US interference in Iran’s election can only backfire
For George Bush, of course, the world exists only in black and white. In a world of such binary opposites, a sovereign country can be either good or bad, “for us” or “against us”; its political system can either embrace “freedom” or else it becomes a force for “evil”.
Hence there was no surprise this week at his comments on the eve of Iran’s presidential election. Iran, lest we forget, is one of the original members of the hallowed ‘axis of evil’ and is long rumoured by some to be the next target on Washington’s list for regime change. Bush described Iran as an undemocratic country “ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world”.
Discarding the spurious allegation of Iran’s terror-spreading acumen, the US President is remarkably (and uncharacteristically) accurate in saying that the clerical leaders of Iran suppress liberty. The election is indeed massively flawed. From a list of over 1000 candidates – including some 90-odd women – the ultra-conservative Council of Guardians rendered all but six ineligible, none of them female. Only the intervention of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ensured the reinstatement of two reform candidates – one of who, Mostafa Moin, is likely to emerge with a significant portion of the vote. Far from being an example of good electoral jurisprudence, Khamenei is merely sentient of the need to legitimise the election, and fears that a shortlist of mainly hard-line candidates would lead to mass abstention by Iran’s predominantly young population.
So far, so bad, at least as far as the ideal of democracy goes. However, compared to the atmosphere that surrounded previous elections in the country, this year has seen the emergence of Western-style campaigning, open and honest debates, and even talks of rapprochement with the US. Could it be that the aging coterie of clerics, who have charted the country since the 1979 revolution are starting to fade in their significance?
The pre-eminent hard-line candidate, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, a former police chief, has shaved his beard to lessen his aesthetic ties to the clerical elite. Posters, billboards, T-shirts and other assorted election paraphernalia familiar to voters in Western countries have flooded Tehran and other cities. And as Jonathan Steele notes in the Guardian, the final list of eight candidates – while censured by the mullahs – offers a wider choice than any other Arab country today. While mainstream Iranian media remains overwhelmingly conservative, online blogs written by both nationals and ex-pats, amateurs and established journalists - "Mr. Behi" is one example - have proliferated widely, and are bringing a newly awakened political maturity across the entire country. The arrest of prominent bloggers by the authorities indicates how seriously they take this threat to their control of the media.
Furthermore, the country’s demographic quirk – where some 50% of the population are under twenty-five years old – has meant that politicians of all stripes have been forced to remould themselves to appeal to the young votes. Any references to Islam or Islamic notions have been scrubbed from election posters. The frontrunner, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has ditched the radical stance that saw him through eight years at the top during the 1990s, and now paints himself as a cautious reformist whose links to the unelected clerics would see his presidency able to affect real change. The importance of this cannot be understated in a country of economic stagnation and chronic unemployment. Under eight years of outgoing president Khatami, the country was too often immobilised by the tensions between the desire for reform and the reactionary spiritual rulers. As a close aide of the late Ayatollah Khomenei, Rafsanjani arguably has a strong chance of implementing the changes that he sees necessary for the country to grow. One of his main goals is a thaw in relations with the United States.
None of this, of course, is to suggest that Iran is a functioning democracy with an elected leader who is truly representative of his people. Patently it is not, and yet the mere existence of viable elections in a region that is beset by dictatorships and fixed ballots is a positive sign. The US and the EU should be encouraging the incremental changes that are happening, rather than resorting to knee-jerk denunciations. This is most acute in the ongoing crisis over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While US sabre-rattling may be just that – it is unlikely, with so many troops tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, that another major conflict could be waged – it doesn’t help the anti-clerical factions, and is used by the ruling authorities to justify ever-more invasive crackdowns. The Iranian public has no trust in the US: it is only fifty years since the democratically-elected Mohammad Mossadegh, a populist who attempted to nationalise Iran’s oil industry, was overthrown by a US and UK-organised coup. Thus, interference from the ‘Great Satan’, as clerics delight in branding America, can only strengthen the conservative leadership.
Whatever the result in the election, it is unlikely that rapid change will follow, and yet by losing the aggressive stance and opening itself up to a new relationship with the Islamic Republic, Washington could help to assist the flowering of true democratic representation that it purportedly wants to spread across the wider Middle East.
