Iran’s Free and Fair Elections

March 15, 2008 at 5:06 pm | Posted in democracy, Iran, Reformist, Uncategorized | 4 Comments
Tags: , , , , ,

Hossein Mar’ashi, the head of a reformist coalition electoral headquarters told Fars news Agency: “We are sure that the election was free and fair. We also reject US and British news agencies’ claim that the reformists have plan to withdraw. It’s a mere lie.”

Former Iranian president, Ayatullah Seyyed Mohammad Khatami said prior to the general election: “A massive turnout will lead to forming a parliament which will take wise measures that in turn would contribute to the nation’s progress.”

The Western media had predicted, or rather hoped, that the Iranian election would be marred by lower voter turnout; that was not to be: voter turnout exceeded all expectations. The average voter turnout in the world is 45-60 percent, and during the 2004 elections for the 7th Majlis voter turnout was 51 percent, whereas yesterday over 28 million of 43.8 million eligible voters participated in the 8th Majlis; a voter turnout of over 60 percent, and 9 percent increase from the last Majlis, even exceeding Iran’s average voter turnout of 62.5 percent.

Moreover, much to the consternation of the United States, the result is seen in Iran as demonstrative of the President Ahmadinejad’s popularity. The Secretary of the United Principalist Front Shahabeddin Sadr, told IRNA: “The names announced by the Interior Ministry show that 70 percent of the newly elected legislators are on our list of candidates,” as latest announcement showed by that after 141 constituencies out of 290 had been decided, the Principalist Front, won 108, whereas the Reformist camp only secured 33. 

U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, when asked to explain the discrepancy between U.S. claims that the Iranian election was unfair and the high voter turnout, admitted he was bereft, “I don’t know anything about turnout.”

Iran’s former president Ayatullah Seyyed Mohammad Khatami, remarked prior to the election:

“The US officials have clearly shown their enmity with the Middle East people… Undoubtedly they will support those who would pave the ground for the US presence in the region and certainly these are not the reformists.”

Not so pivotal shift in Iranian politics

September 12, 2007 at 6:14 pm | Posted in democracy, Iran, Khatami, Rafsanjani | Leave a comment

The election of Ayatullah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as chairman of the Majles-e-Khobregan (Assembly of experts), is as ever overplayed in the Western media. The late Ayatullah Meshkini – the previous chairman – was neither a household name in the West or Iran. His significance in Iranian politics was minimal.  Hashemi in his own right is bigger than the position of chairman of the Khobregan, which carries no special powers.

Constitutionally, the Khobregan is significant, since under article 107,  it elects the Velayat-e faqih, and in principle could remove him under Article 111, should he be derelict in his duties. Yet in practice the body meets twice yearly and does not involve itself in Iranian politics. Any decision requires a majority vote and this is where the election is significant. Hashemi was expected to win by a large margin; he did not. The vote was 41 for Hashemi, 34 Ayatullah Ahmad Janati, with 11 absentee votes. Ayatullah Momen was elected first deputy chairman, and Ayatullah Ahmad Khatami, second deputy chairman. Both are conservatives closer to Ayatullah al-Uzma Khamenei.  

The significance of this is that Hashemi lacks the support to extend his remit beyond his constitutional authority. If this was not Hashemi, I would suggest that such an appointment, is tantamount to retiring from politics. However, it seems an unlikely place upon which to make a bid for the presidency.

The United States has ceased to be relevant

August 25, 2007 at 3:53 pm | Posted in democracy, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Shia, Sunni, USA | 4 Comments

The relationship between Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki and the U.S. dictatorship in Iraq, which has always been tempestuous, has now deteriorated further. Much to the annoyance of his U.S. overlords; al-Malaki rubbished the preposterous claims that Iran is destabilising Iraq as the U.S. Government likes to claim.  In fact al-Malaki pointed out the reverse is true and thanked Iran  for its “positive and constructive” role in “providing security and fighting terrorism in Iraq”.

The comment not only earned rebuke from the beleaguered U.S. President, they also led to the following threat:  “my message to him is, is that when we catch you playing a non-constructive role there will be a price to pay.” 

A rebuke that Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki is not going to heed.  His response the U.S. President criticism of his administration was even more assertive. He said:    

“No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people. Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution, and can find friends elsewhere.” 

This statement represents a recognition in the Iraq government of the now irrelevance of the United States: the ignominious defeat of British forces in the South and the failure of the U.S. surge to quell the rise of factional violence or the insurgency has left al-Malaki government in no doubt that the U.S. forces have to all intents and purposes already been defeated and that there is no appetite in the United States to reverse that outcome:  troop withdrawal is inevitable.    

Thus al-Malaki is looking to the future; a future in which the United States’ role in Iraq will be limited; he is no doubt also aware that should Hillary Clinton win the U.S. presidency he would not be able to count on her support. She said this week that Iraq needs a “less divisive and more unifying figure.”

In fact whilst politicians in the United States make much of the Iraq’s sectarian divisions and urge a national unity government, this is fundamentally undemocratic and quite fraudulent, it is not for Iraq’s sake that they wish a pluralist government. An estimated 63% of the population are Shia. However, that is only if one includes Kurdistan, which is effectively a separate entity from Iraq. Certainly the main Kurdish parties are separatists. Thus if the Kurds are discounted, and properly they should be, since they do not consider themselves Iraqis; Shia constitute nearly 79% of the Iraqi population and Sunnis only 21%. Thus the sectarian divisions in Iraq are overplayed; in truth Iraq is a Shia country.

