Elections in Iran

Remove all ads!

Yep, we just got tired of discussing the EU elections and we had another one so we can yap our mouths (well, okay, fingers) about. This time, it was in the Middle East, a.k.a. the place with oil and weird religious people, and said people of Iran got together to exercise their Allah-given right of democracy...

and Ahmadinejad got reelected. Bummer. Ye olde BBC with the details, spoiler-ed for your convenience and with the sidebars as quotes:

Spoiler

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been re-elected as president of Iran in a resounding victory, the interior minister says.

He won some 62.6% of the vote in an election marked by a high turnout of 85%, official figures show.

Supporters of pro-reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi have cried foul and clashed with riot police in Tehran, despite a ban on public protests.

Iran's Supreme Leader congratulated Mr Ahmadinejad on his win, and urged his rivals against "provocations".

In a statement, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei praised the high turnout and described the count as a "real celebration" and called for calm in the aftermath of the result.

"Enemies may want to spoil the sweetness of this event... with some kind of ill-intentioned provocations," the ayatollah said.

Mr Mousavi has also claimed victory, calling the result a "dangerous charade", as his supporters vowed to appeal for a re-run.

But observers say this would have little chance of success.

Riot police have used batons against a crowd of about 3,000 supporters of Mr Mousavi, some of whom were wearing his campaign colour of green and chanting "Down with the dictator", news agencies say.

Correspondents say this is the worst public violence for a decade in Tehran.

Four police motorbikes were set on fire near the interior ministry, the BBC's John Simpson in Tehran says.

The authorities had earlier sealed off Mr Mousavi's campaign HQ, preventing his supporters from holding a news conference.

Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli said that any demonstrations needed official permission, and none had been given.

The AFP news agency quoted a senior police official as saying: "The time of dancing and shouting is over."

One opposition newspaper has been closed down and BBC websites also appear to have been blocked by the Iranian authorities.

Mr Mousavi was hoping to prevent Mr Ahmadinejad winning more than 50% of the vote, in order to force a run-off election.

However, Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli said his share of the vote was 33.75%.

Danger of 'tyranny'

Mr Mousavi, a former prime minister, dismissed the election result as deeply flawed.

"I personally strongly protest the many obvious violations and I'm warning I will not surrender to this dangerous charade," the Reuters news agency reported him as saying.

"The result of such performance by some officials will jeopardise the pillars of the Islamic Republic and will establish tyranny."

Mr Mousavi had said there was a shortage of ballot papers and alleged that millions of people had been denied the right to vote.

His election monitors were not allowed enough access to polling stations, he added, saying he would deal seriously with any irregularities.

The head of the Committee to Protect the People's Votes, a group set up by all three opposition candidates, said the group would not accept the result, alleging fraud.

They have asked Iran's Guardian Council - a powerful body controlled by conservative clerics - to cancel the results and re-run the elections. A second opposition candidate, Mehdi Karroubi, declared the results "illegitimate and unacceptable".

Our correspondent says the result has been greeted with surprise and with deep scepticism by many Iranians.

The figures, if they are to be believed, show Mr Ahmadinejad winning strongly even in the heartland of Mr Mousavi, the main opposition contender.

The scale of Mr Ahmadinejad's win means that many people who voted for a reformist candidate in the previous presidential election four years ago have apparently switched their votes to Mr Ahmadinejad, he adds.

Police presence

BBC Iranian affairs analyst Sadeq Saba says the result means that hope for peaceful reform in Iran may die for a long time.

There had been a surge of interest in Iran's presidential election, with unprecedented live television debates between the candidates and rallies attended by thousands.

There were long queues at polling stations, with turnout 85%.

Four candidates contested the election, with Mohsen Razai and Mehdi Karroubi only registering about 1% of the vote each.

President Ahmadinejad draws support mainly from the urban poor and rural areas, while his rivals have support among the middle classes and the educated urban population.

