PARLIAMENT'S FIRST SESSION: REVIEW AND ATMOSPHERICS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 KABUL 002727 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT FOR SCA/FO, S/CT, SCA/A NSC FOR AHARRIMAN CENTCOM FOR POLAD, CG CFC-A, CG CJTF-76 TREASURY FOR APARAMESWARAN, ABAUKOL STATE PLEASE PASS USAID FOR AID/ANE, AID/DCHA/DG SAN JOSE FOR JANAE COOLEY REL NATO/ISAF, AUS, NZ E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/13/2016 TAGS: PGOV PREL PINR KDEM AF SUBJECT: PARLIAMENT'S FIRST SESSION: REVIEW AND ATMOSPHERICS Classified By: A/DCM ANGUS SIMMONS FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY. The Afghan National Assembly ended its first session on June 5 having achieved several key milestones, including the confirmation of 20 ministers and the passage of the budget. Notable trends in the first session of Parliament included occasional hints of ethnic divisions beneath the surface and emergent nationalism, strains with the executive branch, and fluid legislative procedures. Parliament will likely begin its second session on or around July 23. END SUMMARY. First Session: What Parliament Did and Did Not Do -------------- -------------- ¶2. (C) The Afghan National Assembly is off to a remarkably strong start after its first six months of existence, accomplishing most of the items on its agenda and debating the security situation in Afghanistan and other significant national issues (such as the Abdul Rahman conversion case). ¶3. (C) What Got Done: - Confirmation of 20 ministers. The lower house of Parliament (Wolesi Jirga/WJ) is still waiting for President Karzai to nominate individuals for the five Ministerial positions where the first nominee was rejected. - Passage of the budget. After initially rejecting the budget, Parliament won some symbolic concessions on payments to civil servants and the disabled and staked out their claim to have a legitimate voice in the budget process. - Confirmation of two Supreme Court Justices. The WJ is waiting for the renomination of candidates for the seven remaining seats. - Consideration of the Provincial Council Law. While Parliament's consideration of this bill was only preliminary, they did begin the process of drafting amendments and considering substantive changes to the transitional laws. ¶4. (C) What Didn't Get Done: - In the Wolesi Jirga, the formation of political groups and the finalization of rules of procedure. Unlike the Meshrano Jirga, the Wolesi Jirga did not complete its organizational structure, leaving it vulnerable to extended procedural debates during session. �A;- Passage of transitional laws. The Constitution called for all transitional laws to be confirmed by Parliament in its first session, but also stated that unless voted down by Parliament, the laws would remain in effect. Parliament has chosen (if only by default) to consider transitional laws separately and substantively amend them, offering the chance to revise some problematic existing laws (such as the criminal code or the election law). - Consideration of the four other positions requiring Parliamentary confirmation. President Karzai has yet to formally nominate candidates for the following positions: NDS Director, Afghan Red Crescent Society Chair, Attorney General, and Central Bank President. - Resolve procedural issues such as the definition of a parliamentary majority. Rather than come to a decision on procedural matters, the Wolesi Jirga is seeking to create a Constitutional Commission to determine how to interpret certain aspects of the Constitution. Ethnic Divisions and Nationalist Trends -------------- ¶5. (C) Ethnic divisions did not define relations in Parliament, but matters of ethnicity did significantly shape debate on the floor. While MPs interact easily across ethnic (and gender) lines, and purposely avoided discussing the KABUL 00002727 002 OF 003 ethnic composition of the Cabinet, ethnic and regional divisions came to the fore in debate on the Supreme Court and on security. Typical were comments such as too many of the Supreme Court nominees were Pashtun, or that Parliament should not confine debate on security matters to debate on Pashtun areas. When there was a clear division, it was often between Pashtuns and non-Pashtuns, with Hazaras acting cohesively to advance their own interests. Ethnicity was never paramount in any debate, however, and many MPs countered ethnic arguments with arguments for national unity. At the moment it appears to be more of a tool used in personal conflicts - in particular in disagreements between Qanooni and Sayaf. Ethnicity lurks below the surface as an easy card for MPs to play, but by and large, thus far, the Parliamentary leaders have been mature in avoiding it. ¶6. (C) A clearer trend was the nationalism expressed by Parliament. Members of Parliament clearly stood up for defending what they perceived as Afghan rights against encroachment from outside sources. Whether it was demanding Abdul Rahman remain in Afghanistan, rebelling against international donor conditions on the Afghan budget, or reacting to the May 29 US military vehicle crash, Parliament's stances were consistently independent, populist and nationalist. While Parliament's leaders worked to restrain the most negative comments after the accident, occasional anti-American or anti-ISAF statements were made during open debate. In an environment where Parliament has little control over the Afghan budget or the country's security posture, and little exposure to larger policy issues, matters involving national pride are likely to remain important. Executive-Legislative Relations -------------- ¶7. (C) While all MPs paid lip service to the importance of positive executive-legislative relations during Parliament's first six months, relations were more often strained than not and were marked by a lack of understanding on both sides. The high point for legislative-executive relations was the debate on the Cabinet, which was organized in an expedited manner and resulted in a mostly positive result for the Karzai administration. The low point was the rejection of the budget, marked by numerous miscommunications and misunderstandings of the process. What marked the difference between these two cases was the level of engagement by the executive and the complexity of the task at hand. While the GOA lobbied heavily for its Cabinet Ministers, it did not satisfy Parliament's desire for information and attention on the budget, ultimately leading to its rejection. The GOA miscalculated the role that MPs would want to play in policy formation and its own ability to manage their expectations. The GOA seems to have learned from its initial missteps, but it did not gain allies in Parliament with its initial tactics. ¶8. (C) Of more concern to the GOA will be the tenor of debate on the security situation in Afghanistan. The most commonly heard comment from MPs is that there is a gap between the government and the people - by which they mean a lack of trust in the government. Most MPs stated they were willing to fill that gap, but believed they did not have the tools needed from the government to respond to the needs of the people. MPs were highly critical of the GOA response to the May 29 riots and to the perceived inability to respond forcefully to the declining security situation in the south. Without a noticeable change in the security situation, particularly in the south, MPs will likely return from summer recess with additional criticisms of the government. Legislative Procedures Highly Fluid KABUL 00002727 003 OF 003 -------------- ¶9. (C) The Wolesi Jirga's legislative procedures - such as taking votes - were very informal and changeable throughout the first session. The agenda for debate each day was normally decided on the day before. Debate did not generally center around opposing opinions, but around personalities - MPs are recognized to speak based on the order in which they raise their hand to talk, not whether they support a particular view (although some MPs, particularly Sayaf, are recognized whenever they want to speak). This democratic way of approaching debate led to haphazard discussions and anger when Qanooni attempted to cut off debate before everyone had spoken (which happened every day - there were always more interested speakers than time to speak). Votes were taken either by raising hands (for most issues) or secret ballot (for Cabinet and Supreme Court nominations). Votes were not officially recorded and often happened unexpectedly (leading to anger when certain MPs were out of the room when votes were taken). The counting of votes was also not particularly accurate. When it was not obvious that one side was more numerous, the two Secretaries counting red, green, or white cards as MPs held them up. ¶10. (C) These procedures gave a high degree of influence to Speaker Qanooni. Qanooni has final say over who is allowed to speak during debate and has used that to focus discussion and curtail very negative comments. At the end of each day, Qanooni summarizes the debate, and his summary (jambandee) is either approved by voice vote or show of hands. Qanooni's hands-on management of Parliament is likely necessary to bring order to a generally rather chaotic body, and MPs accepted this manner of leadership for most of the session. During debate on the Supreme Court, however, latent resentment over Qanooni's control over debate combined with ethnic tensions and the sensitivity of the underlying subject of debate caused breakdown in parliamentary debate for several days. MPs spent an extended amount of time debating the meaning of a majority and the constitutional requirements for Justices, objecting to any attempt by Qanooni to summarize debate and move on. Qanooni did work through the Leadership Committee (made up of all Committee Chairs) to organize the agenda in a more inclusive manner, but without political groups to designate speakers on certain issues or some other way to manage debate, MPs may continue to focus more on procedural rather than policy issues. Comment -------------- ¶11. (C) Given the many challenges Parliament faces (from a lack of experience to the fact that many MPs were on the opposite side of the battlefield a few years ago),it has had a remarkably successful first session. Not only did they approve key legislation and review the Cabinet and Supreme Court nominees, they maintained a generally (if not entirely) positive level of debate and established themselves as a force to be reckoned with in policy-making. Members of Parliament have also been successful in making a connection with the people they represent. Many (if not most) MPs accept 2-3 delegations of constituents into their homes each night, listening to their concerns (and requests for patronage). They represent a genuine connection to people that can be used to gain support for the government and relay the concerns of the people to the administration. But MPs can also be a a high-maintenance group. Maintaining their support for the government and creating an effective link between the GOA and the people will require a high degree of attention to MPs from both the GOA and the international community. END COMMENT. NEUMANN