Elections in Iran

Remove all ads!

Actually, DR, if things do turn violent, especially if it's organized (i.e. a real civil war, not just a crackdown on protesters), it's any one's guess where Iran will end up, and when. Looking at other nations who have gone into civil wars with this much unrest, they may not be at all concerned for anyone other than themselves for a long time. All things considered, I count that as one of the worst possible outcomes.

 

Anything is anyone's guess Nog, but it's a near certainty that at the end of all this, Iran will still have a standing government, and that standing government will still be controlled by the Supreme Leader, will still pursue nuclear technology, and will still be at odds with Israel - for one simple reason: all three of these things enjoy overwhelming popular support of the Iranian people, across the ideological spectrum. Mousavi is very moderate by most accounts, but his ascension won't do anything to change that. Even if there is a knock-down, drag-out bloodbath of a civil war, when the dust has settled there will still be an Islamic Supreme Leader calling the shots. That's just how Iran works. The US could have a devastating civil war and at the end of it all, we'd almost certainly end up with a President - because that's just how America works. Our leader is always the President, not King, not PM, etc. Not necessarily because our constitution says so, but our people wouldn't have it any other way. Iran is no different.

The best we can hope for is that a moderate like Mousavi can get into office and channel the public mood in a more constructive and modern direction, appealing to the populist tendencies of the Mullahs (if they have any), which would in turn influence the Supreme Leader to play a little nicer with the rest of the world.

EDIT: Though, I have to say, everything that's happened has made Khameini very, very unpopular, at least among the opposition/moderate protesters (so about half the country). It's possible that both Ahmadi-Nejad AND Khameini will both go down at the end of this, at which point, it's definitely a tossup as to what happens next. All I'm saying is, as much as I wish it were otherwise, that's highly unlikely. The smart money is on the government cracking down hard on the revolutionaries (it's already happening) and Ahmadi-Nejad still being President of Iran by the end of the week.

 

It really depends on what the rest of the country does. If the middle class takes the side of the "opposition" it could be all over for the regime; if they side with the government, it's all over pretty soon - as soon as the regime murders enough of its own people.

It may or may not be. I hate to see this sort of thing happen anywhere. But it could be that the Iraian regime is getting a taste of its own medicine. There may be more to come if the opposition takes to the underground, rather than a direct confrontation.

Edit: Let me also be more "accurate" by saying if the "Merchant class" decides to shut down business over the election, it could make a greater difference in the outcome. I would hate to be viewed as being "terribly" inaccurate.

 

Characterizing the protesters as 'the students' strikes me as terribly inaccurate.

 

That would most likely be true, but I do not see it happening. Seriously, just how likely is it that, say, 80+% of the shops in Tehran can get organized for something like this? We are talking about thousands of people who can not meet in one place stopping their work for days on end. Especially as mobile lines in Tehran seem to have been quite unreliable as of late...

Anyway, I have to say I am surprised the strikes lasted as long as they did - it appears a lot of people in Tehran have been increasingly disillusioned with Ahmadinejad's government, if not the whole country, and the elections just put the spark to the fuse. I hope they get reforms, but also that the regime holds its hand somewhat and refrains from using the full force of the military during the riots. Does any media have some actual figures about how many the protesters are?

 

Ok, DR, I had misinterpreted you as meaning you expected the established power structure (this particular Supreme Leader) to endure even if the President changed through a violent uprising. That was ridiculous, as I'm sure you'd agree.

The US works that way because we've had it that way for over 200 years. Yes, it enjoyed popular support, but I'll bet if our third or forth president had ended up a dictator, the office of the president wouldn't have come back. Remember, Iran only set up their current system after a bloody revolution 30 years ago.

Of course, I'm just guessing based off of the relitively short history of the current Iranian state. It may well be that, just as you say, the people love the idea of a Supreme Leader, and would keep that system through Hell and high water. I'm not sure I'd count that as a "given", though, without some evidence.

