed if they included all 

Taliban groups, rather than just those represented by the Mansur alliance, basically asking for 

Peshawar and Zakir to take part in negotiations. 

The discrepancies noted above are not unique to Nangarhar. Among the five fighters 

interviewed in Kandahar, only three were more or less aligned with their own network. One 

fighter in Shah Wali Kot district from Mansur’s alliance was certain he would stop fighting 

once the foreigners left Afghanistan and stated that he would want to vote in the elections if 

this happened. In 2009 and 2010, he took part in the campaign against the elections. At the 

time of the interview (summer 2013), he was waiting for Mansur’s orders but said he would 

nonetheless stop fighting if foreign soldiers left Afghanistan. In general, he supported government development initiatives and believed that elections were a good thing, provided that 

women did not have the right to vote. Without Zakir on board, however, he acknowledged 

that the elections would still be seriously disrupted. 

Another fighter from Kandahar city said he too would stop fighting if there was a foreign 

withdrawal. He said he would like to vote and have as many Pashtuns voting as possible to 

weaken the hold of Dari speakers on government. Like the fighter from Shah Wali Kot, he 

acknowledged that without the cooperation of Zakir’s alliance there would not be peaceful elections. He was positive about the negotiations led by Mansur and thought the Taliban should 

accept the offer of positions in the government. A third fighter from a front aligned with Zakir 

based in Panjwai district believed elections were allowable in the absence of foreign forces.

The other two fighters were not aligned with the positions expressed by their leaders. A 

fighter from Nesh, despite belonging to the relatively moderate mahaz of Mullah Baradar, 

believed elections were not lawful in Islam, although he also thought that if a foreign withdrawal took place the Taliban might endorse the elections. He also believed that a peace deal 

should be made with the Taliban as a whole and not with just a few individuals. The fifth 

fighter also diverged from his mahaz leader’s views. Despite being a Dadullah commander in 

Kandahar, he talked of Zakir as his leader and the one who is expected to issue orders about 

the elections and was inclined to oppose the coming elections.

Most of the fighters interviewed in Nangarhar and Kandahar had at least some religious 

education. In Baghlan, the views of the Taliban fighters concerning elections confirmed that 

illiterate fighters (the majority) remain in the dark about electoral processes: 

I don’t know what [the Parliament’s] job is. I only know that people sit together fighting 

each other. . . . I know that we have three kinds of elections, which are presidential, 

parliamentary, and Provincial Council. But I don’t know about the work or duties of any 

of these offices. . . . Knowing of the election is not our duty; our duty is to implement the 

orders of our commanders. We have lots of people who are following politics and the 

elections, and then they will tell us to what to do. 

The common fighters lacked knowledge about elections but assumed that elections were not 

compatible with Islam because otherwise the Taliban would not oppose them:

In Islam it’s not allowed to have elections; in Islam we have Amir-ul-Momenin, and 

Amir-ul-Momenin has the right to select people for the leading of a country. Now we have 

Mullah Omar as Amir-ul-Momenin and only he has the power and right to select people 

for leading the country. As I remember, during the Taliban period, there weren’t elections 

and Amir-ul-Momenin Mullah Sahib Mohammad Omar had the power to select people. 

One fighter was certain he 

would stop fighting once the 

foreigners left Afghanistan 

and stated that he would 

want to vote in the elections 

if this happened.
23

THE TALIBAN AND THE 2014 ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

The other commonly cited reason for opposing the electoral process among the Baghlan 

rank and file was foreign interference. Although some stated that elections would only be possible after the Taliban’s final victory, not all fighters ruled out the Taliban collaborating to allow 

the elections:

The Taliban will enable the election if foreign troops leave Afghanistan and the Taliban 

and Afghan government reach an agreement. . . . There is permission for elections in 

Islam; an election is not something bad for choosing the country’s leaders. But Islam does 

not say that the elections should be run by the nonbelievers, that the elections should be 

funded by the nonbelievers, that elections are for choosing an American puppet government, that elections should be fraudulent and that the candidates should be. 