Iran is ruled under a system known as Velayat-e Faqih, or "Rule by the Supreme Jurist", who is currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

It was adopted by an overwhelming majority in 1979 following the Islamic revolution which overthrew the autocratic Western-backed Shah.

But the constitution also stipulates that the people are the source of power and the country holds phased presidential and parliamentary elections every four years.

All candidates are vetted by the powerful conservative-controlled Guardian Council, which also has the power to veto legislation it deems inconsistent with revolutionary principles.

Well, that was definitely not what I had hoped to happen, but it was not exactly unexpected. I think the ruling party probably pulled some shenanigans, but that is far from certain - while the opposition, due to political factors, had a better image and higher profile in the West, it might not have been all that popular in Iran, especially if the conservatives pulled a total effort to mobilize every vote they could get. The thing is, though, even if those results are fake, they mean something. At the very least, it means that Ahmadinejad's party feels strong enough (or wants to appear strong enough) to claim such a decisive victory - as carrying 2/3rds of the votes in an election with high turnout and several candidates is nothing less than that. Most likely, they have the backing of the true power in the country - the high clergy.

While theoretically possible that the supreme authorities in Iran could interfere to bring down Ahmadinejad, that is not very likely at all. First, iirc their speaker already said Ahmadinejad won and the others should recognize him, and also it is quite doubtful if Ahmadinejad could pull any ballot tricks without their approval. Unless they are planning something really exquisite and want to use him as a sacrifice to improve relations with the West (i.e. by ruling against him as a gesture of friendship), they will most likely support him. What is less certain is whether any concessions are given to the opposition, but the advantage Ahmadinejad has (or at least the official Iranian sources report) makes that somewhat unlikely - if they were planning to compromise it would be more natural to give themselves a smaller lead. It would be a bit too much of a generosity if a candidate with 62% of the votes goes out of his way to accomidate one with 33, don't you think?

The reaction of the US and the other Western countries can be very important now. The opposition to the elections is fairly strong, but if it is not strong enough to cause a popular unrest large enough to force the clergy to go against Ahmadinejad, strong words from outside may have a net negative effect, inflaming resentment and nationalism Ahmadinejad based his entire first term on cultivating and using.

 

This is going to get very, very messy. It already has. I don't know how the Mullahs in Iran thought they could rig an election this blatantly and not de-legitimize the results. It looks like they intended to spark a revolt just so they would have an excuse to exterminate the opposition.

I think it's pretty clear Moussavi actually won. By a slim margin, but he won. And the Supreme Leader ain't havin' none of it. So now the legitimate winner and his associates are under house arrest, and any pretense of "democracy" in Iran has been all but dropped completely.

Iran is so screwed.

 

Disappointing news indeed, but hardly unexpected. The best we can hope for now, is that nobody gets killed or imprisoned indefinitely. The last thing Iran needs is their very own Aung San Suu Kyi...

Heheheh, what does that remind me of? Oh I remember:
"Hey pope, could you lift the ban on condoms and birth control? We're poverty-stricken, starving and dying of AIDS over here."
"No Africa that's a bad Africa! Stay down!"

I may have crossed a line there... But seriously: Iran never stood a chance, since even the regulating bodies are partial and corrupt.
What's the point of asking clerics to help them, to protect the spirit of democracy? "Spirit, what spirit? there is but one sacred spirit, and He is not democratic!"

 

oops

 

I'm not sure, as there are probably 20 polls and each gives a different result, half pointing towards Moussavi, half towards Ahmadinejad, with a lot giving insufficient percent for either (which would require a rerun). It would make sense that Moussavi either won or forced a rerun, but for now I don't have enough information to tell.

 

I think the government in Iran cheated to win. I suspect years ago when the Shah was overthrown (and he was a dictator) that many of the populists who supported that revolution were undercut and stabbed in the back so a particular faction could grab power. Now that this faction feels threatened it is trying hard to hold on.

