The choice of media dissemination and especially the use of radio in rural areas and remote districts in Afghanistan were very relevant. Despite weak project design, the grantee’s strategy to directly target or reach people likely to be uninformed about or actively resistant to democratic ideas due to misconceptions was sound and pertinent.

Limited evidence obtained from baseline research compromised the general objective of the project. This meant that the project design showed a poor understanding of the broad project context and political landscape which led to missed learning opportunities, and failure to map stakeholders and to allocate resources optimally. Duplication of efforts of other actors in Afghanistan wasted the grantee’s opportunity to complement other media democracy effects.

Limited evidence obtained from baseline research compromised the general objective of the project. This meant that the project design showed a poor understanding of the broad project context and political landscape which led to missed learning opportunities, and failure to map stakeholders and to allocate resources optimally. Duplication of efforts of other actors in Afghanistan wasted the grantee’s opportunity to complement other media democracy effects.

Some debate participants reported that the language used was too technical and theoretical for an ordinary person to understand. Analysis of materials confirms that in some areas of Afghanistan, Western-oriented democratic terminology and usage likely to be too abstract or insufficiently explained was used.

The project did not sufficiently take into account that many targeted beneficiaries had little education and exposure to ideas beyond their culture, religion, or location. Although most of the radio shows explained basic democratic issues fairly comprehensively, specialized language or reference terms limited audience impact to persons who may have had some knowledge already or perhaps an existing deep interest on democracy.

Staff departures once the project in Afghanistan ended drained away some of the capacity developed through the project cycle. Mistakes or gaps were not corrected in the review step and gave evidence of poor organizational arrangements. Research materials of low quality were approved and therefore shaped all shows and debates, leading to suboptimal performance by moderators and participants, which reduced the efficiency and impact of the democratic debates in Afghanistan. The grantee had no internal control or assessment mechanisms to measure progress or impact on desired social change. Although the project used emails and phone calls from the audience, including suggestions for show material, these were not analyzed or incorporated into review of the program's effectiveness with respect to organizational or project objectives.

Afghan media airs debates every week and a significant part of the evaluation stakeholders were not familiar with this particular project. Some of those who know the grantee by name report they find their programmess unappealing compared to other options.