captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: the u.s. supreme court today struck down overall limits on political contributions in it's biggest decision on campaign finance since the 2010 "citizens united" case. good evening, i'm judy woodruff, gwen ifill is away. also ahead, our conversation with the head of the international monetary fund, christine lagarde. she weighs in on western sanctions against russia and says the ukrainian economy needs tough reforms. >> the economy of ukraine was heading for disaster. it's an economy that needed profound transformation of its fiscal policy, of its monetary

policy, and of its policies on energy. >> woodruff: plus: >> the reality is that my journey began inside a jail cell just like this. twenty-six years ago. >> woodruff: we get the story of a former inmate who went back to jail. not as a criminal, but as a man with a message, imploring other prisoners to turn their lives around. >> i think the biggest problem in our criminal justice system is that we don't set goals high enough. we need to send a message that people in prison can come back whole. >> woodruff: those are just some of the stories we're covering on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

>> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: it could have been much, much worse. chile survived a major earthquake overnight, with relatively limited damage. the epicenter of the 8.2 magnitude quake was in the pacific ocean, about 60 miles offshore. it sent people running in the aisles of stores, as products tumbled off the shelves. six people died, and thousands of coastal residents were evacuated from low-lying areas.

>> woodruff: a smaller 5.8 magnitude quake hit panama today. people reported light and moderate shaking, but the head of panama's emergency services said there was no damage, and no one was injured. the confirmed death toll in the washington state mudslide has now risen to 29. 18 others are still listed as missing. the updated numbers came as flood waters receded in the small community of oso. that's allowed crews to reach some areas that had yet to be searched. >> woodruff: the head of general motors faced another hostile reception on capitol hill today, over the company's years-long delay addressing a safety problem. it involves faulty ignition switches linked to 13 deaths. mary barra told senators she's waiting for an internal investigation, and does not know many details. that frustrated california democrat barbara boxer. she cited nine year old g.m. documents, already released,

that concluded fixing the problem was too costly. >> the code words, quote, none of the solutions represents an acceptable business case now that was a public document. g.m. gave that document over you can't even talk to that you don't know anything about anything. and i am very disappointed, really. as a woman to woman, i am very disappointed. because the culture you are representing here today is a culture of the status quo. >> woodruff: barra took over as ceo in january. she agreed calculations of cost must not influence recalls. >> once there's a safety issue it should never have a business case that goes against it in making any part of decision making and we go forward now there isn't any so i am as disturbed as you. i want to understand and i commit to you that i will make change both people and process. >> woodruff: several senators warned g.m. may be guilty of a criminal cover-up.

barra promised the company will cooperate with a justice department investigation. all this, on the same day even more auto recalls were announced, this time from chrysler. the automaker announced it's calling back almost 870,000 jeep grand cherokees and dodge durangos. their brakes have parts that can corrode, making it harder to stop. the recall affects the 2011 and 2014 model years. the nation's capital will be getting a new mayor. city council member muriel bowser easily defeated incumbent mayor vincent gray in tuesday's democratic primary. gray has been embroiled in a campaign finance scandal from his previous mayoral race, although he denies any wrongdoing. bowser will be favored in the november general election against another council member, who's running as an independent. the man who became the face of the 1980's savings and loans crisis, charles keating junior, has died.

he was convicted of defrauding investors with $200 million dollars worth of junk bonds. the collapse of his thrift, in phoenix, cost taxpayers more than $2.5 billion. the scandal also ensnared five u.s. senators who accepted keating's campaign donations. charles keating junior was 90 years old. wall street moved higher today after upbeat reports on manufacturing and hiring. the dow jones industrial average gained 40 points to close at 16,573. the nasdaq rose eight points to close at 4,276. the s-and-p 500 added five points to close at a record high: 1,890. still to come on the newshour: the supreme court up-ends a major campaign finance limitation; i.m.f., on the crisis in ukraine and the state of the global economy; a former inmate inspiring other prisoners

to turn their lives around; a preview of the stakes in saturday's presidential election in afghanistan; plus, humanitarian efforts in the central african republic. >> woodruff: the supreme court today struck down a key provision of the federal campaign finance law. wealthy donors can now contribute to an unlimited number of candidates and political committees. the vote was five to four in favor of eliminating the current cap on total contributions. the ruling did not affect how much an individual can give to any one candidate. for more on today's decision, we turn to marcia coyle of the national law journal. she was in the courtroom this morning. >> thank you, judy. >> woodruff: what was the court asked to decide here? what was this case about? >> the court basically was asked to decide whether the total cap on what an individual can contribute to a candidate or

