Iran’s Parliamentary elections take place today, amid widespread criticisms of the process, especially from within. Iran’s vetting Council of Guardians has been especially zealous in blocking thousands of prominent reformists from running for election to Iran’s 290 seat Parliament. (Majlis)
Such vetting provoked loud condemnation, with one reformer, Ali Akbar Motashamipur, publicly proclaiming that, “If anyone’s qualifications should be rejected, it is the 12 members of the Council of Guardians.” He boldly characterized the Council’s rejections as “falsifying, fraudulent, slanderous, and seditious” and called on “all the people to resist any government which applies such tactics.”
While nearly 900 candidate rejections were eventually reversed, Iranians appear split over whether the elections provide significant choices, whether they constitute a referendum on the policies of President Ahmadinejad, or whether choosing not to vote constitutes a “vote against the system” or a “vote for arrogance.” (that is, for American and external intervention)
Here’s a useful round-up of diverse western reporting on the elections thus far. I also suggest attention to Scott Peterson’s recent reporting. Last week, he touched on the unprecedented battles over who owns the revolution, the role of the military in politics, and the legacy of Ayatollah Khomeini.
Among the sensations afoot, Iran’s new Revolutionary Guards commander stirred a hornet’s nest when he declared that, “To follow the path of the Islamic revolution, support for the principlists is necessary, inevitable, and a divine duty of all revolutionary groups…”
That “brought stinging rebuke from across the political spectrum, even from fellow hard-liners such as the editor of the hard-line newspaper Kayhan, who called it a “faulty declaration” that is “against the clear guidelines.” Hassan Khomeini, the reformist grandson of Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini, proclaimed that, “If a soldier wants to enter into politics, he needs to forget the military and the presence of a gun in politics means the end of all dialogue.” (What a concept…)
On Monday, Mehdi Karrubi, the former Majles speaker, invoked a sports analogy (sorry Helena) to lament the prospects for fellow reformists: “we are like a football team; many of our players have been given a red card.”
Hard-line outlets fiercely reject such criticisms. On Wednesday, the newspaper Resalat editorialized that many “extremist” reformists “deserved a red card,” and, in any case, the refomists should be thankful to the Guardian Council. If they hadn’t been disqualified, the lame logic goes, there would have been too many candidates, and the reformists would have negated each other’s strength, with up to seven competing for each vacancy.
Resalat conveniently doesn’t mention the many obstacles in the way of political party formation in Iran. Nor does it mention that reformists apparently are still blocked from running in over half of the contests. I’ve seen independent reports, including this one, suggesting reformist candidates are being allowed to compete for only 110 out of 290 seats.
Many Iranians will deem the present Iranian Majlis elections as too crabbed to be even worth getting their “fingers stamped,” as Peterson’s dispatch today suggests. The Guardian headline today opines, “Iran’s reformists” are facing a challenge to fight off irrelevance in an election they cannot win. Yet as the paper’s Julian Borger notes, “For all its limitations, political leaders of every hue still believe there is something worth fighting for in the Majlis election.”
Perhaps because I subscribe to a more nuanced view of Iran’s ever shifting factional struggles, I will be watching for content, even if it appears that the remaining reformist candidates do not fare well. Among the presumed “conservatives,” there are widely differing viewpoints and tendencies. For example, it remains quite unclear how many “moderate conservatives” critical of Ahmadinejad remained in the race. Hope may be in the details.
21 thoughts on “Iran’s Parliament Elections & Red Cards”
Comments are closed.
Reformists barred from ballot access? I think we can relate to that. The US has two main political parties, with ballot access restricted (and challenged) for others. Iran (according to Wikipedia) has eighteen main parties organized into two major coalitions, with some groups not allowed to participate in elections.
Does Iran have election fraud like the US does, including voter disenfranchisement?
