Hard-core fundamentalist leads Iran presidential vote

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Vince278
What surprised me is that Rafsanjani was characterized as a moderate. I saw the election as a lose-lose proposition for America.

Well, he's made some moderate-sounding noises lately. But it's mostly a reflection of how ****ed up the Iranian political landscape is.

Oh, and Imran has pwned you quite hard.

[Zevico]

In Iranian politics I imagine anyone not banned by the Ayatollahs is already an extremist. No doubt at that point it'd be like comparing serial killers to one-off murderers.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Vince278


Two wrongs don't make a right. Nor does it justify taking the low road.

Can't recall saying they did.


I'm simply querying why you feel able to point out the mote in someone else's eye, all the while ignoring the timber yard in your own.


Perhaps that's a Christian thing ?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Can't recall saying they did.

I'm simply querying why you feel able to point out the mote in someone else's eye, all the while ignoring the timber yard in your own.

Perhaps that's a Christian thing ?

Can't recall saying they did either.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Zevico
In Iranian politics I imagine anyone not banned by the Ayatollahs is already an extremist. No doubt at that point it'd be like comparing serial killers to one-off murderers.

And of course, as is most common with your commentary, your wrong.

On DanS's notion that the Iraqiu presidential elections were undemocratic. Hmm, they had 6 Candidates for President.

I had 2 credible candidadates last time I went to the polls, and the winner does not even have to win a mayority if the popular vote, but a Byzantine system of state caucauses.

Should seem obvious that the Iranian model is so much less democratic....

That said:

This election i think will be a turning point in Iran, and a negative one for the regime, because I do find the reports of vote tampering of various kinds in the first balloting very credible, and the drop in turnout is probably an indication. Even if the hard liner honestly won the vote, the system has probably been greatly damaged in the eyes of most Iranians. The hardliners interfered more in this vote than any previous elections, making it seem they are currently very worried about the reformists and are willing to undermine the very legitimacy of the Islamic Republic to stem the tide of change.

I think the next 4 years will be contnetious, and that the 2009 elections might be the Islamic Republic's current version's last.

[Zevico]

And of course, as is most common with your commentary, your wrong.

So we have candidates that are determined by the establishment, which is hardline. They could never allow anyone whose views do not range vastly from their own to run for the election (many hundreds of candidates were denied, if you recall). Even Khatami, that great "reformer" thought that boycotting Israel even in sports was a great thing to do (not to mention refusing aid from it after an earthquake for God's sake). In fact I recall he apparently said that this decision was somehow not about politics for Iran--as if it is some given that contact with Israel is morally bankrupt.
I'm not saying change won't happen with reformist candidates. I just don't think the change will be very significant in nature. The regime is ultimately controlled by the clerics and not by the 'reformists' allowed candidacy, who are moderates in a scale going from extremist to ultra reactionary. The candidate that won called for a high turnout as a big "Death to America" from the Iranian people; while Moin may not have done the same, I am sure that he didn't have any words of reconciliation with it either. Ultimately terrorists will still make their home in Iran as they have since the revolution there, and no 'reformist' has to my knowledge said a word about it aside from praise.
But thanks for the helpful comment there.

[Last Conformist]

@GePap: The democraticness of an election is not determined by the number of candidates.

[DanS]

After thinking about this some, and discounting the sham election, this guy seems mostly bad, but I can see some small good in his election. Apparently, he is seen as incorruptible. This is an objective good in a corruption-ridden society like Iran's. I dislike Rafsanjani intensely in part because it was obvious he was using his position to feed from the state trough.

As I understand it, the IR is held together by a coalition of the islamists and the well-to-do shopkeeper class. Rafsanjani is something of a representative of the shopkeeper class. However, Ahmadinejad is talking like a rather hard-core socialist. Can this coalition be held together, when and if Ahmadinejad goes hard left?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
@GePap: The democraticness of an election is not determined by the number of candidates.

Given the wide range of candidates, form actual reformists to old hands, to real conservatives, the people of Iran had a wide and varied choice for President.

You can;t possibly have any election with hundreds of candidates, and since Iran does not really seem to have party primaries to allow a small group of people to boil down the choices for the whole, in Iran its done by a non-elected body. Certainly this adds an undemocratic bit in there, but the fact is the Council of Guardians did give the people of Iran a varied choice of candidates.

[Drake Tungsten]

Here's to the next US election, where Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Rove and "reformist" McCain face off in the most democratic election in US history!

Of course, the inclusion of Rice hurts the analogy somewhat, given that Iran won't allow women to run for office...

[GePap]

The sad fact drakie pooh is that most Americans would consider that a varied and wholly acceptable field of candidates.

But way to shoot yourself in the foot there

[Drake Tungsten]

You think most Americans would consider a Republican-only election to be democratic?

[GePap]

If one of them decided to run on an independent line, yes, they would.

Oh, and Iran they don;t have parties like here in the US. if you knew ****, you would know, but of course you don;t, so your comparison, besides being a failure, is also ignorant.

Not that I expect much more from you.

[GePap]

Now for the candidates:

http://iranscan.net/comments/Iran/Weblog/who_are_the_candidates

Rafsanjani: With a new watchword, “Democratic Development”, the veteran politician stepped into the presidential campaign, putting an end to all the hot debates around his presense/abscense. Although open-minded compared with neo-cons and traditional right wingers; he doesn‘t believe in democracy and freedom of speech in it‘s modern form. Also Iran suffered several economic crises (including a 50% percent inflation rate in 1995) during his administration.

Moein: Having entered the scene with Ayatollah Khamenei‘s extra-legal verdict, Moein is probably the ugly duckling of elections turning white on 17th of June. His speeches have gradually turned radical, from promising to appoint a vice-president for Human Rights to “criticizing extra-legal verdicts”, to inviting the marginalized nationalist groups to join his camp. His authority if he were to be president is something doubted.

Qalibaf: Former head of Iranian Police Force with a brilliant administrative and unclear political background. His stylish ads are noticeable all over Tehran, trying to magnetize the vote of youth. His military background (a political party affiliated with Revolutionary Guards supports him) and arrests of several bloggers during his administration of the Police Force are an Achilles heel for him.

Larijani: Once the most hopeful candidate of conservative forces whose presence has been overshadowed by Baqer Qalibaf’s entrance. Former Minister of Culture and head of Iran‘s National TV he is unpopular among reformists for propagandizing against them. He has entered the election with the watchword: “Fresh Air with Government of Hope”, vowing to reinforce Iranian identity and introducing an efficient cabinet.

Rezaei: Former head of the Revolutionary Guards. His efforts to posses a role in political arrangements were unsuccessful; therefore he continued his political career under the label of “Third Force”, a label commonly used by many political figures that do not belong to two main political orientations. He is a featherweight figure among conservatives with a very low chance of winning the election. He believes current political arrangement of power in country must be changed. Sounds unreal.

Mehr Alizadeh: Vice President with a proper administrative background as industrial manager and governor of Khorasan, Iran’s largest province. He’s the head of Physical Education Department and Iran’s recent qualification for Soccer World Cup is considered a positive point for him. He is the most unlikely candidate to win the election.

Ahmadi Nejhad: Mayor of Tehran, with fundamentalist view in politics; establishing an Islamic state (probably not relying on people’s vote and base on strict observation of Islamic rules) and justice. He tries to resemble the early administrators of Islamic Republic who emphasized on defending the rights of the lower classes, self-reliance and Islamizing the society.

So you had one governor, one mayor, one reofrmist, one old political hand, two ex-military types and an ex-minister.

Yup, its obvious the Iranians had 0 choices. I mean, you can barely tell the guys apart....

For god's sake, if you want to criticize Iran as undemocratic, fine, the fact that the Head of State is unelected is a great arguement- but going on about how the choices were undemocratic is silly.

You can even make a good case that the government manipulated the voters or the votes themselves. That is a possible arguement, given the light of what actually did occur.

[GePap]

Oh, and most of them had campaign websites, for those who speak farsi.