political committees and parties in a two-year election cycle is still essentially justified by the government's legitimate interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption. the court back in 1976, judy, upheld that limit. and today the case that the court decided was by a republican business man was alabama and the republican national committee who argued that the cap was no longer serving that government interest, and since it didn't it was violating the first amendment speech rights woonch what was the argument that the majority made? how are they interpretinging the criewtion differently now from the way they did in the past? >> the chief justice says the government has one interest. to prevent corruption or the

appearance of corruption. the government argued that the total cap serves that interest because it prevented circumvention of the base limits. that's the limit on what an individual can contribute in one election so the chief justice examined whether that actually is true. does it still today prevention circumvention of these base limits and he went through the government scenarios as to how that actually works and he ultimately concluded that those scenarios already are illegal under current law or as he said divorced from reality. >> woodruff: he is saying circumstances from changes from back then to today. >> right. the landscape had changed. he said there are anti-circumvention measures in place and there ises will a intricate regulatory system that the federal elections commission has enacted. >> woodruff: 5-4 decision.

conservatives on one side, liberals on the other. liberals dissenting strongly and it was justis stephen breyer. >> he read from the bench which is always an indication of how strongly the dissenters feel. he said the majority was making a decision based on its own reading of the facts. there was no lower court record here showing how this actually worked in campaigns. secondly, and most importantly, i think, he said the court read the definition of corruption too narrowly. back in citizens united the court did narrow the definition of corruption. the majority there said it is only quid pro quo corruption, something akin to a bribe. the court said that the possibility that spending large amounts might give a donor influence over or access to an elected official doesn't give rise to corruption. justice breyer said, no, it's

too narrow. there's another interest here and that is the interest of protecting the integrity of the political governmental institutions. he said where money speaks enough the public's voice will not be heard. that is say concern, he said, the congress has, a legitimate concern in worrying about large money donations. >> woodruff: you and i were talking before we went on the, you are saying this is just the latest on one example of how one-half of the court sees money in politics differently than the other half. >> that's true. the first amendment looks at political speech as the core of protections. the conservatives on the court feel there's a strong liberty interest here. more speech, the better. they are not saying money if a sill tates court. liberal members say there's an

equality concern here. there has to be some regulation of speech in order that the few don't drown out the money or the very few wealthy don't drown out the many. >> woonch there are still. >> woodruff: there are still limits on how much can be given to one candidate. any hint whether that limit could be removed? >> the chief justice said that the decision does not effect those limits. you may talk to experts that feel that the provision may provide fire power to challenge the other limits. >> woodruff: marcia coyle, thank you. >> my, pleasure, judy. >> woodruff: reaction to the court's decision was swift. democratic senator chuck schumer of new york said it "turned back the clock on our democracy." house speaker john boehner hailed it as a victory for the first amendment. >> what i think this means is that freedom of speech is being upheld. you all have the freedom to write what you want to write. donors ought to have the freedom to give what they want to give.

>> the very wealthy should be allowed to participate in the system, but most people would agree if you did a balancing test, already their weight is disproportionate and this makes it more so. >> woodruff: hari sreenivasan in our new york studio gets more reaction now. >> sreenivasan: joining me now to explore the ramifications of today's decision are erin murphy, a partner at bancroft law firm in washington. she argued, and won, this case in front of the court on behalf of mr. mccutcheon and the republican national committee. and michael waldman, president of the brennan center for justice at nyu law school. miss murphy, let me start with you. what does today's case mean to clients like yours and to combine finance? >> i think what today's decision is a big victory for the first amendment and for the rights of individuals who want to exercise their first amendment rights robustly and to support as many candidate ass they choose to support. a diverse array of them with a variety of views, and not to not be artificially limited to supporting, as it was, only nine candidates when there are many