PS As someone who is more active than most people in the US in elections I find this much more disturbing than gripes on Vatican opposition to condoms (which themselves are factually questionable). This at least is a moment of the government being more blatant in its lack of democratic practices. But my understanding is that many older members/leaders of the opposition want to avoid a bloodbath so they will gripe and protest-but not push things to the point where the corrupt government has its troops roll in.

---------- Added 0 hours, 7 minutes and 57 seconds later... ----------

One of the things that makes this "election" suspicious from my POV is that there have been reports of government efforts to shut down information flows. I'll keep an eye out to see if more talk is made of them but there are reports that internet, radio, and TV communication is being shut down by the Iranian government. There is little, if any at all, way a government could justify such an action. For them to do it on election day, when elections are supposed to be public and honest, is a sign something is wrong.

 

huh

Oh, and apparently there are twitter feeds that may or may not be substantive.

http://twitter.com/Change_for_Iran
http://twitter.com/tehranelection

 

I hope some change can be worked in Iran from within. I think the very best the west can do for the people of Iran is actually nothing. The current leadership has kept its power for this long in large part due to uniting the people against what is perceived as aggressive foreign enemies. If we would try and help I am pretty sure it would get the opposite effect. I am not fan of Hillary but I think her comment was pretty good.

 

Well, there definitely was some pressure and some shenanigans pulled, such as the Facebook incident where iirc the site was blocked by the state company, possibly due to its popularity among young opposition activists. I am far from believing Iran has the world's best democracy, after all. However, imo there is a difference between something like that and perpetrating a mass election fraud like turning a, say, 55-45% victory into a 62-32 one for the other party. I think it is quite likely that Ahmadinejad cheated, but right now I can't say it is certain beyond doubt. The problem is, officially it's probably impossible to prove it, so it's not like the foreign ambassadors will accomplish much by sending a note to Ahmadinejad, saying that they know he cheated.

Anyway, it appears the reaction from the opposition voters is quite strong, and may sour Ahmadinejad's victory quite a bit. However, I think you are right that the opposition leaders don't want to press it too far, which may lead to some brutal surpressions of the demonstrators and actually set them back, at least for a while. If the army and guard are behind Ahmadinejad, a popular uprising may end poorly for Iran.

@Joacqin: I think you are right to a point, but I think that if the West is sufficiently low-key it could influence events in Iran without provoking a big enough backlash. It would be interesting to see how the Obama administration and the European leaders handle this situation.

 

I agree that the best thing the West can do now is little to nothing, but I'm not sure I agree that the opposition is likely to sit back and take it. In many other countries, previous situations like this have resulted in complete and violent purges of the opposition even if they do settle down. I don't know if Iran has any history of this kind of situation or not, and both the people and government in Iran are quite different than, say, those in Zimbabwe or Cuba.

I have no doubt that Ahmadinejad pulled some serious shenanigans, I think at this point the question may be less can it be proven and more what will the reaction be. If this does turn to violence, what can be proven ceases to be so much of an issue.

 

I'd love to see the Mullahs toppled, and Ahmedinejad go away, but that is unrealistic. If I err, all the better.

The election result supports the Israeli line that Iran is a threat, and is playing into Bibi Netanyahu's hand and makes a US attack likelier. We will see, in the coming months, intensifying pressure on Obama in that regard, and I hope he will be able to resist it. It will also come from inside his administration, certainly from people like Dennis Ross, or, I can't quite read him, Rahm Emanuel. The Israeli information campaign against Iran is gathering steam, with avid support from Ahmedinejad himself, and it has been highly successful in discrediting the far less alarmist US intelligence with regard to Iran. Their goal is persuade the US public that Israeli intelligence is better on Iran than US intelligence and that therefore the maximalist Israeli estimate of the Iranian "menace" should be reflected in US policy decisions. Quote from an Israeli Foreign Ministry official:

The next days and weeks, we will hear more of the likes of Michael Ledeen, with the line: Had only Obama supported the Iranian opposition we'd have gotten rid of Ahmedinejad. Nonsense, of course. The hard liner's coup, if one happened, would have crushed Mousavi as easily with or without US support. In fact, US support would have given them an easy chance to discredit Mousavi. And then, there is the possibility, that, horrors, Ahmedinejad did win, after all, in effect, he had been campaigning for the last 4 years.