An important qualification was that the elections should lead to the establishment of an Islamic government, which could not happen if foreigners were controlling the process. Thus, the same 

fighter quoted who allowed for the possibility of elections could in the same breath make very 

ruthless statements about any potential attempt to lobby Taliban into allowing the 2014 elections: 

If a group of villagers came to [lobby] me, I am sure that they would be the government 

dogs. I would kill all of them immediately and get a reward from my commander for 

having killed some government dogs. 

Postwithdrawal negotiations, in this fighter’s view, could only lead to the establishment of an 

Islamic government:

I don’t have an interest in fighting or holding weapons without any reason—now the 

reason why I hold a weapon is fighting against the foreign invaders and the corrupt 

American government. When the foreign troops leave Afghanistan, we will have again 

a new clean election. Then there won’t be any reason for me to keep my weapon. If the 

foreign troops leave Afghanistan and a new Islamic government comes to Afghanistan, 

I am very happy to lay down my weapon and live with my family. 

It is unlikely that decision making at the top of the Taliban will be seriously constrained by 

the views of the fighters at the bottom of the organization. The latter’s views were in any case 

quite confused and often incoherent. Moreover, the fighters seemed to hold little expectation of 

being consulted before decisions being taken. They appeared to accept the fact that consultation 

would only involve Taliban notables and the choice available to them would be either to obey 

orders or walk away if they could. Nonetheless, the unrehearsed views of these fighters, even if 

at times confused or self-contradictory, demonstrate a greater diversity of thinking on elections 

than might have been expected.

External Views: Community Elders

Elections

Virtually all the elders interviewed for this study agreed that the Taliban would not hold elections if they were in power, but at most they would have some internal process for selecting 

their own leaders. The Taliban were perceived as a clerical oligarchy, which would claim all the 

power for itself if it had a chance. That is why few elders wished for a total Taliban victory, even 

when they would have been happy to see foreign forces gone and the current Kabul government 

removed from power. 

The elders had mixed views about the extent to which those in their community would be 

motivated to go to the polls in 2014. Some argued that they were interested, others that they 

were disappointed and would not vote, others still that villagers would not vote out of fear 

even if they wanted to. Almost all elders believed that the Taliban would not allow the elections. In much of the “Pashtun belt,” the ability of the government to organize the elections 

was in serious doubt, as pointed out by one elder:

The unrehearsed views of 

these fighters demonstrate 

a greater diversity of 

thinking on elections than 

might have been expected.
24

PEACEWORKS 94

I am completely sure that the election will not happen there. In our district [Sayed 

Abad], even if the government brings thousands of police for ensuring the security of the 

district on the day of election, I am sure that people will not come out of their houses for 

voting. Because villagers understand that if they vote, these thousands of police and 

security forces will not remain in Sayed Abad district forever. They will move back after 

the election, then the Taliban will punish all the villagers who went to vote. 

Only one of the elders interviewed believed that the Taliban could plausibly support a presidential candidate, or even field one of their own, based on his experience of 2010, when the 

Taliban supported parliamentary candidates in various locations.

Many elders accepted the Taliban’s criticism of past elections, pointing out how the 2010 

parliamentary elections were dominated by “criminals and warlords.” In general, their expectations for 2014 were low, as they expected rigging and interference by strongmen. For some, the 

fact that the Taliban would try to prevent the vote did not really matter as they were disappointed enough in the process and the quality of candidates to not vote anyway.

On the elections as such, the views expressed by the elders were in some ways as conservative 

as those of the Taliban, even if these elders firmly opposed them:

Elections are compatible with Islam, and it is in the hands of the people whether to select 

a good person or bad person as a president. One thing that is necessary to say is that 

Pashtun women cannot vote, so it would be better if the women of other ethnic groups 

do not participate in the election either. There should also be no permission for women 

to advance their candidacy in the parliamentary and presidential election. 

