Iran’s Sham Elections


Okay, call me an apologist, but I don’t think you can fairly blame George Bush for the recent election results in Iran. I’ll be the first to say that our Iran policy—what policy?—is completely screwed up, but let’s not lose sight of the main problem hovering around the elections: the fix was in. Even if Hooman Madj is right and “large-scale fraud is unlikely to have occurred”—despite reports of baseej and militiamen intimidating voters—there’s still the fact that all of the candidates had to be pre-approved by an unelected council of clerics. There’s still the fact that the presidency is largely a useless role, without real power in the country, and that it didn’t really matter whether a reformer like Mustafa Moin won; the status quo would’ve still plopped down, plump and happy, right where it was. I don’t know if Bush was wise to denounce Iran’s sham democracy right before a bunch of sham elections, but on the merits, what he said was accurate; it does no-one any good to pretend otherwise.

Anyway, it seems like the reformists are going to back Hashemi Rafsanjani in the runoff election, if only because his hard-liner opponent, former Tehran mayor Majmood Ahmadinejad, would allow the radical clerics in Iran to strengthen their grip on the country. But Rafsanjani certainly has no intention of liberalizing the country, or ushering in a new era of freedom and happiness. (Indeed, the danger is that if Rafsanjani wins with reformist support, the conservatives can claim newfound “legitimacy” and argue against those who would claim, quite rightly, that Iran is undemocratic.) On the bright side, analyst Sanam Vakil has argued that Rafsanjani will at least buck the conservative line and try for a rapprochement with the United States. That’s better than nothing, provided, of course, that the United States would actually be willing to talk. The other interesting question is whether student groups and other reformists will take to the streets if Ahmadinejad wins. Not to mention: What will the United States do if Ahmadinejad wins? Break off all negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program and hurtle down the path towards regime change?

UPDATE: Hossein Derakhshan has a report on the dire mood in Iran among reformers, especially over the prospect of an Ahmadinejad victory. Also: “One good thing about an Ahmadinejad term could be that it would end the apathy among the youth born after the Iran-Iraq war.”

One More Thing

And it's a big one. Mother Jones is launching a new Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on the corruption that is both the cause and result of the crisis in our democracy.

The more we thought about how Mother Jones can have the most impact right now, the more we realized that so many stories come down to corruption: People with wealth and power putting their interests first—and often getting away with it.

Our goal is to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We're aiming to create a reporting position dedicated to uncovering corruption, build a team, and let them investigate for a year—publishing our stories in a concerted window: a special issue of our magazine, video and podcast series, and a dedicated online portal so they don't get lost in the daily deluge of headlines and breaking news.

We want to go all in, and we've got seed funding to get started—but we're looking to raise $500,000 in donations this spring so we can go even bigger. You can read about why we think this project is what the moment demands and what we hope to accomplish—and if you like how it sounds, please help us go big with a tax-deductible donation today.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate