Iranian Polls Kept Open Several Hours Longer than Planned

Printer-friendly

Email article

12 June 2009 :: J.E. Robertson

Iran’s government has opted to keep polls open for several hours, to accommodate the huge number of citizens still waiting to vote. There is suspicion, perhaps legitimate, that the ruling clerics or the office of the president would like to enable a swing toward Pres. Ahmedinejad in late polling, but no hard evidence so far to support such suspicions. The official reason given for extending polling is massive and historic voter turnout.

Reports from Tehran say officials suggest turnout may be as high as 70 or 80 percent. One NBC reporter said that at a polling station at a mosque in the center of Tehran, the line just to enter the building was still down the street fully one hour after polls were scheduled to close. Some are openly questioning whether an election organized by the ayatollahs or a government run by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, who seems to see all political opponents as enemies to be dealt with remorselessly, could be transparent and legitimate.

Alex Harrowell, in A Fistfull of Euros, compares Ahmedinejad to George W. Bush in style of electoral politicking, calling him:

An ambitious but limited regional politician who has spent time in the air force, he achieved election through a campaign for vague “reform” - whether with results or not is a good question – heavily tinged with religion or at least religiosity. In office, his term has been marked by a string of spectacular gaffes and crowd-pleasing rhetoric aimed at the hard right of the political spectrum, as well as a deliberately provocative foreign policy. Coming up to the election, Ahmedinejad leaves the Iranian economy in considerable trouble after over-spending on the belief that the boom would go on forever, and passing out considerable sums in favours to his clientele. Politically, he relies on low-information rural voters in parts of the country where the integrity of the ballot is frequently in doubt.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

But Iran has had surprise victories for reformists before, and might again. It is largely thought that there is an ongoing “struggle for the soul of Iran”, between fundamentalist hardliners who want to train the majority young electorate to adopt their views and the reformists who want to address the needs of the people. And from recent rallies, it appears increasingly clear that the young majority is leaning toward the moderates and reformers.

Several fundamental questions remain to be answered: 1) in a nation with so many poor, as compared to the well-traveled or university-educated professional class, how much will that reformist appeal really win in votes? 2) will Ahmedinejad manipulate the vote? 3) will the ayatollahs find a way to exclude the possibility of a reformist win? 4) is the economic environment and the mood of dissent so dire that even the ayatollahs will welcome a government chosen by the people?

Once those questions are settled, and some measure can be taken of the transparency of the vote, it will remain to be seen what the policy outcome of the election will be. Ahmedinejad has been severely criticized by opponents and dissent has spread openly among the voting public; he might find increased engagement with the West to be politically beneficial, should he win.

Mousavi, who calls for a kinder, gentler —or to put it otherwise, better thought and more serious—

Iranian foreign policy, might find himself under intense pressure to prove his loyalty to the revolutionary clerics, and be less moderate than is expected. Whatever the outcome, it is unlikely that Iran will not change course in some way in its domestic and foreign policy.

Rarely has a post-revolutionary leader seen such widespread disapproval of his policies, so if Ahmedinejad has to face the music of the public mood, even if he survives this vote. As it stands, the Iranian election of 2009 looks to be an historic moment in the Islamic Republic’s flirtation with representative democracy; if the results are transparent and credible, it could be a landmark moment, after which popular government and Islamic rule find a way to negotiate some key differences.

Printer-friendly

Email article

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Against the Good Nukes / Bad Nukes Fallacy

Cynicism often lends itself to the construction of intellectually convenient, overly facile descriptions of future events, which —bolstered by the impassioned worries and self-promotion of the cynic, the anti-prophet— quickly assume an air of prophetic certainty. Buoyed by the psychological satisfaction of carrying prophetic certainty within, the cynic then commits more and more fully to the proclamation of unshakeable doctrines about the future, based on bad-faith arguments and a passion for the despairing global outlook.

Complete article...

Home Page

Join Us / Sign In

Categories

Archives

17 Comments