more that they may have a strong interest in supporting in whatever way they can. >> sreenivasan: michael waldman what is the difference between eight candidates or 400 candidates? >> i think it's a significant opinion. it's the first time the supreme court has truck down a federal contribution limit since water gas gate since they were imposed. i think it will lead to significantly new corruption. the fact is there are many, many ways that these kinds of contributions to other candidates can be used to evade the campaign finance laws. and as has been discussed, the court narrowed the definition, narrowed the conception of corruption to a small concept. basically it needs to be like american hustle or ab scam. if you have a video tape of someone dressed up in a cost consume handing a suitcase full of money to a member of congress and getting an agreement to do

something it's corruption and that's okay. other than that, chief justice roberts said basically trying to use your money to get influence with members of congresses was at the heart of the first amendment. and i just don't agree with that. and i think it is a very sharp break from the past precedence of this court and other courts. >> sreenivasan: erin murphy, should there be no check on whether or not money buys influence on capitol hill in. >> i don't think it's a fair characterization of opinion to suggest there's no checks left on the ability -- as restrictions on how people can contribute to candidates. the court has upheld base contributions before and the chief justice' opinion says it's not something that the court was reconsidering in this case. the base limits remain an important check and an schifting check on how much individuals can give to any one candidate or any party or any political action committee. i don't think it's care to

characterize this as a break from the court's past precedent. if you look back to the first case on all of this, the court said from the very start that the only proper way to think about corruption is quid pro quo corruption because if you go broader there's no way to draw the limit without infringing on first amendment rights. >> sreenivasan: michael, is the equivalent to restrictions on free speech? >> limits on political contributions have a compelling government interest in preventing corruption. even they, the court has ruled, in some ways the money spent on campaigns is a form of facilitating speech. there are times when it's appropriate and right to limit the size of those contributions. because again we care a lot about speech but we also care a lot about the integrity of elections, the corruption of the government and the trust people have in their government.

and this is in some ways a ruling that is more significant than citizens united. citizens united dealt with independent expenditures. maybe they are not sop independent but the supreme court in the buckley versus volareo opinion in the 1970's is says we treat independent expect tours differently to contributions to office holders which inevitably raised the appearance of the corruption and the reality of corruption. it's certainly appropriate we're learning about the death of charles keating who threw his money around not only to influence lawmakers and other party committees and we saw the kind of corruption and cost to taxpayers that can happen when you have the loopholes. the supreme court had a fun time with the loopholes. >> sreenivasan: erin, what about the idea that at this point someone can write a $2600

check to every democrat or republican in the country and another $10,000 check to every political action committee or party. >> first of all the fact that the limit on contributions to any one candidate is $2600 reflects congress's judgement that giving that amount is not corrupting. if that's the case it doesn't make a lot of sense to suggest if you give that amount to 100 candidates versus one you somehow caused more corruption than, you know, if there's no corruption to any candidate there's no corruption when you multiply that number by 100. i think it's not really a fair way to think about it to look at all of this in is an aggregate way without focusing on how much is going to any one individual candidate, any one individual party or political action committee. >> sreenivasan: michael waldman, your response? >> yes, in the real world, we know that these kinds of mass

contributions to lots of members of congress will be turned over by the members of congress with a wink and a smile to the individual candidate. it is allowed that the office holder can ask for the contributions to be given up to $2.5 million. one of the things in the opinion that was most striking was -- the opinion says well, we want to make sure that members of congress, that office holders are in touch with their constituents and that is at the heart of the first amendment. i'm a constituent of somebody i can vote for. but a donor giving money to candidates they maybe never have met all over the country has the ability to speak, but they are not a constituent. very often they are people trying to curry favor, win a tax loophole, trying to win legislation. there's so many ways for people with lots of money to have their voices heard. we all know that. the idea that there's some

scwel. ing of the speech of wealthy individuals does not reflect the world that any of us actually live in sleenchts erin murphy, michael waldman, thanks so much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> woodruff: next, a newsmaker interview with a woman who is at the center of many important global financial developments at the moment: christine lagarde, head of the international monetary fund. i spoke with her today at i.m.f. headquarters just before a series of meetings gets underway this weekend about the economy and global finances. christine lagarde, managing director of international mon -- monetary fund. thank you for talking to us. >> great pleasure to see you. >> woodruff: you are moving urgently now to provided a to ukraine. this is at a time when the world

has watched russia come in and take over crimea. help us understand why this is so important for the people of ukraine. what is it that they could not do without this help from the imf. >> the economy of ukraine was going in the wall and heading for disaster. it's an economy that needed reforms, that needed profound transformation of its fiscal policy, of its monetary policy and of its policies on energy to mention only the key ones. without the support that they were getting from this life line that russia had extended a few months ago, they were heading nowhere. so they have to do those reforms and they don't have access to the financial market at the moment. so they need the support of the

international community and the support of the imf to design the reforms that they need to put in place and to have the financing available to sustain them until they can return to the financial markets in order to finance the economy. >> woodruff: but the money come at the same time the imf is asking them to make reforms and changes, sometimes difficult changes, sometimes to address corruption. >> yes. >> woodruff: and other problems they have in the way they are structured. do you worry that if this is too strict, it could make russia seem like a more appealing alternative because the ukrainian people are being asked to pull in their belts and make sacrifices in order to qualify for this. >> you are right about quality fiction meaning that imf money does not come free. the imf lends financing to

countries provides that countries do for themselves what they need to do to restore the economy to be able to finance themselves without our support. so we lend money, and the country takes a road to recovery and makes the hard choices, decides for itself what its economic future will be. it's in truth what you said. dealing with corruption, restoring the governance, dealing with the right price of energy, restoring the fiscal situation and making structural reforms that will help ukraine get back on a solid track. >> woodruff: here in the u.s. the congress voted to provide loan guarantees but the congress did not go along with reforms here for the imf, republicans, in particular, say they worry that giving a greater voice to countries like china, brazil and

even russia means the u.s. has a smaller voice and less influence at the imf. what argument do you make to republicans in congress that this is something that should be done? >> it is something that should be done because it was committed because it will deliver a more stable, more solid institution, and our job is to help stability around the world, financial stability and international cooperation. even if you ignore international cooperation because you don't believe in that, financial stability around the world is key for all economies. if there's not a solid imf to lend in ukraine, in mali, in pakistan to put in place the economic program, to support the authorities and lend money in a sustainable way, then it's a major tool that the american leadership cannot use in any

shape or form. the u.s. was one of the funding partner of the imf and it's the leading sharesoldier of the institution. no matter what is said the united states will keep its veto right over decisions that are made in this institution. so to make a bit more space for china and the emerging market economies is only representative of where the world is going and we have to be the institution of the future to serve international cooperation with the constant solid leadership of the united states of america. not exercising that leadership is a mistake. >> woodruff: i have one question you want to ask you about russia, something a dressed today. as you know there's sanctions imposed about it european community, by the americans. are those making any difference at all? >> we look at economic indicators. when you see the amount of capital outflows from russia to

the rest of the world in the last couple of months, to look at the decision to change monetary policy on the part of the central bank there's clearly been consequences from the talk of sanctions and from the sanctions themselves. but, you know, to have this massive outflow has clearly been an indication that money is going out after this country. >> woodruff: you are saying even the talk of it, you know -- >> the talk of tapering has produced effects. the talk of sanctions has also produced effects. it's all about anticipation. >> woodruff: tapering on the part of the federal reserve policy. today you made a speech just a short time ago about the global economy among other things. you said it's improving but the recovery is too weak. you said we could be facing years of slow and subpar growth. what does that mean for ordinary

people? >> it means that instead of having an economy that is warring, that is creating jobs, that is delivering innovation, value, you have an economy that is sluggish, that is slow going that is not creating the number of jobs needed for those people coming to the job market for the first time or who have been looking for a job for a long time. and that's what improved growth would deliver. >> woodruff: and what should be done. you talked about what needs to be done about it. >> a combination of things. one is structural reforms across the board. >> woodruff: what does that mean? >> eliminating barriers. allowing and enabling entrepreneurs to set up their business without barrier, brukcy and hurdle as long the way. it means reforming the job market so that people who can access the job, who want to get a job and work can actually do that that applies to men and

women. there are a lot of women, not in this country, but across the plan theat would like to access the job market that could create and deliver value that cannot do it. to get that access would improve the situation. those are two areas of removing the hurdles would unleash the potential. other than that monetary policy and fiscal policies that need to be adjusted to facilitate growth. >> woodruff: you addressed again today, i believe, the importance of getting women more involved in the economy. you talked in the past about how important it is to have women playing senior roles in the economy. why does that make a difference? and for men listening and saying what is the difference? why would women be -- make a company or business more successful than a man what would you say? >> there's multiple studies to demonstrate that diversity, a better balance between genders

but also between different fields as well is actually conducive to better growth, better bottom line, better results. whether you look at stocks. whether you look at performance or output, it's true pretty much across the board. it makes economic sense to actually facilitate it. if you take korea or japan where there's an aging population and where immigration is not taken for granted, opening the gates for women to access the job market is a good way to respond to that situation. >> woodruff: christine lagarde, the managing director of imf, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: next, one man's effort to turn prisoners' lives around, just as he did his own. jeffrey brown has our report

