The elections have done little to relieve the suffering of Afghanistan’s struggling families.

“I would vote for whoever will help me feed my family,” sighed Maria, a mother of five who lives in a small and dirty house near the Babur Gardens in Kabul.

Maria says she is 33 years old, but she looks at least 50. Dressed in ragged old clothes, with bruised face, puffy eyes and cracked lips, she is picture of misfortune.

She and her children share a small room with a low, dark ceiling. A few blankets, a pink curtain, a used TV and a few dishes represent all their worldly goods.

Sohrab is the eldest of her children; at 13 he is the man of the family. Maria’s husband is a drug addict, and lives in the infamous Russian House of Culture. The establishment was built by the Soviets during their war in Afghanistan. It was designed as a center for teaching Russian language, showing Russian films, and other cultural activities. Half destroyed during the civil war, it has been reclaimed by the city’s lowest classes – mainly drug addicts who somehow eke out an existence in its cold and empty rooms.

 “My husband became an addict in 2005 when we were refugees in Iran,” she said. “He is now weak and disabled. I do not know how he affords to buy drugs.”

Maria has heard about the elections in Afghanistan, but they are very far away from her everyday life. Her primary concern is scraping enough money together to buy fuel for the winter.

“My son Sohrab has told me not to work outside the home,” she said.  “But I have to pay 1500 afghani (30 USD) every month for rent.

Despite her dire economic situation, she will not allow her children to quit school.

“If had been allowed to study I would not be in this situation now,” she said. Her children help out as they can; she borrowed some money to buy scales, and her two eldest sons make about 100 afghani (2 USD) per day weighing people on the street.

Very little attention was paid to Afghanistan’s poor during the election campaign. Some sociologists are asking why politicians did not try to curry favor with the electorate by promising to eradicate poverty, ease unemployment, and address other social ills, rather the vague and high-sounding slogans they did use.

Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in Asia, with an economy destroyed by decades of war. Eight years of foreign intervention have not improved the lives of the vast majority of Afghans, who lack the education or experience to work with foreign organizations or as service purveyors to the government.

The elections may have brought some small economic benefits to a few people – candidates were normally offering free lunches or even small sums of money for people to come to their rallies. But there was almost no campaigning among the nation’s poorest, and very few candidates offered any kind of plan for economic development.

 “There are two issues which should be critical in discussions about elections,” said sociologist Zia Danish. “First are a candidate’s short-term plans, how they plan to eliminate poverty, unemployment, and economic problems. People have the right to know these, and to vote for the candidate if they like his or her plan. The second issue involves long-term goals, such as economic development. But instead of developing real plans, the majority of the candidates just spend a lot of money to buy people’s votes.”

Zulfiqar Omid, an advisor to Karzai’s election team, accepts this criticism. “Elections are a new experience in Afghanistan,” he said. “Candidates spend a huge amount of money on their campaigns. They could use this money to help the poor.”

For Maria, political discussions are a luxury she cannot afford.

 “I know that the elections are important for Afghanistan,” she said. “But they will not help me feed my family.”