An elder in Mohammad Agha (Logar) did not believe elections were a good way for 

selecting the right people and would favor a Loya Jirga instead. A Mohmand Dara (Nangarhar) elder considered the elections wasteful and regretted having taken part in previous ones, 

echoing a Taliban position that holding elections did not make sense given poverty levels in 

the country:

If the economy of a country is weak, there is no need to have elections like in Afghanistan, 

because Afghanistan does not have the power to pay their employees a salary. 

One elder argued that even if elections were a good thing for Afghanistan (he was not convinced), the presence and actions of foreign troops discredited the concept, which was in essence 

another Taliban trope: 

I think whoever is chosen it can be decided by America—as the United States is more 

involved in Afghanistan’s affairs. But I know Karzai cannot participate again for next 

year’s presidential elections, because the United States wants him to be removed. If the 

United States wants him to remain in his position, then somehow the United States and 

Karzai will manage to do something with the aim of keeping power before next year. 

Afghanistan’s constitution is not legally implemented and not important either for 

Karzai or the United States—they only want their own interests in Afghanistan. 

Whatever they want can be done in Afghanistan. 

Perhaps the position of most elders could be characterized as being, in principle, keen to 

participate in the elections because that is what the system offered in terms of trying to send 

somebody to Kabul to lobby for them; this did not necessarily imply that they considered the 

system brought to Afghanistan after 2001 as working better than any of the alternatives:

I have witnessed the Taliban’s government too. The appointed commander, district and 

provincial governors maintained good relations with the people. They were very easily 

reachable by the people. 

Those elders favoring the elections did so because they felt elections were a means of staving off the bloodshed that has often accompanied transfers of power in the last thirty years. 

Another common rationale for voting was to prevent a victory of the northern factions or of 

a Pashtun puppet perceived to be doing the bidding of northerners:
25

THE TALIBAN AND THE 2014 ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

We will go to the polling station and give the votes to the person who is a great leader, 

not like Karzai. We want to support a person who is Pashtun and who can work for 

Pashtuns, but Karzai did not work for Pashtuns; he only worked for northerners. 

Negotiations with the Taliban 

As was revealed in interviews with the fighters in particular, the question of elections could not 

be totally divorced from that of negotiations. This is also true of the discourse of the international community, where elections are alternatively portrayed as a means of either ratifying a 

political deal or of solidifying the legitimacy of a new Afghan government so that it is able to 

conclude a deal. Only one of the elders interviewed believed the Afghan National Army could 

hold the Taliban in check on its own, and oddly, he was one of the most hostile to the government. Some believed that tribal militias would add the required strength to keep the Taliban at 

bay. Others hoped that massive external help would continue to be provided. 

Only one elder wished for the war to continue, primarily because it benefited his opium 

business. On the other hand, only one elder completely opposed any deal with the Taliban (he 

had lost two sons to them). An elder who was particularly inclined to incorporate the Taliban 

into the government argued:

If they come for peace, a share of power should be given to them. This is not a privilege 

but their right. The Taliban will ask for a share in the coming government if they reach 

an agreement. They will ask for key ministries in the government. We want peace in 

Afghanistan, and for us it is not a big matter what positions or what power the Taliban 

will take after they make a peace with the Afghan government. 

The expectation was that concessions would have to be made to the Taliban in order to 

achieve a peace settlement. This was overwhelmingly acceptable to the elders interviewed, even 

if they did not have clear ideas about what these compromises could be. They seemed to be 

thinking mostly in terms of Taliban ministers and governors being appointed or of restraints on 

“development” and “modernization” to appease conservative sentiments. Even those skeptical 

about the possibility of such an agreement, given objections on both sides, welcomed it in theory, 

with the exception of the individual who had lost two sons to the Taliban.

The almost universally supported best-case scenario for the future was a peace settlement, 

where the Taliban would be incorporated into a coalition government. Even the elders most 

sympathetic to the Taliban considered a peace deal and a coalition government as the best possible outcome. Implicitly or explicitly, the thinking was that this would not only tame the Taliban 

but also restrain the corruption of the Kabul government. Some also viewed the incorporation 

of the Taliban into a future coalition government as a way to rebalance what they considered the 

excessive power and influence of northern factions in Kabul.