>> you may see me wearing a blue suit or blue pants and a blue shirt but the reality is that my journey began inside of a jail cell just like this, 26 years ago. >> brown: michael santos is back behind bars. >> i feel a real kinship with every guy in this room. every man wearing orange. >> brown: but this time, it's his choice. santos was just 23 when he was convicted of trafficking cocaine in 1987. >> brown: his operation was big enough to drew a 45 year sentence. and with credit given for good behavior, he served 26 years in federal prisons. now he's telling inmates his personal story of transformation. >> the vision that i always had that i would be able to come back to society, put on a suit and tie, and have nobody know that i ever served a day in prison. and that's the vision that i want to instill in every man in this room. >> brown: santos had support from his family.

but he also had an inner drive that's apparent to this day. here's you as a very young man. >> yes, i'm 23 years old, locked inside of a pierce county jail >> brown: from the moment he arrived in prison, he began preparing himself for the day he'd be released. even if it was decades away. he read books on philosophy, history and law. >> that's george cole from the university of connecticut. >> brown: he reached out to leading scholars of criminal justice at places like stanford and princeton, some of whom were impressed enough to become mentors. this is graduation day. >> yes, on the inside >> brown: over the years, he earned undergraduate and masters degrees and wrote seven books about the criminal justice system, all from inside prison walls. >> my main thing, my main message is you've gotta be able to say, "i make 100% commitment to rejecting the criminal lifestyle. i make 100% commitment to preparing for success upon release."

>> brown: now, just six months after his release, santos was imploring others to follow his lead to a life after prison. i would think that in one way, the last place you'd want to go is back to prison to, back behind those doors. >> brown: i had opportunities to just completely walk away from my past and take jobs with some sponsors who ran successful businesses. but i have a role and a duty to show others how to prepare, how to come back strong. i have a duty to work to help the formerly incarcerated transition into the labor market. >> brown: and santos has a larger message as well, to the rest of us: that the criminal justice system is broken. >> this is a national disgrace, our commitment to mass incarceration. i believe it's the greatest social injustice of our time. >> brown: with the kind of energy that comes from a man making up for lost years, santos is wasting no time. a silicon valley executive, impressed by santos' work,

invited him to speak at an annual conference. >> we may call it a system of corrections, but in reality it is a system that warehouses humanity. >> brown: santos told the group he believes prisons are filled with repeat offenders because jail time teaches inmates how to live on the inside, not the outside. >> it is a fundamentally flawed system, because it is fundamentally different from what makes silicon valley great. you look at failure and you figure out a better way of doing it. rather than looking at how many calendar pages turn to measure justice, we should look at how hard an individual works to reconcile with society and to become one as a law-abiding citizen. we should take the same approach that's lead to success in so many other areas of our society, which is encouraging individuals to pursue excellence. >> brown: so what would that take? >> frankly, i would talk about the way that we measure justice. we should have a system that

encourages and incentivizes people to work to earn the trust and respect of their fellow citizens. >> brown: right, but they're there, i mean part of it is punishment, right? take away some freedom. >> so, yeah, that's part of the idea. the question is how much punishment is necessary. there comes a time where there is a depreciated value system of this punishment, the punishment wears off, because prison becomes home. >> brown: we joined santos at the five keys charter school, located in san francisco's county jail. here, inmates have an opportunity to earn a high school degree, set long term goals, and listen to inspirational guest speakers, like michael santos himself. how do you conquer those feelings of being hopeless and what can i do when people tell me i can't? >> the first step is to quit identifying yourself as a convict. you can start reverse engineering. if i know where i want to be in ten years, where do i need to be