The neo-con camp will now, still, argue the need for a hard line on Iran. What a surprise. Their argument transcends elections. Read Daniel Pipes 'Rooting for Ahmedinejad'.

In brief: An easily demonised kook like Ahmedinejad allows the neo-cons to better push for 'confrontation' with Iran, which is what they (falsely, foolishly imo) think is necessary and has a prospect of success. The interesting question remains for what and for whom they do think a war on Iran is good for.

An excellent analysis on the general political situation in Iran can be found here.

 

Ragusa, thanks for the links. However, at no time have I come to question the credibility of the Guardian newspaper that said the election wasn't rigged than right now. Its article says that we have to assume the election is credible for the meantime (until it is proven a fraud if it is). If very intelligent and serious people are saying there was likely fraud and if these people are trustworthy then we should assume neutrality and perhaps ask how it can be proven one way or another the election was legit or rigged. It is telling that the author of the article finishes it by calling a person who may well have stolen an major election in his homeland "honest".

I doubt the honesty of Iran's current president because he has said utterly unrealistic things in the past such as saying (during questions after a speech in the US) that Iran had no gay people. I am sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he is either lying or delusional if he really thinks there is not a single gay person in Iran. If he is the latter then he may well be honest but that may not say good things about the trustworthiness of Iran's political system.

Thanks again for the posts and while it is possible the election wasn't stolen there are definitely indications that it was and they seem reasonable enough to be given a serious examination before accusations of fraud are dismissed out of hand.

After all, people lie and steal for money-it is foolhardy to assume that at least some wouldn't do the same for political power or fame.

 

Mr. Mousavi's behaviour has been puzzling. He seems bent on creating a crisis by declaring himself winner. Then consider this cell-phone based campaign to get young men into the streets. And then that colour green. Intriguing. Apparently, his Iranians have applied the lessons from previous contested elections in other countries. Polarisation, to rally the own troops, and generate outside support, is also a part of that.

The reason for the allegation of election fraud or vote rigging may be purely tactical. The entire campaign, not to mention the final tv duel, were a highly polarised matter. In narrow races, polarization is considered by some to be of great political utility. Polarisation, however, comes at a price. I think Mousavi is acting self-destructively. He probably can't win. In insisting he is playing into Bibi's hand's; he is hurting his country. Stupid.

That said, I think it is eminently plausible that there has been vote rigging by the Iranian government. That doesn't mean Mousavi did win. Rather, I think it is likely that Ahmedinejad's 'base' wanted to make super safe that he would win.

 

Everything I saw from the actual people in Iran (as opposed to the Tehranian mouthpieces) tells me that actual votes may have been anything (vastly for any candidate, or a close draw).

All-in-all, for our purposes here (I doubt any of us are citizens of Iran), I think the ultimate answer is we'll have to wait and see. If Ahmedinejad stays in power, there will always be questions, as even if he did it legitimately, the lack of evidence will fuel many people's suspicions. If he's toppled, but the Clerics stay in place, there will always be questions of switching figureheads without really changing the one's holding the power (again, a very realistic if not necessarily accurate analysis). The only way I see the Clerics loosing power is through violence, and I'll be praying for everyone in Iran if that happens, though the analytical side of me would be very interested to see what comes out of such a melee.

As for US politics, I think Obama has acted well. Endorsing Mousavi would have definitely killed his chances, and possibly killed him. I also doubt anything short of an open request for aid durring a civil war would be worth US intervention (though you can never tell what will happen). If Ahmedinejad stays in power, we've essentially maintained the status quo. If there was no reason to attack or invade before, there still isn't, though demonstrated advancement in their nuclear capabilities may trigger something (definitely from Israel). If power changes hands, there's little to no reason to invade until you see who's hands it ends up in. If there is civil war, any outside involvement may well end up further polarizing things, working against the invaders' interests, and prolonging the whole conflict.