The elders had their own views about the relevance of the “Afghan Taliban” versus “Pakistani 

Taliban” dichotomy for the prospect of negotiations. A view expressed by some was that peace 

should be achieved with the Afghan Taliban but that the Pakistani Taliban should be defeated. 

Opinion was divided, however, about the willingness of the Afghan Taliban to pursue a deal. Those 

living in areas with a strong presence of mahaz linked to Mansur tended to be more optimistic. By 

contrast, those living in areas dominated by Peshawar or Zakir could not see any prospect of a deal. 

Others acknowledged that regardless of internal Afghan Taliban divisions, the group as a 

whole was completely controlled by Pakistani intelligence: 

If Mullah Omar is a candidate of the presidential elections, and Pakistan decides to tell 

the mujahideen not to vote for him, then Mullah Omar cannot get a single vote. Overall 

the Taliban is dependent on Pakistan and Pakistan rules them.

Even the elders most 

sympathetic to the 

Taliban considered a 

peace deal and a coalition 

government as the best 

possible outcome.
26

PEACEWORKS 94

Foreign military withdrawal was generally seen as conducive to deal making. Generally, 

elders considered the withdrawal of foreign troops a positive development because they considered the foreign military presence to be a source of instability:

The withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan is good for the independence and 

liberty of Afghanistan. The presence of international troops in the country is the reason 

behind the fighting and killing of innocent civilians. After the withdrawal of the foreign 

troops, there will be less fighting and the people will live in security and prosperity and 

there might be a possibility of peace between the Taliban and the Afghan government. 

Another elder argued that it would not make much sense to negotiate with an outgoing 

president; the Taliban would probably opt to negotiate with his successor.

Conclusion

The best chance for elections to be carried out in much of Afghanistan with minimum violence and 

maximum voter turnout is through some kind of understanding or informal agreement with the 

Taliban. Compared with 2009 and 2010, there appears to be at least some hope that this might happen. Undoubtedly, the debate within the Taliban concerning elections in Afghanistan continues to 

evolve. Some factions within the Taliban have started to shift from total rejection toward a more tactical and pragmatic approach, not necessarily because their views have changed but perhaps because 

the political landscape has been evolving due to Western disengagement. 

It is difficult to assert with certainty that the ideological position of the Taliban has stayed 

the same, as no such survey was conducted in previous years. As shown, however, many Taliban 

remain ideologically opposed to elections involving free competition and mass participation 

(particularly of women). Should they accept the electoral process at some point, they would 

view this acceptance as a tactical concession in order to win equivalent concessions from their 

counterparts. In other words, the terms under which the elections were conducted would be part 

of the negotiated political arrangement.

Those Taliban who expressed a willingness to accept the idea of elections, particularly among 

the rank-and-file fighters, qualified their acceptance in ways that would likely be unacceptable to 

any Western policymaker: no voting rights for women and restrictions on the right of individuals 

to advance their candidacy. This is not surprising given the stage of the conflict and the ideological 

and cultural point of departure of the Taliban. While it is still too early for them to debate such 

issues openly, the fact that an internal debate has started is already a remarkable development.

The position of the various internal Afghan Taliban alliances with regard to the electoral 

process can be summarized as follows:

•	 Zakir’s alliance and his closest allies in Quetta totally oppose the electoral process;

•	 The Peshawar Shura is in opposition to the electoral process and has done the most 

planning to prevent the elections but is discreetly leaving a door open to taking some 

part if they see participation to their advantage;

•	 Mansur’s alliance and certain members of the Rahbari Shura are more ready than any 

other group to allow the electoral process to go forward as a step toward facilitating 

peace negotiations with Kabul, but with many strings attached.

The position of the Peshawar Shura is the most interesting from an analytical standpoint. They 

have been clearly preparing for being in a position to manipulate the electoral process; the process 

started at a time when relations between Karzai and the Pakistani authorities seemed to be improving quickly and a consensus candidate, supported by both Karzai and the Pakistanis, seemed 

a real possibility. By the spring, it all seemed to have faded away, but Afghan-Pakistan relations 
27

THE TALIBAN AND THE 2014 ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

have known many ups and downs after 2001 and particularly since 2010. It is not unfathomable, 

therefore, to speculate that Islamabad might still hope that President Karzai would once again 

reconsider his options, particularly after a violent spring-summer 2013 fighting season. 