in five, where do i need to be in three years? >> brown: steve good is the executive director of five keys school. >> michael santos is a great example of somebody who took advantage of an opportunity that he had while he was incarcerated. those opportunities are few and far between. and programs like five keys in the san francisco jail is really the exception not the rule. >> brown: inmates like junior leapaga, and maurice boyland, who've spent years off and on behind bars, told us they were inspired by santos to turn their lives around. but their experiences also illustrate how hard it will be. >> usually when i get out of jail or institutions, i have the best intentions to do good while i'm doing the time, and as soon as i hit the streets and put on my regular clothes, it's a birthday for me, i'm there to celebrate and that's what leads me the wrong path. i've always been half way in and

half way out. i've never been fully committed, which always stopped me from achieving my goals. >> who are these 53 criminal justice systems? >> brown: and santos is getting his message out in other ways too. he's also a lecturer at san francisco state university, teaching a course called, "the architecture of incarceration." in just it's second semester, it's become hugely popular with criminal justice majors, some squeezing onto empty floor spaces. >> brown: i read your life story and you're an impressive individual. but what about the thousands or even millions of others out there, what makes you think that they could do what you've done? >> i think the biggest problem in our criminal justice system is that we don't set goals high enough. in fact, when i was in prison and a guard would see me, and he'd say, it doesn't look right, you don't fit the profile. i said, isn't that ironic, you're a correctional officer, but when you see somebody who comes back whole, you wonder what went wrong, rather than saying what are we doing right. and we need to send a message

that people in prison can come back whole. i believe absolutely that any individual can do it if we can change the narrative. >> brown: the san francisco county inmates we talked to were certainly ready for that. even knowing the tough odds of changing institutions and themselves. >> woodruff: today was another deadly day in afghanistan, prompting new fears over the safety of this weekend's elections. hari is back with that story. >> sreenivasan: police were on high alert outside the interior ministry in kabul, after a taliban bomber, wearing a uniform, got past several checkpoints and blew himself up. six officers were killed, the latest violence in the run-up to saturday's presidential election. in just the past week, the taliban staged four attacks, including one on the election

commission headquarters. the militants also warned voters again today to steer clear of polling places on election day. but the head of the election commission urged voters not to be deterred. >> ( translated ): i announce that we are committed to hold the election and i call on our honorable people to participate in big numbers and cast their vote for their favorite candidate, i am sure that our people will participate hugely despite security threats, i ask our people to ignore the security threats and prove to the world and your enemy that we are not scared and ready to vote. >> sreenivasan: on the streets, it seems afghans are indeed ready. hundreds of thousands have turned up at campaign rallies. all told, 11 candidates are running to succeed president hamid karzai, who is barred from a third term by afghan law. the three most prominent are: former finance minister ashraf ghani, and former foreign ministers abdullah abdullah and zalmai rassoul, widely reported to be karzai's favorite. many afghans say they are eager to have their say, with

stability, prosperity and security uppermost in their minds. >> ( translated ): people in general are worried about the security situation but the upcoming election is a positive move towards changing our destiny, i hope everyone will participate in the election. >> sreenivasan: if successful, the election will mark the first democratic transition of power in the country's history. karzai has served since december of 2001, but his re-election to a second term was marred by allegations of extensive fraud. in addition, he's been criticized for an unwillingness to tackle corruption. karzai also refuses to sign a bilateral security agreement allowing some u.s. troops to remain in afghanistan. otherwise, all foreign forces will leave by year's end, and afghan security forces will be put to the test in keeping their country safe. karzai's would-be successors are expected to endorse the security agreement, but none of them is likely to win an outright majority on saturday. instead, there's likely to be a run-off, possibly in june.

>> sreenivasan: for more on the significance of the upcoming elections in afghanistan we get two views. zalmay khalilzad was u.s. ambassador to afghanistan during the george w. bush administration. he also served as ambassador to iraq and the united nations. he also was born and raised in afghanistan. he now has his own business consulting firm. and nazif shahrani is an afghan american who's a professor of anthropology at indiana university. let me start with you. afghanistan has had two elections, why is this one so significant. in well this is significant because for the first time, as you said, or the report mentioned is that a peaceful transyiks, democratic transition from one elected leader to the next. that has never happened in afghan history. and number two, this is one where the afghans are taken the lead in terms of security for the elections and in terms of many of the institutions that

