Elections in Iran: the crisis of survival & legitimacy
June 2005

By: K. Hooshiyar
Khashayar@iranreview.com

The current presidential elections in Iran is neither about the continuation of reform nor democracy. It is only and only  about the survival  of a crisis-ridden and unpopular theocratic regime. This is  manifested today in showing to the outside world that it has political legitimacy by bringing people to the polling stations through any means possible. No wonder that , Ayatollah Khamenei, the highest authority in Iran, has indirectly declared this election as a referendum on the legitimacy of the regime, or at least that’s what the clerical establishment  is trying to portray.

Ali Shariati, a renowned Islamic philosopher and presumed by many as  one of the ideological fathers of the 1979 Iran Revolution, warns us of the coming to power of the triangle of zour (coercion or power), zar (wealth or money), and tazvir ( deceit ). He calls this the most powerful and dangerous form of governing since it not only enjoys the ordinary power of  the state, but also has the ability to control  and manipulate  people’s religious beliefs and sentiments.  In his writings, a clerical regime, like the Islamic Republic of Iran, is portrayed as the most cunning, demagogues, and deceptive forms of  governments.

To stay in power, in the past 25 years, the Iranian mullahs have  not only used the apparatus of the state, particularly its repressive  forces and institutions, but also  resorted to all kinds of tricks and Machiavellian methods, as well as the manipulation of people’s weaknesses and fears. The circumstances surrounding the  presidential elections in Iran and  the mockery of basic democratic and electoral principals and processes by the ruling elite, from left to right, is a good example of such a demagogic behaviour.

In one of his recent speeches, Ayatollah  Khamenei, the supreme spiritual and political leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, stipulates that “democracy in Iran is transparent and for everyone, compared with Western democracy that has overt and covert limitations.” There is no doubt that Western democracy has its own problems and limitations, but calling the treacherous, deceptive, and repressive policies and practices of the Iranian regime democratic and transparent is both humorous and painful. It is the mother of all lies.

Under the mullahs regime, any political  party opposed to the government is banned and their members either executed or persecuted.  The mullahs have executed more than 120, 000 people, including many teenagers, and imprisoned thousands more political dissidents in Medieval jails. Furthermore, the government routinely stones, jails, and hangs people for having `illegal' sex, `morality crimes,' or ‘enmity against god.’  

In Iran, there is no freedom of the press and expression. In a country where pro-government newspapers and internet sites are shutdown for minor criticism of the establishment, you can imagine what they would do to independent and free-thinking press and expression.  

In Iran, there is no freedom of association and organisation that is necessary for a fair election. According to Article 27 of the constitution, ‘public gatherings and marches may be freely held, provided … that they are not detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam.’ Who is the judge of that?  In the final analysis, Khamenei and his  non-elected , ultra-conservative and powerful judging body -  the Guardian Council.

In current presidential elections, only eight out of 1,014 candidates were approved to run  by the powerful Guardian Council. This doesn’t mean that many of those disqualified are any better. All are former or present government officials responsible for and linked to serious human rights violations during their various governmental positions. What distinguishe those who have passed the thorough screening process of the Gurdian Council, is their absolute loyalty to the institution of the `velayat-e faqih’ (the guardianship of the jurist), the constitutions, and, above all, the survival of the regime as a whole.

The regime has reached a point , however,  cannot even tolerate a `free elections’ among its own hand-picked candidates.  As reported by the press, there has been claims of sever election abuses in last week's first round that reportedly favoured Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who squeezed into second place to earn a spot in Friday's run-off elections. Even, the third-placed finisher, Mehdi Karroubi, Khamenei’s special advisor and former Majlis Speaker from 1989 to 1992 and 2000 to 2004, brought up accusations of vote-rigging and  attacked the country's supreme leader for condoning the use of ``coup-like'' methods by clerics to fix the elections.

And yet, in the words of  Khamenei, the Supreme Spiritual Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, “democracy in Iran is transparent and for everyone, ……” !!

But the main issue here is not the government’s long record of the violation of human rights, the repressive and totalitarian nature of the regime,  undemocratic practices such as the screening of the presidential candidates, or even vote-rigging in the current elections. These are consistent with what the regime has been doing since 1981.