Just came across this oped by Carnegie Endowment’s Karim Sajjadpour.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19978&prog=zgp&proj=zme
Note his emphasis on the contest among Iran’s “conservatives” … spot on:
In the upcoming Majlis elections, the battle between conservatives and reformists has largely been superseded by one between hard-liners sympathetic to Ahmadinejad and more pragmatic conservatives less beholden to revolutionary ideology. The latter group is coalescing under the leadership of former chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, Tehran mayor Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and former Revolutionary Guard commander Mohsen Rezai. While these individuals were themselves considered hard-liners three years ago, today, compared to Ahmadinejad, they appear moderate.
Good point Don…. :-} Iranians can yell about their vetting process, where they could use a primary system, or a regularization of political parties, where the parties would be permitted to select (vet) their own candidates. We have our own “Guardians” here in the US….
Re the # of parties in Iran, here’s a useful French News Agency of the major “parties” (loosely) defined permitted to function in Iran today:
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/20908/57/
Not sure which Wikipedia listing you’re referring to — could you post?
I beg to differ with Don Bacon. There are no ‘guardians’ in the United States. It is true that there are barriers to access: money, the two-party system, the entrenched power of incumbents and political machines, etc., etc. But every country has those: even the most open political system has such things as filing fees, registration rules for new parties and institutional or patronage-based power structures.
There is a qualitative difference between the barriers that exist in the United States and those that exist in Iran. There is no unaccountable tribunal in the United States that can disqualify candidates for any reason or none at all. Even leaders of political parties cannot forbid candidates to compete in primaries. There’s an important distinction between things being difficult for insurgent candidates and the political space being closed to them altogether, which makes the equivalency between the United States and Iran largely superficial.
RE: Mr. Bacon,I can not recall an outcry during the 1980’s and eearly 1990’s when both Rebublican and Democrate controlled legislatures tightend ballot access all over the United States.Shortsightedness and truely just plain old civic laziness have come home to roost.
from Ralph Nader’s book Crashing the Party, regarding US ballot access:
Texas requires 37,713 signatures to be collected in 75 days, but nobody who has voted in a primary that year is permitted to sign.
In North Carolina 51,324 signatures are needed by May 15. By law the petition for Greens and others reads “The signers of this petition intend to organize a new political party.”
In Virginia the law requires 10,000 signatures, four hundred from each congressional district.
Oklahoma requires 36,202 signatures — over one percent of its total population.
In West Virginia and Georgia the filing fee is four thousand dollars.
In Pennsylvania the forms have to be on special colored paper and officials would only provide 400 forms.
And so on, to the campaign where the two major parties control the presidential debates, expensive third party ballot challenges (Nader was faced with court challenges by Kerry in every state), etc.
political parties in Iran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Iran
It is being reported that the Iranian voter turnout for parliamentary elections is 58 percent. For comparison, voter turnout for the US congressional election year 2006 was 43.6 percent. In 2002 it was 37 percent. In 1998 it was 36.4 percent. If Iran’s parliamentary election turnout was 37 percent, it would be viewed as a major political disaster. However, here in the United States, it’s just business as usual.
Don, there is no doubt that some American states have byzantine ballot access rules, especially in presidential elections. The incumbents write the rules to favor themselves: that’s part of the entrenched power structure I mentioned earlier. I never said this was a good thing and, for the record, I don’t think it is.
The difference between that and Iran, though – and I think it’s a key one – is that anyone who is sufficiently well organized can overcome the ballot access rules. If a candidate recruits motivated volunteers, dispatches them across Texas and collects 37,713 signatures, then nobody can stop him at the door and say “you can’t file these signatures because we don’t like your ideology.” There is no test of political orthodoxy that must be met as a pre-condition to participation. The difference between the United States and Iran is the distinction between having a hard time overcoming the power structures and being kept outside politics entirely.
Yes, there are barriers in the US and barriers in Iran, and both are somewhere on the continuum between democracy and authoritarian rule – the US is far from totally democratic, and Iran is far from totally authoritarian. To say “they both have barriers so they’re exactly the same,” though, is simplifying things to the point of meaninglessness.