oversee and organize the elections. this is much more an afghan operated elections although there would be some international observers. and this is a constitutional test, also for the afghans because president karzai cannot run again. and there was a lot of speculation whether he would actually allow another election, and it all looks like -- all indications point to the the fact that there will be an election and successor selected. >> sreenivasan: there's been several questions. only a quarter of the -- this is still a country where pate reasonnage networks matter, who you are related to matters, which tribe or region you come

from matter? >> it's not just where people are from or what ethnic group or tribal group they belong to, it's the legitimatety of the government and the views of government conducting this particular election. this is really -- the views that people have about the government in the last 12 years and president karzai being one that has brought about corruption and mismanagement and abuse of power in many ways. this is the reason why people suspect is not going leading to a clean election. >> sreenivasan: i want to ask about the climate of intim decontamination happening from the tal taliban, wouldn't that l into question the number of people who turn out to vote and whether it was representative of the larger population? >> well, i think in the last few

days you've seen a surge of registration. people rather than being intimidated by the violence that occurred, and the level of violence this time is higher in kabul, especially, than it was in the first election when i was there in 2004. but i think it is enthusiasm that will be likely more people voting in the coming election on saturday than in the last election. it is a positive. it's not without challenges, of course. but i think the afghans have shown by the numbers participating in the rallies, by candidates crisscrossing the country, presenting themselves, debating, that afghans are reacting well to elections and to this process. sleenchts mr. shahrani, let's talk about after the elections.

are any of these candidates likely to reach a deal with the taliban and the war that is inside that country? >> well, i think this is obviously going to be decided by the outcome of the election of how -- who is going to win, whether it's the first round or run off? and then it depends on who the winner is. i think the winners have different strategies. the law has been concerned by not giving up any of the games of the last 12 years of international support and to the democratic development in the country and he will resist taliban perhaps most strongly. with ghani if he is winninging, he may go for negotiation. he claimed even -- eventually got credit recently that he is

behind the release of many of these taliban from -- in prison that president karzai has released recently and he was claiming credit for those. presumably those are some of the hints that are who is willing to negotiate. >> sreenivasan: it hasn't worked to try to take the enemy of karzai and gave them ministerships. are there other tactics that this government can do to try to please or work with the taliban in the south? >> well, it will not be easy. we'll see whether the taliban responds positively to the proposals or to the idea that all the leading candidates have, that they would like to come to a negotiated settlement. it's a different in emphasis in terms of the prospects of getting an agreement and who one

would negotiate with in terms of whether or not all out talibans can be negotiated with and those willing to accept a new order in afghanistan. but i think will it be difficult. i believe the elections if it goes well will have a positive effect on the prospect for negotiated sel settlements. how the security forces perform is important. also that the bsa, bilateral security agreement is signed and purr have a an important role. if all of that happens, i think prospects for a negotiated settlement will improve. that doesn't mean there's challenges and difficulties, the devil is in the negotiations in the details but as a whole the prospects would improve if those things happen. >> sreenivasan: stage with you for a second, you think an agreement would be signed if either of these three men win? >> i think so.

all three have said they would sign. president karzai will probably lobby against it and have a loud speaker nearby the palace advocating against it but i'm optimistic because the security needs of afghanistan and more importantly because of the financial needs of afghanistan. unlike iraq, afghanistan cannot afford to pay its bills so it needs international support. that support is more likely if there's a bsa and they thereare some forces still in afghanistan from the united states and nato. >> sreenivasan: finally, what differentiates these candidates? what are they running on? is there something crucial? >> they don't have much to offer in differences amongst each other. very much -- perhaps the candidate that is presented in the interest of mr. karzai talks more about connudity. the other ones are talking more about maybe progress and change

added to couldn't nudity. as -- continuity. as for strategy of doing things differently, i don't see much in any of them and unfortunately it probably will be a continuation of more of the same. and that would be a tragedy because the country needs some kind of constitutional change. and that's what taliban is calling for. but exactly what has not been discussed. introducing some element of community self government and decentralization of power might attract the taliban to negotiate a settlement especially if they can have a voice. >> sreenivasan: i have to cut you off there. sorry for that. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. >> woodruff: leaders from africa and the european union met today in brussels to confront the

