|
Dr. Walid Phares
Iran’s Elections: A National Show Designed to Delay
Democracy
June 15, 2009
Iran’s presidential elections are over and — as
predicted by the unapologetic regime’s experts and
the real opposition groups in exile — Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, the "pure son” of the Islamic
Revolutionary Guards, Pasdaran, wins, and wins big.
For the connoisseurs in Khomeinist politics the win
was a given from the beginning of the so-called
Iranian presidential elections — there wouldn’t be
any result that would contradict the principles upon
which the "Islamic Republic” was founded. There was
not a shred of doubt about the complete control the
supreme ruler, Ali Khamenei, had on the process and
the result.
As detailed by many specialists on the regime’s tentacles, the selection
process of a "new” president for the "Republic” has multiple security
mechanisms which ensure that the "elected” leader is in line with the
Khomeinist ideology, platform, and long term goals.
First, no candidate opposing the "Islamist ideology” can be granted the
authorization to run. The institutions regulating the elections are
solidly in the hands of the ayatollahs. Hence, there is no pluralist
process to begin with. Voters must select from those candidates "chosen”
for them by the regime. Democracy dies in the first stage of the
process, since citizens can only choose from one basket and candidates
can only discuss what is permissible by the authorities. In short,
Iran’s presidential elections are a charade, a show of colors and
sounds, nothing more, nothing less. But international public opinion,
particularly in the West, has seen images of "different” candidates,
some labeled more moderate than others, and have seen large numbers of
voters rushing to the polls in Iran. Weren’t the candidates really
clashing over real differences? In fact, they were engaged in a "real”
clash but not over "real” differences.
Here is why: In a well-orchestrated process which unfolds the ruling
Mullahs’ scrutiny, four candidates have been selected by the Guardian
Council — the supreme Islamist politbureau which sanctions all critical
decisions in the country — to run for this election: Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mohsen Rezai, and Mehdi Karoubi. The
first is the current president, a previous member of the Islamic
Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC). The second was Iran’s prime minister
during the war years of the 1980’s, under Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the
leader who advocated the nuclear weapons program. The third is a former
chief of the Pasdaran, wanted by the Interpol for alleged involvement in
the 1994 bombing of the Jewish community center in Argentina. The
fourth, a former speaker of the Parliament, was one of Khomeini’s
activists who supported the fatwa to execute British novelist Salman
Rushdie.
Thus the four candidates were all part of the regime and were his
faithful sons running against each other to snatch the top office of the
executive branch. Khamenei’s top elite throw these bones to the public
every presidential cycle to have them choose the "best CEO” for the
"Islamic Republic” but would never allow a candidate to argue against
this "Khomeinist Imamate.” Thus the question here is why would a solid
regime, with a powerful repressive Pasdaran, endowed with millions of
petrodollars even allow this charade? Why the show and for whom? Here
are the two reasons for this spring’s production:
Playing to the Domestic Audience
With the rise of political pluralism in the country’s larger
"neighborhood” in the Middle East, pressure is growing in Iran from
young people, women, labor unions, intellectuals and many other citizens
to move towards democracy. Watching women being freely elected in
Afghanistan after the Taliban, witnessing the rise of more than a
hundred political parties in a multi-ethnic Iraq after the fall of
Saddam, and watching the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon defeat the
Iranian-backed Hezbollah in elections has led to an epiphany among
regular folk living under the oppressive rule of the Mullahs. The
longing for debates, the simple freedom to carry signs, scream the names
of candidates out loud, and watch televised debates cannot be so easily
contained, and the ruling elite of Tehran have realized this. Even
Kuwait and Pakistan are producing slowly mutating democracies. "If you
don’t give some room to breathe they will explode,” advised the regime’s
architects about their country’s citizens. In addition, the question of
ethnic minorities is already exploding: Arabs in Khusistan, Baluch in
the East, Azeris in the Northwest and Kurds in the West are all in
ebullition over obtaining autonomy. The regime organized this sumptuous
feast of a presidential "election” as way to divert national attention
from the real ethnic uprising taking place in many regions of the
"Republic.” How ironic it is to conclude that the Iranian presidential
elections have been initially organized as a national show to delay
democracy, not to hasten it. How can the real domestic opposition, whose
leaders and cadres are assassinated, pursued, exiled, tortured and
jailed claim a lack of freedom if millions of Iranians have been "part”
of an election? To preempt a full democracy, the regime plays a few of
its tunes to the public, before it closes the gates on real change.