Although, since you mention Nader, he is one of the better arguments for a Council of Guardians. Just think how much better off we’d all be if someone had sent him home in 2000 rather than letting him deliver us all into Bush’s tender mercies!
Azazel, earlier you were concerned about a “moral equivalence” argument. Then you write,
To say “they both have barriers so they’re exactly the same,” though, is simplifying things to the point of meaninglessness.
———–
Don’t think any of us even intimated “exactly the same” – least not that I caught.
Yet frankly, the US has over the past decade lost a lot of moral high ground when it comes to offering observers for foreign elections. One word suffices – Florida.
Ok, too sarcastic. Yet I think the broader point is fair…. just as the Iranian system has severe problems, as major Iranian figures are themselves quick to lament (beginning with former President Khatami) so too do we have some serious severe problems (by our standards and expectations) here in the USA.
Like why couldn’t we have had a Chuck Hagel as a Republican candidate? Or Bill Richardson on the other side? (answer, the present guardians in either parties wouldn’t permit it…. btw, a lot of my friends/neighbors who supported Huckabee have similar views)
I so often also chaffe at my local party “guardians.” Like why the heck can’t the Democrats here in Virginia come up with a major candidate to oppose Vuuuhgil Gooooode-ole boy.? (Must we nominate Jefferson himself from the grave to run? )
Hi Mark. Re. the 58%, I can imagine Comparative Politics 201 arguments back and forth on the relative merits of the figure (as you suggest). I don’t have Bahman Baktiari’s work handy, but 58% may be quite low, by Iranian standards, and if so, will suggest to many a high sense that the elections were not a meaningful contest.
Some observers(usually more on the conservative side) would contend that our low turn-outs are an indication that there’s low sense of critical stakes in a given election, that people don’t feel the “need” to vote.
Or, on the other hand, there’d be many who would contend that habitual low voter turn-out was an indication that citizens don’t like the choices they’re presented with — and thus figure, what’s the difference? Why bother? Nothing much will change.
So which country would that be referring to again? :-}
Hi Don. Many thanks for that “interesting” wikipedia link. Have you figured out who or what prepared it? While its huge, I scanned enough of it to see several, if you will, “red flags.” The characterizations of the Mujahedin (PMOI) as “conservative” doesn’t pass the laugh test, nor do the very romantic depictions of external groups uniting recently under the Shah’s won (aka the “pretender” — and its extremely unlikely that he or any of his associates would permit even a tacit endorsement of the the Mooj)
Yet there’s an astonishing array of material provided here, some at first glance appearing rather dated, and yet some potentially fruitful to track down. (It reminds me of an internet joke I’m hearing a lot of — that all a rebel group needs to claim legitimacy for itself is a good web site.)
If indeed there are over 200 “political parties” insde Iran, then that’s further indication of the problem — that major parties haven’t as yet been permitted to coalesce into functioning, ideologically coherent, and candidate selecting bodies on a national scale.
The stability of a two party system is a great stenght of application (compare to parlimentary system of lets say Italy since WWII) with clear shortcomings in diversity. But even those shown the door can come back, look at Joe Lieberman.
Still it takes the backing of the people or the backing of the greenback. Which comes first?
“Iran has once again failed to meet international standards on the conduct of democratic elections.”–Sean McCormack, US State Dept., March 14, 2008
We do have a lot in common, after all.
In early days of high school we are a group of students with dreams of youth and full of energy why we are like this and west like that and we compare things and who to be better.
One of our friend was commonest lover (the fact is his father very commonest lover) so he telling us how Russian have so cheep foods and good living , I replied to him go live there and be paid as those Russian and tell us what the living is.
So here most concerns put on the Iran/US political “election” compression, number of voters and so on and so forth by people are out of the blue what’s Iran inside looks.