Hence there was no surprise this week at his comments on the eve of Iran’s presidential election. Iran, lest we forget, is one of the original members of the hallowed ‘axis of evil’ and is long rumoured by some to be the next target on Washington’s list for regime change. Bush described Iran as an undemocratic country “ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world”.
Discarding the spurious allegation of Iran’s terror-spreading acumen, the US President is remarkably (and uncharacteristically) accurate in saying that the clerical leaders of Iran suppress liberty. The election is indeed massively flawed. From a list of over 1000 candidates – including some 90-odd women – the ultra-conservative Council of Guardians rendered all but six ineligible, none of them female. Only the intervention of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ensured the reinstatement of two reform candidates – one of who, Mostafa Moin, is likely to emerge with a significant portion of the vote. Far from being an example of good electoral jurisprudence, Khamenei is merely sentient of the need to legitimise the election, and fears that a shortlist of mainly hard-line candidates would lead to mass abstention by Iran’s predominantly young population.
So far, so bad, at least as far as the ideal of democracy goes. However, compared to the atmosphere that surrounded previous elections in the country, this year has seen the emergence of Western-style campaigning, open and honest debates, and even talks of rapprochement with the US. Could it be that the aging coterie of clerics, who have charted the country since the 1979 revolution are starting to fade in their significance?
The pre-eminent hard-line candidate, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, a former police chief, has shaved his beard to lessen his aesthetic ties to the clerical elite. Posters, billboards, T-shirts and other assorted election paraphernalia familiar to voters in Western countries have flooded Tehran and other cities. And as Jonathan Steele notes in the Guardian, the final list of eight candidates – while censured by the mullahs – offers a wider choice than any other Arab country today. While mainstream Iranian media remains overwhelmingly conservative, online blogs written by both nationals and ex-pats, amateurs and established journalists - "Mr. Behi" is one example - have proliferated widely, and are bringing a newly awakened political maturity across the entire country. The arrest of prominent bloggers by the authorities indicates how seriously they take this threat to their control of the media.
Furthermore, the country’s demographic quirk – where some 50% of the population are under twenty-five years old – has meant that politicians of all stripes have been forced to remould themselves to appeal to the young votes. Any references to Islam or Islamic notions have been scrubbed from election posters. The frontrunner, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has ditched the radical stance that saw him through eight years at the top during the 1990s, and now paints himself as a cautious reformist whose links to the unelected clerics would see his presidency able to affect real change. The importance of this cannot be understated in a country of economic stagnation and chronic unemployment. Under eight years of outgoing president Khatami, the country was too often immobilised by the tensions between the desire for reform and the reactionary spiritual rulers. As a close aide of the late Ayatollah Khomenei, Rafsanjani arguably has a strong chance of implementing the changes that he sees necessary for the country to grow. One of his main goals is a thaw in relations with the United States.
None of this, of course, is to suggest that Iran is a functioning democracy with an elected leader who is truly representative of his people. Patently it is not, and yet the mere existence of viable elections in a region that is beset by dictatorships and fixed ballots is a positive sign. The US and the EU should be encouraging the incremental changes that are happening, rather than resorting to knee-jerk denunciations. This is most acute in the ongoing crisis over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While US sabre-rattling may be just that – it is unlikely, with so many troops tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, that another major conflict could be waged – it doesn’t help the anti-clerical factions, and is used by the ruling authorities to justify ever-more invasive crackdowns. The Iranian public has no trust in the US: it is only fifty years since the democratically-elected Mohammad Mossadegh, a populist who attempted to nationalise Iran’s oil industry, was overthrown by a US and UK-organised coup. Thus, interference from the ‘Great Satan’, as clerics delight in branding America, can only strengthen the conservative leadership.
Whatever the result in the election, it is unlikely that rapid change will follow, and yet by losing the aggressive stance and opening itself up to a new relationship with the Islamic Republic, Washington could help to assist the flowering of true democratic representation that it purportedly wants to spread across the wider Middle East.
posted by DN at 12:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home