The selection of Zakir as new military leader of all Taliban in early 2013 and his subsequent 

effort to intensify military operations likely instilled a sense of his rising power among the Taliban, 

even in areas such as the south where Mansur’s alliance is strong. Most Taliban therefore find the 

position articulated by Zakir—“no negotiations until all foreign soldiers have left Afghanistan”—

attractive not only for ideological reasons but also for tactical ones. The Western withdrawal would 

dramatically reduce the leverage of the Kabul government at the negotiating table. This ban on 

negotiations concerns not just peace talks; it also affects negotiations over the elections.

Only Zakir’s personal rivals, mostly concentrated in Mansur’s alliance, see waiting as a bad 

option. They might perceive the strengthening of the Taliban over time as synonymous with the 

strengthening of Zakir, possibly at their expense. For them, the best option would be a deal before the Western withdrawal is complete, although for reasons of image and ideology, they will 

have to wait until the withdrawal is well under way. Discussing a deal over the elections gives 

them leverage over regional powers opposed to negotiations in Afghanistan, which Mansur can 

use to extract financial and other support. When Mansur asks for complete withdrawal, it might 

just be a negotiating position; in reality, he might be satisfied with having a few provinces (where 

his alliance is strong) freed of foreign presence. 

Mansur’s agreement over the elections would not necessarily lead to a wider peace agreement, because his position appears to be tactical. It does not look likely, therefore, that even 

if Mansur agreed to tolerate the electoral process, or somehow facilitate it, this would lead to 

much progress toward a peace settlement. Mansur is aware of his relative military weakness and 

of the fact that a separate deal would place him in an awkward position. In practice, such a deal 

would become feasible only if a non-Pashtun candidate were likely to win, in which case many 

Taliban could accept at least to de facto abstain from disrupting the elections in the Pashtun 

belt. This possibility, however, is not discussed openly at this stage, a fact that is not surprising 

since it would negate the negotiating leverage of Mansur’s alliance vis-à-vis Kabul. Mansur’s 

strategy, as of late spring 2013, was to negotiate but to make demands that would be very onerous for President Karzai to accept. Protracted negotiations give Mansur at least some political 

leverage. It also positions him as the gatekeeper to the negotiating process, should the Taliban’s 

alignments change in the future. The elections therefore would allow Mansur and his allies to 

revitalize stalled negotiations, as well as obtain concessions from Kabul. 

Among the Taliban’s rank and file, there is a lot of confusion and prejudice toward the electoral 

process. Prejudice means that many Taliban fighters find it easy to reject elections when ordered to do 

so by their leaders. Confusion, on the other hand, means that many Taliban can express views in contrast with those of the leadership without even being aware of it. Given the absence of much enthusiasm for the elections among the population and the low expectation among rank-and-file Taliban of 

influencing decision making, it is unlikely that if the Taliban continue in their stiff opposition to the 

presidential elections there will be much of a backlash among the rank and file. By the same token, a 

Taliban turnabout resulting in an endorsement of the elections would be more difficult to sell to the 

rank and file. A move of this kind would have to be disguised as some kind of force majeure, such as 

the previously discussed possibility of a non-Pashtun candidate emerging as a likely winner because 

of the Taliban’s disruption being mostly concentrated in Pashtun-populated areas.

In sum, there appears to be little genuine interest in the elections per se among the Taliban. 

The real debate is about how to best exploit a key vulnerability of Kabul and its international 

supporters to the advantage of the different components of the insurgency: Holding the elecAmong the Taliban, the real 

debate is about how to best 

exploit a key vulnerability of 

Kabul and its international 

supporters to the advantage 

of the different components 

of the insurgency.
28

PEACEWORKS 94

tions is a key benchmark of NATO success in Afghanistan, and the insurgents’ cooperation 

might well be necessary to make that possible. It is not clear to what extent Karzai and the 

international community are aware of the differences among the insurgents’ ranks (concerning elections, but also on other issues), which also represent a vulnerability to be exploited. In 

2013 and 2014, in any case, negotiations over the elections and a peace settlement are likely to 

continue to be seen by the Taliban as just another way of furthering the conflict, rather than as 

a way to end it. But the situation remains fluid, and the position of the insurgency could evolve 

further, having already evolved considerably. 