 

Rags, I think you're being entirely too generous to the Iranian establishment. They had riot police and concrete barricades in place the day of the election. Which suggests a certain amount of planning, though, um, apparently not a sufficient amount of planning.

 

I think you are a bit too hard on the guy. If he knows, or seriously thinks, he won he would probably push it as far as he could, on the off chance that he can cause the clerics to reconsider. It's not a big chance, sure, but if Ahmadinejad shows to have serious problems getting his act together, he can at least get some concessions. Besides, as far as I know he has been calling for some moderation in the protests; he most likely does not want to push for a civil war.

What little I have seen on the topic makes me think it is most likely that the vote was rigged heavily and hastily, which would let me think that at least there would have to be a rerun, and probably Mousavi had a better showing than Ahmadinejad. Well, we will have to wait and see how this plays out.

Edit: on request by the Iranian supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, the Guardian Council will launch a probe into the allegations of election fraud. Interesting... it could (predictably) uncover nothing and cover Ahmedinejad's victory, but I wonder what will happen if they do declare that the victory was fraudulent. Here is the AP story:

Spoiler

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's supreme leader ordered Monday an investigation into allegations of election fraud, marking a stunning turnaround by the country's most powerful figure and offering hope to opposition forces who have waged street clashes to protest the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

State television quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei directing a high-level clerical panel, the Guardian Council, to look into charges by pro-reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who has said he is the rightful winner of Friday's presidential election.

The decision comes after Mousavi wrote a letter appealing to the Guardian Council and met Sunday with Khamenei, who holds almost limitless power over Iranian affairs. Such an election probe by the 12-member council is uncharted territory and it not immediately clear how it would proceed or how long it would take.

Election results must be authorized by the council, composed of clerics closely allied with the unelected supreme leader. All three of Ahmadinejad's challengers in the election - Mousavi and two others - have made public allegations of fraud after results showed the president winning by a 2-to-1 margin.

"Issues must be pursued through a legal channel," state TV quoted Khamenei as saying. The supreme leader said he has "insisted that the Guardian Council carefully probe this letter."

The day after the election, Khamenei urged the nation to unite behind Ahmadinejad and called the result a "divine assessment."

The results touched off three days of clashes - the worst unrest in Tehran in a decade. Protesters set fires and battled anti-riot police, including a clash overnight at Tehran University after 3,000 students gathered to oppose the election results.

One of Mousavi's Web sites said a student protester was killed early Monday during clashes with plainclothes hard-liners in Shiraz, southern Iran. But there was no independent confirmation of the report. There also have been unconfirmed reports of unrest breaking out in other cities across Iran.

Security forces also have struck back with targeted arrests of pro-reform activists and blocks on text messaging and pro-Mousavi Web sites used to rally his supporters.

A top Mousavi aide, Ali Reza Adeli, told The Associated Press that a rally planned for later Monday was delayed. Iran's Interior Ministry rejected a request from Mousavi to hold the rally and warned any defiance would be "illegal," state radio said.

But one of Mousavi's Web sites still accessible in Iran said Mousavi and another candidate, Mahdi Karroubi, planned to walk through Tehran streets to appeal for calm. A third candidate, the conservative Mohsen Rezaei, has also alleged irregularities in the voting.

State TV quoted Khamenei urging Mousavi to try to keep the violence from escalating and saying "it is necessary that activities are done with dignity."

Mousavi, who served as prime minister during the 1980s, has also threatened to hold a sit-in protest at the mausoleum of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Such an act would place authorities in a difficult spot: embarrassed by a demonstration at the sprawling shrine south of Tehran, but possibly unwilling to risk clashes at the hallowed site.

Overnight, police and hard-line militia stormed the campus at the city's biggest university, ransacking dormitories and arresting dozens of students angry over what they say was mass election fraud.