crisis in the central african republic. more than 800,000 people have been displaced in the central african republic in the past year, caught in the crossfire between warring muslim and christian groups. yesterday, gwen recorded this conversation about what's behind the recent violence and the humanitarian situation it's caused. >> ifill: i'm joined by mark yarnell a senior advocate at refugees international. he has recently returned from the central african republic where he visited refugee camps and victims of conflict. welcome and thank you for coming to tell us about it. what is at the root of this conflict? >> essentially there was an attack by a coalition of rebels known as salacka, the amal ga immediate consideration of individual groups frustrated at the central government. when they came down and launched an attack and overthrew the government, they continued to carry out a -- you know, fairly severe harassment and abuse

against villagers and civilians. eventually the head of rebel group was forced from power and since then there's been reprisal attacks mainly by ant-blocker groups which are christian militias. >> ifill: to the extent we hear about this we hear about this as a conflict between christians and muslims. is it that simple? >> absolutely not. it's taken on a characteristic where people are targeted now because they are either christian or muslim but at the source it's much more based on political confrontation, issues over resources, and control over central government. >> ifill: four months ago, a human rights emergency was declared there, what has happened since then? >> unfortunately, it's even gotten worse. we were there a short while ago and since returning the levels of violence have spiked. while there are certain areas where people are returning tomorrow and certain places in

the country where there's more stability in the capital itself we're seeing increased numbers of displacement due to conflict. >> ifill: what is the biggest challenge? is it hunger? violence? simple displacement? >> it's all of those. that's what is so challenging. one thing that is clear is there are people who can be accessed and can be reached with aide despite the complexities. we met a man who with the violence met his town he fled into the bush. when we were up there visiting he moved home after six months trying to restart his life but was in need of, you know, basic services, the health center was destroyed. three kids died living in the bush and he was eager to have the basics of trying to get his -- even planting again. >> ifill: the 2,000 french troops there, and there's talk about more and at least an appeal for much more from the

un. where does that stand? >> you know, right now you are exactly right. there's a debate about around trying to switch from the african union led force to a u.n.-led mission. that debate and vote is expected to happen next week. but even if it's voted on and approved it would take potentially a year until those troops are deployed. it's an issue of getting troops now into the country to try to protect people threatened today not a year from now. >> ifill: rainy season looms. is that a deadline of sorts for action to happen? >> it is in the sense that there are still tens of thousands of people living in displacement camps that are in flood prone areas. when those rains come, they have already started. it will create a major disaster in terms of waterborne diseases and poor sanitation. >> ifill: they can't farm. they can't create the food they need to live. >> exactly. because of conflict a previous

planting season was missed and the planting for this year should be happening today but because there are people not at their homes, they've lost the tools to plant, it's a significant crisis that could have implications further down the road. >> ifill: when you look at the number of refugees scattered to the winds, is there a way or preferred method for evacuating them, especially muslims who apparently are surrounded by christian militias? >> if they leave the protection of the african union peace keeping troops, their lives are literally in danger in terms of being attacked. so, it requires movements to safer areas with pretty heavy african union peace keeping contingents. it's unclear right now if there are resources to be able to do that effectively. >> ifill: if there's one thing the outside world needs to know or do with this conflict, what would that be, in your opinion? >> we met with people that could be reached and access and would

benefit greatly from increased support, but at the moment the funding that has been reached, contributed for the cries why is only 20% of what is needed. and so just basic, basic resources would make a big difference. >> ifill: mark yarnell of refugees international. thank you. >> thank you. >> woodruff: again, the major developments of the day. a gunman opened fire at fort hood, texas. the army confirmed some people were wounded, and a shooter was still at large. 13 people died in a mass shooting at fort hood in 2009. the supreme court ruled, five to four, against limits on how much money political donors may give overall, in any one election cycle. limits on contributions to individual candidates still stand. and the confirmed death toll in the washington state mudslide rose to 29, with 18 others still listed as missing.

and that's the newshour for tonight. on thursday, journalist carlotta gall on the relationship between pakistani intelligence and the taliban. i'm judy woodruff, we'll see you on-line, and again here tomorrow evening. for all of us here at the pbs newshour, thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us.

>> supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. more information at macfound.org >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> this is "bbc world news." >> funding of this presentation is made possible by the freeman foundation, newman's own foundation, giving all profits to charity and pursuing the common good for over 30 years, charles schwab, and union bank. years, werly 150 believe a commercial bank does its clients strength, stability, security. so we believe in keeping lending standards high. capital ratios high. credit ratings high. companies expected it then. companies expect it now. doing right. it's just good business. union bank.