Notes

1. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations and data in this report come from these interviews. Geographically 

the interviews were distributed as follows: Quetta (one), Peshawar (one), Baghlan (fourteen), Balkh (five), 

Badghis (five), Helmand (four), Kandahar (nine), Ghazni (nine), Zabul (six), Logar (six), Nangarhar 

(eleven), Wardak (seven), and Kunduz (one).

2. The mapping of Taliban networks discussed in these pages is informed by interviews conducted specifically 

for this report and by hundreds of interviews carried out since 2011 for a project on the leadership and 

organization of the Taliban. Preliminary findings are presented in Claudio Franco and Antonio Giustozzi, 

The Peshawar Shura and the Evolution of the Taleban’s Military Leadership (Berlin: Afghanistan Analysts 

Network, forthcoming). 

3. The Gulbuddin Hekmatyar wing of Hizb-i Islami, also active in the insurgency, is not part of the Taliban 

and is therefore not discussed in this report.

4. See Matt Waldman, The Sun in the Sky (London: Crisis States Research Center, 2010).

5. “Commissions” are executive organs, the equivalent of ministries and departments.

6. Contacts with Taliban cadres in Peshawar and Quetta have indicated that the realignments were due to 

political differences between Naim (who was against talking to the government) and Mansur and due to the 

Dadullah group’s resentment toward Zakir’s arrogance. Pressure from foreign funders might also have 

played a role. Sources for this information were contacted in December 2012 and May 2013.

7. The estimates of the strength of the Taliban’s subgroups derive from the research in Franco and Giustozzi, The 

Peshawar Shura and the Evolution of the Taleban’s Military Leadership. The methodology consisted of interviewing 

Taliban cadres about their strength and the strength of other groups in their area of operations and then comparing and averaging the results. The sample of interviewees included members of all networks.

8. This view derives from interviews with community elders, who in the south often showed great respect for 

Mullah Baradar even as late as 2012.

9. On the evolution of the Taliban’s internal alignments, see also Antonio Giustozzi, “Turmoil within the 

Taliban: A Crisis of Growth?” Central Asia Policy Brief no. 7 (Washington, DC: Elliott School of 

International Affairs, George Washington University, January 2013).

10. “Message of Felicitation of Amir-ul-Momineen (May Allah protect him) on the Occasion of Eid-ul-Fitr. 

August 5, 2013” (unofficial translation), http://justpaste.it/3bmi (accessed September 5, 2013). It is also 

notable that after a rambling and unspecific opening, the 2014 election is the first item specifically 

addressed—coming before peace talks or the bilateral security agreement. It is also worth noting that while 

the message contains many exhortations for the public to turn against the international military and their 

supporters in the Afghanistan National Security Forces, there is not an explicit call to attack the polls. 

11. Stephen Graham, “U.S.: Taliban Rift over Failure to Crash Vote,” Herald-Sun, October 21, 2004.

12. Ahmed Rashid, Descent into Chaos (London: Allen Lane, 2008), 259.

13. Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and United Nations Assistance Mission in 

Afghanistan, “AIHRC-UNAMA Joint Monitoring of Political Rights, Presidential and Provincial Council 

Elections,” Third Report, August 1–October 21, 2009.

14. In reality Abdullah Abdullah is of mixed Tajik and Pashtun ethnicity, but he was widely seen by Pashtuns 

in 2009 as a “Tajik” candidate.