 

An Iranian girl named "Neda" was murdered by the Iranian regime on Saturday. She was just a bystander, with her dad on the streets of Tehran. She has become a rallying cry for those everywhere who oppose tyranny:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/21/iran.woman.twitter/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Here's more:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_...oung_girl_killed_in_iraq.html#ixzz0J7vOSYLb&D

 

Unlikely, at least, but not impossible. Actually, I'd say if things get that bad I would expect the SL to just ditch the president and accept. No need to endanger the theocracy over a position that has limited power.

A month ago I would have said that most Iranians have no problem with the general structure of their political system. That doesn't mean they are necessarily happy with its current inhabitants, just as I suppose everyone here has some beef with their country's politicitians - just that they more or less accept the system as it is. The scandals around the election and the riots - but more than that, the Leader's support for the winner - have weakened the trust of many ordinary Iranians. That does not necessarily mean, however, that most of the country wants to change the government - that the protesters are so visible and active does not mean they enjoy the support of the majority of their countrymen.

 

Shaman, my point is that most nations are pretty much set in their governmental ways because it's established. They've never known anything else. No one alive in the US remembers the colonies, or in England remembers when she had a true monarchial government. There may be a few, a very few, in Germany or China or Russia or Japan who remember their most recent changes in government, but not many. In Iran, anyone 35 or older should remember what it was like under the Shah, should remember that they designed this system because they didn't like the last one. The idea that the form of government is permanent is pretty set in the western world, but not so in Iran.

Now, whether that is at all likely to manifest into an actual constitutional restructuring or not, I don't know.

 

That is more or less true, though I do not think that the political status quo in the western world is all that immutable. However, just because the current Iranian political system has lasted less than, say, post-Nazi Germany does not mean that it would be, as you put it, ridiculous to expect it to survive unrest that aims to change the President - a man who does not occupy the most powerful post in the state atm.

Actually, aur disagreement is simply over a difference of degree; while I would think it unlikely that a successful revolution in Iran would keep the current structure, I definitely think it possible that a compromise by the clerics allows a change of the president without them being stripped of their authority. After all, while there are many people unhappy with Iran's conservative leadership, there are doubtlessly many people who support leadership by the clergy. If the situation in Iran looked like it could escalate into a civil war, I could imagine both parties being ready to make some compromises to avoid such an outcome.

Edit: anyway, we might stick a fork in the (admittedly quite small) hope the Guardian council would annul the elections - it's done. Its spokesman Abbas Ali Kadkhoda'i said there was no major fraud or breach in the election, and he denounced external actors (UN chairman Ban Ki-Moon in particular, for meddling in Iran's affairs. Here is the text of the BBC article:

Spoiler

Iran's legislative body, the Guardian Council, has said there were no major polling irregularities in the 12 June election and ruled out an annulment.

Opposition supporters called for the vote to be set aside and the elections re-run amid claims of vote tampering.

Iran has also condemned UN chief Ban Ki-Moon for "meddling" in its affairs.

It comes after Mr Ban urged the authorities to respect fundamental civil rights "especially the freedom of assembly and expression".

Guardian Council spokesman Abbas Ali Kadkhoda'i said there was "no major fraud or breach in the election".

Meanwhile, opposition candidate Mehdi Karoubi urged Iranians to mourn for dead protesters on Thursday.

Mourning

Mr Karoubi, who is among those asking for the election to be set aside, wants mourning ceremonies to be held around the country, his aide Issa Saharkhiz said.

His call echoed an earlier one from cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who has called for three days of national mourning for those killed in the street protests.

English-language Press TV reported the Guardian Council's rejection of an annulment on Tuesday.

On Monday, it had conceded there had been voting irregularities in 50 districts, including local vote counts that exceeded the number of eligible voters.

But it said they were not enough to affect the overall result and incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had indeed won by a landslide.

The council's spokesman said most of the irregularities happened before the election, not during or after voting.

In a letter to the council, Mr Karoubi said: "Instead of wasting time on recounting some ballot boxes... cancel the vote."

On Monday 1,000 people gathered in Haft-e Tir Square in the capital Tehran despite a warning from Iran's Revolutionary Guards, an elite armed force, against holding unapproved rallies against the election results.

Basij militiamen wielding clubs were brought in to reinforce the police.

The protests in the last 24 hours are smaller than they have been over the past 10 days, amid the strong security presence on the streets.

BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen said the protesters are talking about finding other ways to show their opposition, including strikes or civil disobedience.

'Beginnings of change'

A spokesman for the US government said it "would not endorse" general strikes.

But he added: "We've seen the beginnings of change in Iran."

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the BBC: "We want a very good relationship with the Iranians, we also respect the fact that it's for the Iranian people themselves to choose who their government is.

"But when there is a sign of repression or where there is violence that's affecting ordinary people in the streets, we have a duty to speak out and to say we want Iran to be part of the world, we don't want Iran to be isolated from the world."

On Friday Ayatollah Ali Khamenei banned protests, prompting street violence in which at least 10 people died.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has called for an end to the street violence, and threats of violence.

Mr Ban urged the authorities in Iran to respect fundamental civil rights, "especially the freedom of assembly and expression", and end arrests.

A spokesman for Mr Ban said he had been following the situation in Iran with "growing concern" and was dismayed by the use of force against civilians.

Call for dialogue

He called on Iran's government and opposition to resolve their differences peacefully through dialogue and legal means.

"He urges an immediate stop to the arrests, threats and use of force. The secretary general reiterates his hope that the democratic will of the people of Iran will be fully respected," a statement read.

A pro-government rally proposed by students to be held outside the British Embassy has been called off after they were denied a permit.

Severe reporting restrictions placed on the BBC and other foreign media in Iran mean protest reports cannot be verified independently.

Election results show Mr Ahmadinejad won the 12 June election by a landslide, taking 63% of the vote, almost double that of Mir Hossein Mousavi, his nearest rival.

An independent British analysis of the disputed election results has found irregularities in the reported turnout, as well as "implausible" swings in the vote in favour of Mr Ahmadinejad.

Analysts from St Andrew's University and the Chatham House think-tank said votes in favour of Mr Ahmadinejad in a third of the provinces would have required an "unlikely scenario" of voting patterns.

While I continue to believe that it is technically possible that the results were more of less genuine, I am definitely not convinced by the council's response. There being more votes than registered voters would be a rather uncommon occurence. Even if the voter activity was 90% - extremely rare if voting is not mandatory, but let us consider it possible in the light of the official voter participation being 85% - we are talking about an "extra" 10% votes. I am not an expert on electoral studies, but that not only can cause a considerable change in the results, but is likely to indicate tampering of the vote itself.

 

Shaman, actually, I think we may agree completely. What I actually said was that it was ridiculous (and still is in my opinion) for the Guardian Council and Supreme Leader as they are now (meaning the individuals filling those positions) to survive a violent uprising to unseat the president. If the unrest reaches the point of a true civil war, I'm betting the people won't stop at just changing the figurehead. Now, whether or not the whole form of government will change is much more iffy, but I do consider it a realistic possibility, again, if they reach the point of an organized violent uprising.

And yes, a 10% error in the number of votes is significant. It adds a +/- 10% to each and every candidate, which is massive, as well as indicating massive voting irregularities of one kind or another.

 

That was great, TGS!

 

That was priceless TGS.

 

One dictator (Putin) to another (Ahmadinejad): "Keep up the good work, brother."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31499296/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

 

Relax and step back a bit, brother. That's what I do.

 

I thought that this was an insightful piece:

Regarding civil rights in the ME, there's either light at the end of the tunnel, or another train....

http://www.newsweek.com/id/203566

 

iran arrest british embassy staff

It just seems to keep escalating.

 

Ok, I'm assuming these staff were arrested outside the embassy, since violating embassy grounds is usually considered an act of war. Still, this doesn't bode well.

 

If I were the Iranian Supreme Leader, I'd be pissed off too. You think Saudi Arabia has free and open elections? How about Kuwait? Do Western democracies get all bent out of shape about it? Nope. Because those countries are allies. Pucker up and kiss some Western butt or they'll point out your election flaws.

Or, plan B, be strong enough that the West cannot say too much without screwing themselves over -- example, China.

I don't like the Ayatollah at all, but I'm sure he feels that Western democracies are interfering too much with his country. If any Iranian government employee were agitating in a Western democracy, said employee would be arrested and deported faster than you could say "diplomatic immunity."