Performing for an International Audience
But the "show” had an international audience as well. Iran’s regime has
been accused by many in the West, including the former Bush
administration, of being "oppressive.” Even though the current Obama
administration has dropped the word from its lexicon and calls Tehran’s
totalitarian Ayatollahs with the name they prefer, "The Islamic Republic
of Iran,” still the regime feels it needs to embellish its tarnished
image. And, as the current U.S. administration and some European
governments are gearing up for a sit-down with the Iranian rulers to
eventually cut a "realistic” deal with them, it would be very helpful
for Western liberal democracies to show their own public that they are
indeed dealing with an emerging democracy in Iran. Hence, covering
Iran’s elections as real and free suffrage with people actually
"electing” a president will allow certain leaders in the West to move
more comfortably in the direction of Khamanei’s Islamist republic.
Hence, not only the multi -candidates’ (controlled) cacophony is good to
numb democratic feelings inside Iran, but it is also good to numb
criticism abroad and facilitates deals between diplomats and eventually
businessmen.
However, a more ominous goal is smartly embedded in the charade. As the
international community presses Iran’s regime on the nuclear crisis,
electing a "new” president, in fact "reelecting” the current president
is an enormous boost delivered in the ideal international context. By
the time countries all over the world prepare to strike back with bombs,
missiles and counter missiles and more at the Tehran’s regime’s plan for
installing a nuclear military systemm another powerful shield will have
been added to the Khomeinist layers of defenses: the claim that Iran has
a "democratically” elected president. Indeed, the power of just such an
argument will resonate deeply in the West. With a global media astutely
manipulated to cover a dynamic election in Iran, the political reality
will be different: future Iranian propagandists and their operatives in
the West will argue that democracies cannot disarm other democracies.
One of the most dramatic consequences of framing this presidential
election as "real” will be felt much later, when the time to deal with
the nuclear armed regime in Iran comes.
An Unexpected Uprising
Unlike previous elections, this last one ended with violent
demonstrations, rioting and civil unrest in Tehran and some other
locations in the country. For the first time Western audiences were
watching Iranian police and Pasdaran cracking down on demonstrators
upset with the regime’s electoral fraud. Mousavi’s supporters rejected
the results and filed an appeal against the election’s outcome.
Observers wondered why thousands of his partisans took to the streets
chanting against the "regime” as a whole. In fact, this was an optical
illusion: The massive demonstrations against Ahmadinejad were (and are)
conducted by real opposition masses. Students, young people, men and
women have been emulating the Tiananmen Square uprising, as well as
Eastern Europe’s awakening against the Soviets and going beyond the
electoral dispute. In reality, the people clashing with the regime’s
militia aren’t solely Mousavi’s supporters. Most of them are anti-Khomeinist
protesters who are seizing the opportunity of the election fraud to show
the world how disenfranchised they are. They are a "third” group, the
real underdogs.
Thus the unexpected happened and the regime, which was hoping to
produce an election and get away with its results, is now clamping down.
As in other authoritarian regimes, the Khomeinists used the
"counter-masses”, those members of the ruling party and its
organizations to gather a super-demonstration "in support” of
Ahmadinejad. By acting fast, the supreme rulers showed they are in
control of their own people. Their propaganda machine and their allies
worldwide rushed to prove that the Ahmadinejad supporters are greater in
numbers, thus minimizing the uprisings by smaller groups of youth.
Unless international solidarity builds quickly around the democracy
movements on the streets, the Pasdarans will regain the streets again.
Once again, the Khomeinists have demonstrated their skills in taming
their people, fooling the international public and outmaneuvering many
Western chanceries. But this is only to delay an irreversible
forthcoming real change. Time will tell when. |
”
and "