15. The exception was an elder from Sangin who claimed his village was bombarded by international forces. 

16. Other examples include Moqur (Ghazni) and Maruf (Kandahar), where it was reported that Taliban were 

endorsing some candidates. This dynamic was less prevalent in the north, where the Taliban had weaker 

roots: for example, there is no indication that any candidate was being supported by the Taliban in Burka or 

Dand-i Ghori districts of Baghlan District, though in Badghis there were reports of Taliban being bribed to 

allow voting.

17. Personal communication with a Taliban cadre in Khost, November 2012.

18. The position held by Mansur’s alliance toward the 2014 electoral process was, for most intents and purposes, 

the same as the position held by the majority of the Rahbari Shura.
 5

About the Institute

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan 

institution established and funded by Congress. Its goals are to 

help prevent and resolve violent conflicts, promote postconflict 

peacebuilding, and increase conflict-management tools, capacity, and 

intellectual capital worldwide. The Institute does this by empowering 

others with knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by its direct 

involvement in conflict zones around the globe.

Chairman of the Board: Steven J. Hadley

Vice Chairman: George E. Moose

Acting President: Kristin Lord

Chief Financial Officer: Michael Graham

Board of Directors

Stephen J. Hadley, (Chair), Principal, RiceHadleyGates, LLC, Washington, 

D.C.• George E. Moose (Vice Chair), Adjunct Professor of Practice, The 

George Washington University, Washington, D.C. • Judy Ansley, Former 

Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor under 

George W. Bush, Washington, D.C. • Eric Edelman, Hertog Distinguished 

Practitioner in Residence, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced 

International Studies, Washington, D.C. • Joseph Eldridge, University 

Chaplain and Senior Adjunct Professorial Lecturer, School of International 

Service, American University • Kerry Kennedy, President, Robert F. 

Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, Washington, D.C. • Ikram 

U. Khan, President, Quality Care Consultants, LLC, Las Vegas, Nev. • 

Stephen D. Krasner, Graham H. Stuart Professor of International 

Relations, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif. • John A. Lancaster, 

Former Executive Director, International Council on Independent Living, 

Potsdam, N.Y. • Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason 

University, Fairfax, Va. • J. Robinson West, Chairman, PFC Energy, 

Washington, D.C. • Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President, Leadership 

Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Washington, D.C.

Members Ex Officio

John Kerry, Secretary of State • Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense 

• Gregg F. Martin, Major General, U.S. Army; President, National 

Defense University • Kristin Lord, Acting President, United States 

Institute of Peace (nonvoting)
2 Looking for Justice UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE • 2301 CONSTITUTION AVE., NW • WASHINGTON, DC 20037 • USIP.ORG 

The future of the decade-long statebuilding effort in 

Afghanistan rests, in part, on whether the 2014 national 

elections are a success or failure. Although the Taliban have 

a consistent record of trying to violently disrupt elections in 

Afghanistan, signals have emerged in recent years that their 

attitude toward elections might be evolving. The best 

chance for elections to be carried out with minimum violence and maximum voter turnout is for the Afghan government to reach some kind of informal understanding with 

the Taliban.

Related Links 

■ Getting It Right in Afghanistan, by Moeed Yusuf, Scott Smith, Colin Cookman, 

editors (USIP Press, 2013) 

■ How We Missed the Story, Second Edition by Roy Gutman (USIP Press, 2013)

■ Electoral Offensive: Taliban Planning for Afghanistan’s 2014 National Elections 

by Antonio Giustozzi and Casey Garret Johnson (Peace Brief, November 

2013)

■ 2014 Presidential and Provincial Council Elections in Afghanistan by Zekria 

Barakzai (Special Report, October 2013)

■ Perceptions of Politically Engaged, Influential Afghans on the Way Forward by 

Omar Samad (Special Report, March 2013)

■ Justifying the Means: Afghan Perceptions of Electoral Processes by Noah Coburn 

and Anna Larson (Special Report, February 2013)

■ Lessons from Afghanistan’s History for the Current Transition and Beyond by 

William Byrd (Special Report, September 2012)

■ Transparency Is the Key to Legitimate Afghan Parliamentary Elections by Scott 

Worden (Peace Brief, October 2010)

PEACEWORKS • FEBRUARY 2014 • NO. 94