Elections in Iran : From Mossadegh to Ahmadinejad -04.03.2007
In the past as today, an occidental lobby has always tried to persuade the world that a kind of democracy would exist in Iran, the choices of the designated regime and the members, who consist in, would be only the wish of the Iranian people. In the past, at “blessed” time of Dr Mossadegh, we used to say that the Iranian people elected their nationalist leader, a personality democratically designated and overthrew by the “evil Shah”. But what was the reality? In the late 40’s, 80 % of Iranian population lived in rural areas (based on the census data extrapolation from 1936 to 1956). The peasants were bound to their lands and suffered in the facts from a serfdom regime, which has been abolished in 1963 by the same “evil Shah”. The “nationalist Dr Mossadegh”, also known as “Mossadegh-ol-Saltaneh” (Qajar Prince), was one of the most important landlords in Iran. He practised the serfdom and grew in wealth like his fellows during the famines of 1910’s (he was then 40 years old). These artificial famines were recurrent during the second part of XIX century (under Qajar reign) and stopped when Reza Shah took the power(Another “evil man” from the occident considerations). These famines, artificially maintained by the cereal speculators (such as the last Qajar king, Ahmad Shah, and the high clergy), reduced by half the Iranian population and transformed a prosperous country into one of the most miserable and poorest country in the world. Although having voting rights (granted by the constitution of 1906), the peasants did not vote, or when they did, they voted according to their Master’s instructions (the princes and the clergy). That is why the members of the Iranian National Assembly (the mejliss) were mainly consisted of important landlords (princes or mullahs) opposed to Pahlavis who were considered as annoying in their plans to have control over the richness of Iran.From the 20% remaining citizens, the half (the women) did not have voting right. They gained it only in 1963, granted again by the Shah against the alliance of the feudality and the clergy. (The clergy was also one of the most important owners of lands in Iran). Before 1963 and the Shah’s reforms, at last, only 10% of the population (any age) was capable to vote, even though, the participation was not so high that we could suppose. In 1951, Mossadegh, “our nationalist leader”, shared this poor electorate with the communists, the pro-palahvis, and the other political tendencies and was only representative at most of 3% of the Iranian population. In this context, talking about democracy would be abusive. Even if the sociological organization of Iran is nowadays very different, the same phenomenon is persisting, which means the non-representation of the electoral results. In fact, the peasantry does not represent 80% anymore but 20% of the overall population and, moreover, owns their own lands (thanks to the Shah who has abolished the feudality and the serfdom). This peasantry is now educated, (always thanks to the reformed fought by the clergy) and has the voting right, in the texts as in the facts. It is true to say that the women have also the voting right. But for whom can we vote in Iran? The occidental military-industrial lobby (which owns the press, at least in France) is favorable to the mullah’s regime and put forward the pretext of having elections as a proof of democratic political life in Iran. Except the journalists who want to preserve their job, and the experts who want to stay in the favor of this lobby, intellectuals perpetuate a misunderstood without being the direct beneficiaries of this system? (unless if they are attracted by a press career). But can we talk about democracy when the freedom of speech, the freedom of meeting, the freedom to create a political party and the freedom to run for elections are missing? The Iranians don’t vote anymore and those they do, it is only for having updated authority stamps on their identity card, avoiding by that to be annoyed in administrative tasks. The stir around elections in Iran seems to be, in these conditions, obscene and not appropriated.
Surrounded by his bodyguards, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, center, wipes away a tear during a religious ceremony marking the death of the Shiite Saint Jaafar Sadeq in Tehran on Saturday Photo: AP
It was here in 1956 that Iran's future leader was born the son of a blacksmith, and here in 2005 that residents strung out bunting when he was elected - confident that the village's most famous son would put them foremost in his much-vaunted crusade for the poor. But while a sign now hangs outside the village saying "Welcome to Aradan, the birthplace of the popular president," the only dreams being chased here today are through a pipe - as shown by the stench of Afghan opium smoke that lingers in the local taxi office. Despite a triumphant visit last summer by the village's most famous son, locals say his pledges of jobs and a better standard of living have failed to materialise - with opium, heroin and other narcotics filling the gap between reality and aspiration. "When Mr Ahmadinejad won the election we were very happy," said one of the crowd of drivers sitting idly outside the taxi office last week. "But he has not done well for us - he promised to tackle unemployment, but he hasn't. Instead, people are turning to drugs because there is nothing else for them." That Mr Ahmadinejad's most lasting legacy for his native village may prove to be a drug habit is just one sign of how the greatest threat to his survival may not come not from his avowed enemies in Washington and Israel, but quite literally from his own back yard. Internationally, the president has currently gained much-needed breathing space on two fronts. Next week the US may vote to replace the hawkish George W Bush with what Iran hopes will be a more conciliatory Barack Obama. Meanwhile the global financial meltdown is widely thought to have lessened any prospect of Mr Bush authorising a strike on Tehran's disputed nuclear program during his final days in the White House - a move which would add to the chaos. But there are persistent reports suggesting he may be in poor health, having missed a cabinet meeting and failed to deliver a public speech last week - leading some to questions whether he will be fit enough to run again. And domestically, the climate is becoming steadily more hostile for Mr Ahmadinejad, 52, a devout Muslim who pledged to restore the puritanical values of Iran's Islamic revolution. By fulfilling his promise to put the nation's vast oil wealth "on the tables of the poor" by giving out cheap loans he has allowed inflation to skyrocket to more than 30 per cent, undoing his best intentions by sending food, fuel and housing costs soaring. And in few places is the disillusionment felt more keenly than Aradan, a pine tree-lined farming hamlet on the cusp of a vast salt desert, where 98 per cent of residents voted for him. Mr Ahmadinejad's family moved from here to Tehran when he was still a baby, and today the ancestral mud-brick home lies derelict and full of rubbish. Yet in his campaign speeches, it is as if he had never left: his earnest talk of his "difficult" early life in rural Iran proved ideal for convincing voters that his quest for social justice came from the heart. Today, though, villagers point to empty fields where Mr Ahmadinejad grandly promised, when he visited last yeaer, to build a college, hospital, swimming pool and industrial park - and complain that inflation has eaten away the cheap loans he gave them for farming equipment. Instead, the only growth activity that people talk of is the very antithesis of Mr Ahmadinejad's pious Islamic vision: drugs. As in any Iranian village that stands on the ancient Silk Route, the smoking of dried opium - or taryok - from the poppy fields of neighbouring Afghanistan has been a clandestine vice for centuries. In recent years, however, Aradan and other nearby settlements have seen the arrival both of heroin and of a chemically fortified, more addictive version of taryok known locally as "crack". "About 60 per cent of people here are using opium these days, and about 12 per cent using crack, which will kill them within a few years," said one official. "The problem is serious because of the underemployment; most people have only two to three hours of work a day." The problems in Aradan are not unique - drug addiction is thought to affect up to two million of Iran's 70 million population. The government has won international praise for adopting Western-style treatment programmes, but the addiction level is widely blamed on rising unemployment - which Mr Ahmadinejad's Islamo-communist style of government, with its utter comtempt for the market system, is doing little to stem. He has replaced technocrats and finance experts with religious ideologues, and once famously remarked, "I thank God I know nothing about economics", a conviction that the recent stock market crash has simply reaffirmed. "It is the end of capitalism," he gleefully declared earlier this month, predicting it might now be time for Iran to lead the rest of the world on economics. Others are not so sure. They point out that the main reason the Tehran stock market was less affected than others is because foreigners no longer invest there. Meanwhile most Iranians with any savings have salted them away abroad in Dubai, where they are vulnerable to the world recession. Worse still, the drop in oil prices from around $150 per barrel to around $60 will deplete Iran's vast oil revenue surplus within months if it continues – depriving Mr Ahmadinejad of his spending warchest. "There has been some gloating about the current world financial difficulties, but people are now realising that Iran isn't immune from it," said one foreign diplomat. "Economic dissatisfaction may really snowball now." With presidential elections scheduled for June next year, that could possibly pave the way for a return by Iran's reformist former president, Mohammad Khatami, whose efforts at closer links with the West and improved human rights were constantly frustrated by Iran's all-powerful religious establishment. Yet the chance of any real change seems remote, not least because Mr Khatami is understood to be reluctant to run again. "The economic situation has become horrible in the last three years, as has Iran's international image, and he is not sure whether he can rebuild the necessary trust," said Ahmad Shirzad, a former MP who is one of his leading supporters. He added that even if the reformists won power, they would shy away from confrontation with the religious establishment. There would be no attempt to take on the judiciary, which has been used increasingly to harass journalists and opposition figures since Mr Ahmadinejad became president, and no attempt to fight the powerful Guardian's Council, which vetos any political candidate deemed too critical of the regime. "We learned last time that there is no point in confronting them direct – we shall just have to try and mobilise public opinion and hope they respond," said Mr Shirzad. Such a conciliatory attitude is unlikely to go down well with Iran's student activists, many of whom whom still favour a more confrontational approach - and are willing to pay the price. Among them is Ali Nikou Nesbati, 28, who sent Mr Ahmadinejad a lengthy letter criticising his economic and human rights policies. While the president officially welcomes feedback, this time the reply was blunt: a month in detention, followed by a suspended five month sentence with 10 lashes. "They could choose to implement it if I get into trouble again, but I am not worried about it," said Mr Nesbait. "You have to stand up for your rights." He concedes, however, that in the early days of the Islamic Republic, he would have been dead by now: a point echoed by many diplomats in Teheran, who say that while human rights have got worse under Mr Ahmadinejad, they have not deteriorated far enough to spark an uprising. Instead, the real source of rebellion in coming months may not be the university campuses, but the vast warrens of Tehran's main bazaar, whose powerful conglomerates of carpet, gold and jewellery merchants launched an unprecedented strike last month after the president tried to impose a three per cent sales tax on what he saw as "luxury goods". Akhavan Fathi, 68, a gold dealer, said: "The situation has got really bad under Mr Ahmadinejad. Inflation is unbearable, and we are seeing few and fewer customers buying jewellery, and more coming in to sell it because they are hard-up or have lost their jobs." Mr Ahmadinejad subsequently backed down, a rare move for a man who shows no such inclination when it comes to stand offs with the West. He may, however, be mindful that previous rulers have upset the bazaaris at their peril - it was a plan by the Shah to demolish their stalls that led them to give decisive backing to the 1979 Islamic revolution which brought about his downfall. Whatever Mr Ahmadinejad's disdain for capitalism, that is one law of the market he is unlikely to want to flaunt.
Posts
اخبار مربوط به زندانیان سیاسی و نقض حقوق بشر
Tulips in Holland
