Democracy in Iran: Change Begins at the Ballot Box

America is at its best when it leads by example. This will be particularly important as the U.S. administration strives to fashion a new policy towards Iran. President Obama has made a very public offer to the Islamic Republic and while their response so far is not encouraging, it was not altogether unexpected by those who know Iran. There is simply too much at stake, however, to rely on the same tired old prescriptions, and while it will not be easy we will need to persevere and approach this effort with a new level of nuance and creativity.

There are two distinct audiences in Iran, the primary being the regime and its hard line supporters, led by the Supreme Leader. The fact is that nothing will change between the U.S. and Iran without the acquiescence of Iran's Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. For this to happen, the administration will need to walk the fine line between addressing the strategic interests of the U.S. and its allies while also acknowledging issues that matter most to those in charge in Iran. The Supreme Leader will also need to be convinced that the ultimate goal of the west is not simply to roll back the Islamic revolution in Iran. The latter in particular may in the end prove impossible but the effort must nonetheless be made for there to be any chance of success. While there are a multitude of tactical matters to be considered, it will be critical that the U.S.'s overall strategic approach be based on a new paradigm; one that does not predicate success solely on the eventual capitulation of Iran to the demands of the west. The hard truth is that notwithstanding the serious economic challenges Iran is facing, its leadership is not currently in a position where they have no other option than to bow to the demands of others. This could change, but thirty years of waiting for just such a situation, during which the Islamic republic has proven itself to be tremendously resilient, would indicate it likely will not anytime soon. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the facts and doom any effort to eventual failure.

In the meantime, the signals coming out of Iran, while certainly conflicting, are quite interesting. Many of the statements emanating from Tehran certainly tend to be confrontational and at times harsh, primarily in response to what the Iranians view as continued confrontational statements and actions from the U.S. and its allies. No one, however, including the Supreme Leader has yet voiced a definitive no to the possibility of either dialogue or improved relations with the U.S. Even the latest very critical statements from Khamenei, presented during the Tehran hosted Palestinian conference - and even more recently in his Norooz message to the Iranian nation - do not expressly preclude engagement. Instead, the predominant message, across the board - including from the reformist camp - emphasizes an Iranian perception that the actions of the Obama administration have yet to match its rhetoric of change. Another important development that we cannot ignore is that Iran's leadership has chosen to cast America very much in the role of supplicant, thereby placing the U.S. in the unenviable position of making the first move, a quintessential Iranian negotiating tactic. Meanwhile, Iran watches and waits, taking the very Iranian tack of "Naaz Mikonand" (ناز می کند), or, "playing hard to get."

As the U.S. administration continues to study its options, among these must be actions that clearly demonstrate that a change in tone is capable of leading to a substantive change in both attitude and approach. The administration's invitation to Iran to attend the recent "Afghanistan Conference" is a good case in point. Selective relaxation of the current sanctions regime obviously offers additional options. As the senior partner in this diplomatic dance, however, the U.S. needs to take additional actions, with no expectation of an immediate quid pro quo, in order to demonstrate good faith and build confidence with its decidedly skittish junior partner.

At the same time, we should not forget there is yet another very important audience in Iran that we cannot afford to ignore; its people. In addressing the people of Iran, there are very few actions that the U.S. government can take that will not backfire. To single out any individual risks causing them to become a target of, at best, regime ire and at worst, the regime's internal security services. To address any particular issue risks making it a cause celebre by which the hard liners can point to yet another case of internal interference by the "global arrogance."

There is one issue, however, that the U.S. government - all the way up to the President - can address openly, with virtually no chance for blowback, TO GET OUT THE VOTE. Iranians are proud of the democratic system in Iran. While certainly not "free and fair" as we understand the democratic process, largely as a result of the non-transparent candidate vetting process employed by the regime, the system in place is far and away one of the more democratic in the region. And granted, the overarching authority of the Supreme Leader largely neutralizes the "power of the people" on many issues of the highest import. Notwithstanding these limitations, the regime - including the Supreme Leader - seeks to acknowledge the will of the people on many issues, or at least pretends to. To do otherwise risks losing popular support altogether and abandoning any pretense of democracy, no matter how tenuous. As a regime that came from the streets - one that expends an enormous amount of energy and resources on catering to, and/or controlling its varied constituencies - Iranian leaders simply cannot afford to openly thwart the wishes of its people. The bad news is that apathy among voters is high. This serves to benefit the more hard line elements and threatens to allow a more hard line minority in Iran to continue to thwart the will of the apparently more moderate majority. The good news is that the promise of change through democracy, no matter how limited, offers an opportunity to promote common cause with America, and particularly with our newly elected President.

In short, the U.S. administration should encourage all Iranians, in the strongest possible terms, to vote in the upcoming Iranian Presidential election as a celebration of the Democratic traditions that both nations share. No candidate should be singled out, nor any particular issue highlighted or supported. A simple message of "a responsibility to vote" will suffice. This will serve several purposes. First, it will emphasize an important, shared value with which many in Iran will be able to identify. In addition, higher voter turnout, more than almost any other means, is likely to result in the election of more moderate candidates by causing the regime to think twice about manipulating the vote count as it appears to have done in recent elections. High voter turnout should also serve notice to Iran's leadership that the people of Iran are engaged, watching and that they expect those in positions of leadership, both elected and non-elected, to serve all of their needs. Whether Iran's leadership responds is certainly questionable, and perhaps doubtful, but they will most certainly be placed on notice and will be mindful of the message this sends. Lastly, this is a message the regime will be hard pressed to reject or spin as they can hardly object to anyone, even the "Great Satan" encouraging the people of Iran to exercise their right to vote.

While this may be perceived as naïve by some, it is one of the few messages that stands a chance of reaching the broadest possible audience in Iran - both the Iranian people and its leadership. This will also allow America to once again lead by example, as a Nation that has itself just used the power of the ballot box to assert the will of the people and bring about change.

Comments

[anti-tazi]

Claiming voting in the elections matters...
by BK (not verified) on Sat Apr 18, 2009 02:40 AM PDT


...can only be regarded as a cruel joke or a blatant attempt to pretend Iran under the rule of the Islamic Republic is a democracy.

THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY IN IRAN UNDER THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC.

There is no genuine opposition that is allowed to campaign freely and take part in elections in Iran. There is no candidate that is not vetted and hand-picked by a bunch of reactionary and unelected Mullahs. There is no president that is not subservient to the ultimate power and thoroughly undemocratic position of the Leader of the Revolution.

So called voting in Iran gets either one hand-picked IRI candidate to the sham post of the president or it gets another-picked IRI candidate to that position, In short, there is NO democracy in Iran. The whole thing is a sham and it insults the intelligence to suggest otherwise.

Read the debate below, Read all the comments:

http://iranian.com/main/2009/apr/get-out-and-vote-time

[Pete Goddard]

Yes, there is a selection process that weeds out candidates unacceptable to the regime and "the mullahs". But let's not kid ourselves, many Iranians are still fairly conservative people... many of the candidates weeded out wouldn't have gotten more than 2 votes anyway (themselves and their mom); the mullahs just couldn't even abide them getting that many votes, on "principle". And the point remains: once that weeding out happens, the people are actually allowed to make THEIR CHOICE of which of the "acceptable candidates" they want. Khatami wasn't exactly the darling of the mullahs or Khamanei, now was he? But he was elected, twice. There is democracy, with constraints. It may not be a 100% free and fair democracy, but every democracy has SOME constraints. I wanted to run for president last year, but I couldn't because I'm not 35 years old. I'm not quite ready to label America an age-cratic non-democracy, though.

[anti-tazi]

I don't buy that Iranian are conservative or the fact that they would have been weeded out. We have to agree to disagree. I travel often to Iran especially the rural areas and villages...I can assure you, there is not one person who is not subsidized by the gov't who supports this regime or views it as legitimate.

Subsidized=Basiji, IRGC

[anti-tazi]

Regarding Khatami. Khatami and Khamenie are in-laws. At any rate, Khatami in my view was not any better than Ahamdinejad. At least Ahmadinejad is not a coward like Khatami.

More execution and serial killing occurred under Khatami than Ahmadinejad. Yes, he was lenient when it came to strict Islamic laws of Hejab, however, that's the least of the Iraninan society's problem.

[Pete Goddard]

2) Regarding the “GET OUT THE VOTE” appeal, change is impossible if the Council of Guardians refuses to allow those truly representing change to run. Until this happens, elections are only a fig-leaf covering the true reactionary, autocratic nature of the regime and its attempts to stifle change, and high turnout would only provides a veneer of respectability to the system. And if we push this campaign early on, it has the potential to embolden/encourage the Council of Guardians to more harshly “prune away” candidates it does not like and paint us into a corner. After all, if our campaign succeeds in producing high voter turnout, the regime can’t afford to leave true reformers in the running, lest they win and radically endanger the current system. If we then continued to call for turnout, we would strengthen their fig-leaf, while if we reversed course, we would manage to look a) weak and indecisive, b) overtly hostile to the regime, and c) like meddlers. In general, perhaps such a “get out the vote” campaign should be saved until after the Guardian Council rules, when we can be sure that some semblance of choice is preserved for the Iranian people . You’re right about us being the senior, more secure partner in this relationship and needing to be willing to go it alone for a time, until the Iranian regime feels comfortable in responding. Still, there’s no need to put our heads on the chopping block any earlier than necessary.

[Pete Goddard]

Mark, great article/fascinating subject. Two comments:

1) Those amenable to appeals to pragmatism and national interest will respond to US assurances that we aren’t an enemy to Iran. But to others, prosperity/growth/development is less an issue than the Islamic Revolution (IR) itself; not merely its Iranian iteration, but as a supra-national, revolutionary, philosophical movement, important at the level of divinity, not merely humanity. This is especially pertinent considering the "downtrodden Shi'a" narrative: always on the losing side in temporal terms, but focused on victory on a transcendent, eternal plane. For those with this mindset, pragmatic concerns border on invalid, and such arguments may at best engender apathy. For example, Iranian allies in Syria/Lebanon/Palestine, etc. don’t just serve Iranian self-defense, regional influence, and balance-of-power. They’re also an ideological component of the Islamic Revolution’s philosophy and goals. Iranian ideologues won’t relinquish these groups simply because the US ceases to be an existential threat to Iran; simply as an opposing ideology, we threaten the ultimate success of the IR. In this, the IR resembles the USSR: the Western world is/was fundamentally opposed to their philosophical views and it is/was their duty to strengthen, expand, and export their system, not merely preserve it. As such, isn’t a direct, ideological confrontation (either a climactic showdown or a new "Mini-Cold-War) between the West's secular, liberal democracies and the Islamic Revolution's ideology of religious, Islamic “democracy”, still a real possibility?

[Mark Fowler - Huffpost Blogger]

Pete - Thanks for your comments. Very insightful and you bring up some important points which I will address in another posting. Keep a look out for it! -MF

[anti-tazi]

LOL, The Supreme Leader has already selected Ahamdinejad. If you think the Islamic Republic remotely resembles a democracy then I have a beachfront Property in Arizona for sale.

http://www.mideasti.org/files/Iran_Final.pdf

Obama's existential challenge to Ahmadinejad:

http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Milani.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Ahmadinejad-Secret-History-Radical-Leader/dp/0520256638?&camp=212361&linkCode=wey&tag=azarmehr-20&creative=380733

[zaz33]

It looks like they have the same problems with their democracy.

The clerics choose the candidates and the final count is questionable.

The ruling class and the MSM choose our candidates and the final count is questionable.

We probably have more in common than we realize.

[jhNY]

Now that we have had 2 out of the last 3 presidential elections stolen throught chicanery and quasi-legal rationalization, it is certainly fitting that we should see ourselves as the standard bearers for free and fair elections all around ther world.

[Hass]

The problem is and always was Israel. Israel does not want to see any improvement in US-IRan ties that it sees will result in lessening Israel's strategic value, and threatening to Israel's ambitions to dominate the region. If the US and Iran get along, who needs Israel? So, their AIPAC lobbyists will be hard at work undermining any potential detente between Iran and the US. They have already started, by preventing Chas Freeman's appointment and foisting their representative, Dennis Ross, into office. The US will never have a free hand to pursue its interests in the Mideast until the albatross of Israel is gone from our necks.

[Pete Goddard]

Israel does have its own interests in this matter, but we're hardly 100% beholden to Israel, and I think the current administration is willing to move forward pursuing our own interests even if that is not convenient/comfortable for Israel... at least more so than the previous administration was. But here's a thought: Israel has a history of being absolutist and ideologically fixated (particularly certain factions within Israeli politics) and seeing/portraying its opponents in an ideological light as well. That has had some serious consequences, no doubt, and they've managed to spread the damage around to others as well as themselves, particularly to the US. But even the boy who cried wolf was right once; couldn't Israel's opposition to what it says is an ideologically incompatible regime possibly be right this time?