It is this reality that the United States government continues to supress:  were they ever serious about installing democracy, they would support Shia majority rule and an Iranian style Islamic democracy; instead of doing all they could to prevent it. Yet it is clear that the United States cares little for Iraqi democracy; preferring anarchy and civil war to another autonomous Shia state in the region. 

As ineffectual as al-Malaki has been as premier, the fact that he was willing to publicly chastise the U.S.A. and actively court Iranian and Syrian influence, despite incurring Washington’s displeasure, is significant since it reflects the mood on the street. 

The Execution of Jafar Kiani

July 14, 2007 at 12:33 am | Posted in Amnesty International, democracy, executions, Human Rights, Iran, UN | Leave a comment

The Meydaan organisation has reported that Jafar Kiani was executed on the 5 July 2007 in Iran. They also reported that Dr. Alireza Jamshidi, the Iranian judiciary spokesman, gave a press conference on Tuesday 10 July 2007, in which he reputedly said, “Lately there has been a stoning sentence executed by a judge in Takistan branch,” contrary to the existing moratorium on stoning but “the woman’s [Mokarrameh Ebrahimi] sentence is stayed now.” Adding, “The extent to which the ban order can deprive a judge from independence is a long discussion, but a judge can act independently, although with the order of the Head of Judiciary, it is necessary to exercise more caution in issuing and executing these sentences.”

However, this press conference was not reported by the Iranian media nor was it attended by the international media. In fact, as is clear from the  statement of Louise Arbour, the UN rapporteur on Human Rights, Iran is yet to confirm the execution of Jafar Kiani took place. 

Therefore, how is it that a Western based anti capital punishment NGO attended a press briefing that no one else appears to know about?

Surely, this is a pregnant question for any journalist reporting this story?  

This is not to say this execution did no take place: it may very well have done. However, until such time as the Iranian government provides a detailed account; all claims are mere conjecture and rumour.

It is noteworthy that previous reports of executions by U.S. sponsored groups have transpired to be factually inaccruate. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for instance, have never accruately reported an Iranian execution since 2005. Yet when the Western media quotes these organisations on Iran this is never stated.

Moreover, if the events are as reported in this case, far from the Iranian State executing this man; it is a local judge, in defiance of the order of the Head of the Judiciary. Thus the Iranian State is not culpable. Moreover, contrary to Louise Arbour’s suggestion and attempts made by Western lobby groups to make it so; stoning is not an offence against international law.

Teachers protest against Hashemi Rafsanjani

March 3, 2007 at 1:37 pm | Posted in Ahmadinejad, Basij, democracy, economy, Iran, Khatami, Media, Pasdaran, Rafsanjani | 4 Comments

Hundreds of teachers staged a sit-in demonstration in front of Majlis building today, in protest of the Assembly of Experts failure to address their demand for a pay increase. The teachers hold the Assembly of Experts Chairman, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, personally responsible.

It has been reported in the Western media that Hashemi Rafsanjani is in ascendancy and that President Ahmadinejad has become increasingly unpopular. In fact, the reverse is true, Ahmadinejad is more popular on the Street now, than he was when he gained 17 million votes in the 2005 presidential election, defeating Hashemi Rafsanjani. It is in the Majlis that Ahmadinejad is deeply unpopular – he always was – he represents neither the Conservative nor Reformist wings. He is Iran’s political outsider.

In the Western media, Iranian politics is reduced to Conservatism versus Reformism -or “Mullahs” versus “secularists”. Yet the reality is both are from the clerical classes and both support the Islamic revolution and the current Iranian model of Islamic democracy. Where Ahmadinejad differs to the Iranian political elite is that he is of the people and for the people. This in itself antagonises the clerical elite, however his rejection of oligarchy and his avocation of the redistribution of wealth, egalitarianism and ethical trade is an intolerable affront to that elite, which is represented by Hashemi Rafsanjani and Sayyed Mohammad Khatami. The alliance between the two is certainly a threat to Ahmadinejad and Iranian democracy.

However, it is utter nonsense that Iran’s current diplomatic confrontations with the West have been instigated or exacerbated by Ahmadinejad; it was Britain, under directions from the United States, that sabotaged the EU troika negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme, which incidentally the West believes to be a peaceful nuclear programme. The West willfully tried to torpedo the reformists and advance the presidential hopes of Hashemi Rafsanjani in the the belief that Hashemi Rafsanjani was a “pragmatist” (i.e. corruptible) and therefore was more susceptible to Western bribery.

This strategy failed as anyone with an once of intelligence and the slightest knowledge of Iranian politics ought to have foreseen. President Ahmadinejad was elected on domestic issues – the nuclear dispute was not a feature of the 2005 presidential elections. The current confrontation with the West plays to Ahmadinejad’s advantage. Iranians have seen a war with the United States and its clients states on the horizon since the invasion of Iraq: it does not unsettle them. To report the ascendancy of Hashemi Rafsanjani or forecast that he will succeed Ayatullah al-Uzma Sayyed Khamenei, as Supreme Leader, as many Western media outlets are doing, is once again, to misread Iranian politics. It is most improbable that the Assembly of Experts would entertain the idea of electing him Supreme Leader, since he does not have the support of the Street and could not command the loyalty of the Basij or Pasdaran.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.