The main point in all of this which nation/people happier who have more freedom and more inspirations, people in US or in Iran?
Just answer this keep in mind when comment here.
Whatever hardliners and reformists in Iran, they are “same coin with different face”
Now this IS interesting: Ali Larijani apparently scored a “landslide” in the Qom district…. getting 75% of the votes there. Fars is even suggesting the strength of his victory could propel him into the Majlis speaker role….
http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8612250712
So far as “ballot access” is concerned there has been a tendency in recent years, in both Canada and the UK, to veto left-wing candidates. In the Labour Party, control over the selection process has kept any suspected of socialist views from being considered as parliamentary candidates.
In countries where the parties run “lists”, for PR purposes, it is notorious that potentially awkward individuals are either kept off the list entirely or placed so low down that their election is an impossibility.
These are among the causes of declining participation in politics of which low voter turnout is one of the less important problems.
Western criticisms of the recent elections in Russia (there wasn’t much of a choice, the media were biassed, money played a big part etc)sounds very hollow to anyone whose diet does not include large quantities of Kool Aid from the establishment.
A few quick points on why this is so “interesting” — both within Iran, and for the interested outside world:
1. Yes, Larijani is among the “conservatives” — loosely defined. (He has a brother on the Guardian Council) And yes, he replaced Hassan Rowhani for two years as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator…. (during, but not “under” Ahmadinejad…. if anything, he was under the ‘supreme national security council’ — a body that “reports” to “the leader” – Khamenehi)
2. Despite previous roles on the social conservative side (in media & as a culture minister), he also has a reputation as being on the pragmatic side…. to resolve matters without heated rhetoric. (He got a lot of credit for expediting resolution of the Iran-UK sailor spat) He also reportedly was at odds with A/N – just prior to his resignation as nuclear negotiator….
3. For more on his “pragmatic” reputation, see this financial times backgrounder from 2006:
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3921/
4. Ali’s brother Mohammed Javad Larijani has also long been a critical “pragmatic” figure in Iran’s foreign policy personnel…. going back to during the late Iran-Iraq war years. (under Velayati as foreign minister) Javad was an engineer, ABD from Cal-Berkely. (and knows America well)
——————
If Ali Larijani ndeed emerges as Majlis speaker — very “interesting” prospect
ah, just was reminded of this tidbit — Ali Larijani apparently has graduate degrees in western political philosophy. He’s apparently published works on…
Immanuel Kant.
Oh my, I wonder if that means he could debate with Condi Rice (or friend John Owen) the merits of “the democratic peace.” :-}
initial reporting already “confirms” the anticipated sloppiness with the terms. For example:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080315/ts_afp/iranvote_13;_ylt=Aj8swWn.C.sAoQ9RW5ylUHpSw60A
This AFP report reports, without nuance, that “principalists” (e.g. “conservatives”) win 71% or so of the seats — without any awareness of subdivisions therein. (e.g., including Larijani)
By modest contrast, see Farnaz Fassihian’s better work here (in the Wall Street Journal, no less)
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120552900765537545-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE1NTUxMjU5Wj.html
(it’s listed as “published” today, though likely written sometime yesterday)
among interesting preliminary reports, (a day before final results)
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=58578&NewsKind=CurrentAffairs
e.g., “conservatives split vote” is the headline; explaining that is easier said than done, but important nonetheless.
http://www.iranmania.com/news/articleview/default.asp?NewsCode=58580&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
“Direct comparison with the previous assembly is complicated by fluid factional loyalties and a large group of independents.
A senior reformist politician said reformists, despite the hurdles, had done well in cities where they had been allowed to run. He forecast they would win 50 to 70 seats, compared to the 40 or so they held in the outgoing 290-member parliament.
COLLISION COURSE
“We are planning to join hands with some independents and that will make us stronger, especially because conservatives have deep divisions among themselves,” added the politician, a former government official who asked not to be named.