The nighttime gathering of about 3,000 students at dormitories of Tehran University started with students chanting "Death to the dictator." But it quickly erupted into clashes as students threw rocks and Molotov cocktails at police, who fought back with tear gas and plastic bullets, a 25-year-old student who witnessed the fighting told The Associated Press. He would only give one name, Akbar, out of fears for his safety.

The students set a truck and other vehicles on fire and hurled stones and bricks at the police, he said. Hard-line militia volunteers loyal to the Revolutionary Guard stormed the dormitories, ransacking student rooms and smashing computers and furniture with axes and wooden sticks, Akbar said.

Before leaving around 4 a.m., the police took away memory cards and computer software material, Akbar said, adding that dozens of students were arrested.

He said many students suffered bruises, cuts and broken bones in the scuffling and that there was still smoldering garbage on the campus by midmorning but that the situation had calmed down.

"Many students are now leaving to go home to their families, they are scared," he said. "But others are staying. The police and militia say they will be back and arrest any students they see."

"I want to stay because they beat us and we won't retreat," he added.

Tehran University was the site of serious clashes against student-led protests in 1999 and is one of the nerve centers of the pro-reform movement.

In Moscow, the Iranian Embassy said Ahmadinejad has put off a visit to Russia, and it is unclear whether he will come at all. Ahmadinejad had been expected to travel to the Russian city of Yekaterinburg and meet on Monday with President Dmitry Medvedev on the sidelines of a regional summit.

 

I am not speaking of a civil war. I am speaking of military action by an external power. Mousavi is hurting his country by making an attack on it likelier. With great probability he will not want this, but it is a consequence of his actions. For all practical purposes Mousavi is helping to isolate Iran. I don't see him having great chances of winning. That means his efforts, even when they are justified, are very likely futile. Insisting on that futile quest turns Mousavi into Iran's equivalent of Norm 'Sore Loser' Coleman of Minnesota.

I read an interesting analysis of the voting pattern in Iran. Ahmedinejad, for the last four years, has been touring the countryside doling out money to the provinces. In rural areas he is pretty popular. Just a sketchy calculation (don't nail me on the numbers):

Iran's urban/rural population ratio in Iran is 60/40 on 40 million votes. Assuming 2/3 rural voters cast their vote for Mr. Ahmedinejad - whom they knew rather well due to his trips - that gives 10 million to him in rural areas and 5 million to Mr. Mousavi. Let's assume also a 50/50 split between Ahmedinejad and Mousavi support in urban areas. Each candidate will then have 12 Million votes in urban areas. Ahmedinejad would have 22 million and Mousavi 17 million. That is rather close to actual figures published in the Iranian press - 24.5 and 13.2 for Ahmedinejad and Mousavi respectively. What I want to show is that it is entirely possible that Ahmedinejad won, with or without irregularities.

To believe that 10 million votes have been switched is to believe that 2/3 of the urban and rural populations cast their vote for Mr. Mousavi. It means that thousands of people all over the country must be complicit in the switching of votes. In assuming that, we might overestimate Ahmedinejad's power and Mousavi's popularity at the same time.

Mousavi's channeling of Norm Coleman is playing into the hands of Netanyahu, who must be delighted at the fracas in Tehran and with Ahmedinejad's victory (so far). Adding voter fraud to Ahmedinejad's existing portfolio of vices really makes it easy for Israel to argue that Iran under Ahmedinejad (just as much as without, or, say, under Mousavi) is a rogue state out of control, and must be stopped before it is too late! After all, it is forever 1938, and we're in Munich. Hitler! Holocaust! Smoking gun! Mushroom cloud! Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam ...

 

I don't really need to comment, do I?

ETA: Wait, yes I do. Rags, you like reading. Therefore, read this

 

I can't believe I'm actually gonna write this, but it's truly what I think. If Bush were still in power, I'd bet dollars to donuts he'd do something drastic (read that: military) and get the west deeply involved militarily. Thank God Obama isn't doing that.