As many analysts have correctly noted, the current elections in Iran is not about who is elected; rather, faced with all kinds of internal and external pressures, the crisis-ridden regime of the mullahs is desperately seeking popular legitimacy.  Knowing perfectly that president Khatami’s failure to talk the talk and walk the walk, has completely disillusioned even the most optimistic people about the possibility of change from within the regime, the clergy  has managed to orchestrate a very sophisticated and manipulative elections in the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

As pre-election pools indicated and  later confirmed during the first round of elections, the turn out in the sham elections was very poor. The people’s big NO to all factions of the regime was a slap in the face of the mullahs and a good indicator of the political maturity of the people. The regime had to do something both to thwart off the U.S.’s attempt to capitalize on low people turn-out and threats from within. Holding a presidential elections with high participation rates would definitely enhance the clerical regimes manoeuvrability in both Iran and abroad, as well as prolonging its eventual collapse.

This in not to say that there is no infighting within the regime. However, as it has been proved in the past, when it comes to the survival of the regime, divisions with the ruling elites are irrelevant. They all put their differences aside and unite to save the regime. Since the beginning of the second round of the electoral campaign, we have witnessed  how the “moderates” and “reformists” have been rallying their forces behind Hashemi Rafsanjani, whose reactionary, criminal, and repressive policies and practices during his previous terms as the president are well known, demanding more participation from the people to save Iran from the threats of fascism and “Talibanization”, as if Iran was a democracy to begin with. This is realpolitik, the Mullahs style!  Unfortunately,  even the media and some “political analysts” have been echoing the “reformists’” cry for active participation and support for Rafsanjani . Observe the following statements:

• This is “the most crucial political battle in recent Iranian history.” –the “reformist” camp
• "Take seriously the danger of fascism," said Moin in a statement. "Such creeping and complex attempts will eventually lead to militarism, authoritarianism as well as social and political suffocation in the country."
• "The Islamic revolution is at a difficult crossroads, facing domestic and foreign threats and adventurism,"  said Rafsanjani
• A political analyst, who asked not to be named: "In a way, this [elections] is shaping up as a conflict between modernity and tradition,"
• "Future of reform at stake in Iran presidency vote.”-- Western Media
• "An Ahmadinejad victory would cement the control by ultra-conservatives over Iran's dual system of democratic and theocratic institutions following hardline successes in parliamentary and local council elections in 2003 and 2004.” – Western Media
• "Go and vote. Otherwise they are going to make an Iranian Taliban here. The fanatics are coming, and people are not going to enjoy peace and security any longer," he said on Tuesday. Karoubi moderate
• support Rafsanjani and turn back ``terror and repression,'' losing reformist candidate Mostafa Moein
• Flock to polling stations to defeat an Islamic hard-line candidate …. [who is] a ``symbol of totalitarianism.'' Karoubi
• Rafsanjani "is the lesser of two evils," said Mohammad Reza Khatami, brother of the outgoing president
• "If Mr. Ahmadinejad comes to power, it will be a complete concentration of power like you have never had before in Iran," said Amir Ali Nourbakhsh, a political and economic analyst in Tehran.

In the present  run-off elections, the fear factor, intimidation, and threats have replaced, thrust, democratic process, freedom of expression, and  tolerance. The regime’s medieval and Machiavellian tactics to bring people to the polling stations on  Friday  seems to be working for some. So far, some of the organizations who originally boycotted the first round have declared their readiness to participate and support Rafsanjani against the ultra-conservative ultra-conservative Tehran Mayor Mahmood Ahmadinejad.  Hassan Mortazavirad, who is a member of the steering committee of the Islamic Students' Association at Tehran University and one of the organizers of the Rafsanjani forum, says many students are giving grudging support to Mr. Rafsanjani.  In the words of  a Tehran University student: "Of course we will all have to vote for Mr. Rafsanjani.  No choice, we have no choice.  We don't like him a lot.  [But] we have no other option," he said.

Regardless of the outcome of tomorrow’s vote, it has to be emphasized that this election is not about the future of reform in Iran. It is rather about the regime’s attempt to manoeuvre itself out of the deep economic, political, social, and ideological crisis by any means possible ("reform" or hardline); it is about the survival of the regime in light of the  increasing people’s awareness and their radical demands for change, as well as the  U.S. imperial design for the Middle East. In this sense, the main issue is not who will emerge victorious in tomorrow’s elections (we all know the president is powerless in the system - as Khatami's tenure proved)) ; it is about the political legitimacy of the regime and how to prolong its life. Whatever the outcomes of Friday’s elections, there is no doubt, however,  that the days of this regime are numbered and soon or later it will taste what the Shah did in 1979.

www.iranreview.com