freediver
Gold Member
   
Offline

www.ozpolitic.com
Posts: 53184
At my desk.
|
Iran's supreme (ie religious) leader has inctructed the opposition leader to take the election outcome to the courts, and also asked clerics to begin investigating.
Iran's unsurprising farce
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/15/iran-elections-ahmadinejad
With hindsight, we should have seen it coming. Why should a man who has bluffed, blustered, twisted, intimidated and – let's not dignify it with higher prose – lied his way through his four-year term of office surrender power to the whim of anything so mundane as a ballot box?
We do not yet have any forensic proof that Iran's presidential election was stolen – and given the country's notorious opacity, it may never emerge – but the circumstantial evidence is compelling. The aftermath of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election by an alleged landslide resembles, as the respected American academic on Iranian affairs, Juan Cole, put it, "a crime scene". Legitimate election wins are generally not accompanied by mass arrests of opposition members, the blocking of mobile phone networks and a multitude of news websites, or the forced closure of other candidates' headquarters, to name but three highly irregular developments that have all the hallmarks of a coup d'état.
For many (and not just the usual scapegoats of supposedly blinkered western journalists), it is a profound shock, especially since the reformist candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, seemed to have the wind and a tidal wave of popular support in his sails.
It shouldn't have been. The brazen manner of Ahmadinejad's power grab is simply a fulfilment of his nature and that of his acolytes. Anyone who lived in Iran – as I did – during Ahmadinejad's first term will recognise that the developments of the past few days are rooted in a political approach that emphasises chutzpah and a ruthless will to power at the expense of consensus and dissent.
That philosophy was explained to me a couple of years ago by Ebrahim Yazdi, leader of the Freedom Movement and foreign minister in Iran's first post-revolutionary government. Yazdi characterised Ahmadinejad's surprise 2005 election victory as a "velvet coup d'état" which was reinforced via a "victory through terrorisation" credo. "The philosophy is that you terrorise people in order to succeed," Yazdi said.
The great election robbery is its latest manifestation. Neither Ahmadinejad nor his patron-in-chief, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – Iran's supreme leader in whom ultimate authority is presumed to reside – have ever had much use for democratic niceties.
During the 2005 election campaign, Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying that "Iran did not have a revolution in order to have democracy". His behaviour ever since has reflected that belief, even if the window dressing of elections and their accompanying paraphernalia – colourful campaigns and televised debates, et al – have been preserved for appearance's sake.
Ahmadinejad's 2005 win was tainted with allegations of ballot fraud, which appears in retrospect to be a dry run for the present scenario. His presidency has been marked by the closure of critical newspapers, magazines and websites, the hounding of officials of previous governments, and well-publicised crackdowns on women's activists and people wearing the wrong clothes. He is, in short, no respecter of personal freedoms or civil liberties.
During this year's campaign, Mousavi accused Ahmadinejad of pursuing policies that would lead to dictatorship. It seemed a bit far-fetched. Yet suspicions of Ahmadinejad's intentions have been fuelled by reports of his admiration for constitutional reforms introduced by his friend and ally, the Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, that would dispense with term limits and allow him to seek re-election indefinitely. Likewise, he seemed to forestall the outcome of last week's election in remarks to aides, saying: "The other candidates know that I am going to be elected president once again. Why are they committing suicide and making propaganda just to collect votes?"
It is this backdrop that is shrouding Ahmadinejad's re-election in billowing mushroom clouds of suspicion, not some mythological failure of visiting western journalists to leave their temporary boltholes in affluent north Tehran, as claimed by Abbas Barzegar here on Saturday.
Barzegar painted a picture of gullible reporters buried in wishful thinking and hoodwinking themselves into exaggerating Mousavi's support by failing to leave the capital and sample the religious (and pro-Ahmadinejad) fervour prevailing in Iran's heartland. "Iran is a deeply religious society," he argued, a hackneyed assertion which – unlike election results – is impossible to quantify or measure but which westerners are presumably too dim to understand. This is sanctimonious drivel. Religion does indeed run deep in Iranian society, but Mousavi was hardly running on an atheist ticket. Nor were the other two candidates, Mehdi Karroubi (a turbaned cleric, let us remember) and Mohsen Rezai, a former revolutionary guard commander once close to the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Opposition to Ahmadinejad runs across social boundaries – and includes many who consider themselves religious.
|