Why Iran's clerics fear this election

Jonathan Steele, The Guardian:

It is one of the paradoxes of the modern Middle East that a higher percentage of people attends Friday prayers in Turkey, an avowedly secular state, than in the Islamic Republic of Iran. By the same token, voters in Turkey's last election gave most support to an Islamist party, while in Iran - where people choose a new president today - Islam has not featured in the campaign, whether in posters, leaflets, or speeches. READ MORE

At one level the paradox is easily explained. Any state that pushes an ideology too harshly, whether it is secularism, atheism or a particular religion, is likely to build resistance. Equally, if a state is failing its citizens on several fronts, for example by allowing mass unemployment and social and economic insecurity to grow, or by severely restricting human rights, their instinctive need to protest will find an outlet in abstaining from the publicly decreed norms: by flocking to mosques and churches in a secular state, or by dropping out in a religious one.

Of course, political trends are not just a simple process of action and reaction, and all societies have their subtleties. In Iran the issue is twofold. After 26 years the Islamic revolution has lost its moral and social fervour. Secondly, there is a growing disconnect between directly elected bodies, such as the parliament and president, and the religious leadership, which not only appoints itself but controls the military and judiciary and has the constitutional right to veto decisions of elected institutions. The debate over this divergence of interests is couched in terms of democracy. It is not an argument over Islam.

Mohammed Khatami, the outgoing president, spent eight years fitfully trying to persuade his fellow clerics to change the system, but with no result. Today's election centres on whether his successor will want, and be able, to do better.

Few can complain there is no choice, at least (a big caveat) among male candidates - women were barred from running. The eight men range from reformers to conservatives, which means the electoral options are wider than in any Arab country, including Iraq. Washington's democracy-promoters should focus their attentions on Saudi Arabia and Tunisia, rather than Iran.

Some Iranians, including respected human rights advocates, are calling for a boycott; their concern is not that the choice is narrow, but that whoever wins will be politically impotent and that, by participating, voters will legitimise a phoney system. The dilemma is similar to the one Iraqis faced in January. Those who urged a boycott claimed the election would legitimise the US occupation and produce a government that would not be sovereign. It was a reasonable argument, and western commentators who claim Iraq's election was a triumph of democracy while Iran's is hollow need to be sure they are not using double standards.

Hashemi Rafsanjani, the candidate tipped to win, is a former president who has cleverly positioned himself in the centre. He presents himself as the man who laid the groundwork for the reform movement that Khatami took up eight years ago; but he was also a confidant of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the Islamic republic's founder.

Extracts of Rafsanjani's latest book, an account of conversations with Khomeini in the last weeks of his life, have conveniently been appearing in newspapers in recent days. The two men allegedly discussed amendments to the constitution, among other things.

The message to conservatives is that Rafsanjani is on the same exalted level of moral authority as Iran's current supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, if not higher. To the reformers Rafsanjani is signalling that he might consider amendments to the constitution. This would meet the hopes of those who, two years ago, tried unsuccessfully to change the constitution and reduce the unelected bodies' powers.

This may all be bluff. Even if Rafsanjani genuinely intends to push for such changes if elected, Iran's parliament has a conservative majority - thanks to bans that prevented hundreds of reformers standing in last year's elections. So the omens for change are not good.

For the outside world, the main interest remains Iran's nuclear programme and its willingness to agree to a "grand bargain" that would lead to normal relations with Europe. The nuclear question is a matter of national pride uniting most Iranians, and subtlety will be needed if Iran is to renounce the option of enriching uranium while not appearing to make concessions under pressure. Ending the cold war between Iran and the US is another matter. Washington is in the driving seat, and until the Bush administration decides to end its confrontation, Rafsanjani can do little.

For Iranians the key issue is more profound. Can the system find a balance that meets the demands of an increasingly well-educated population, for jobs as well as political and social reforms? Rule by clerics has gone on long enough.

j.steele@guardian.co.uk