Elections in Iran 2009
Ali Ansari and Thomas Rintoul, writing in the The Guardian's Comment is Free online blog on Monday 22 June 2009, seemed to be claiming that there is strong empirical evidence to suggest that the recent Iranian elections were in fact rigged in favour of the incumbent candidate.
In the article, "Magic numbers: Our analysis shows that some official figures of Ahmadinejad's win in Iran are hard to swallow", the charge of downright fraud is veiled in words that would not be out of place in he mouth of the mythical talking weasel.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed a victory that many find difficult to believe: 64% of the vote on a turnout of 84% in Iran's election. The provincial breakdown of the results – obtained by the University of St Andrews and Chatham House from Iran's ministry of interior – show some statistics that are even more surprising.
The full article from The Guardian can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/22/iran-election-voters-numbers
Anyway, enough from them. Here's my take on the election and the results.
From one perspective, it's hard to imagine Ahmadinejad getting more than a handful of votes. Would I vote for him? Good grief no, and not in a month of Sundays. But that isn't the issue is it. If the voting choice and election in this case had been based on the international projection of what Ahmadinejad has supposed to have said, and what he is supposed to be plotting, and that instead of Iranians going to the polls, it was the vote of western critics that mattered the most, then I would agree. I would agree that the outcome of the election is completely unexpected.
However, the election wasn't in the purview of western right-wing and liberal intellectuals, or indeed the western media. I case some people didn't notice, it was an election in Iran, by Iranians and for Iranians - okay, there was also voting elsewhere, but that's a minor academic point.
Many election results are surprising, it really depends on the level of the surprise, and who is being surprised.
Jim Callaghan losing the UK General Elections in 1979, that was a surprise, not for millions of Brits, but I still found it hard to believe. Thatcher winning, again, even though quite few prominent members of her own party really despised her. Labour Party not only electing Blair as leader, but with complete free rein to wreak havoc. The reelection of George Bush jr. Berlusconi's comeback, ditto for Netanyahu, and Daniel Ortega. Next, Barroso will be reelected as head boy for the EU. Surprising? Not really.
I was also reminded by another commentator on Cif, of the case of John Major.
Bizhan wrote:
May I also add to your list the really surprise victory of the conservatives led by the then plain Mr John Major in 1992 general election. If you recall no one expected him to win. If my memory serves me correctly, I seem to remember reading in the papers even the Tories were surprised and even shocked at that totally unexpected result. In fact one of the reasons why the now knighted former prime minister was chosen to replace Thatcher was that some senior Thacherite tories were so convinced that they were going to lose the next election that they settled on him to succeed their dear leader. The rest as they say is history.
In the reelection of Ahmadinejad there were a number of factors that worked in his favour. A coincidence of time and place, and prevailing local and international political, diplomatic and economic circumstances, all these factors, and more, have probably lead to him gaining more votes than would otherwise be the case.
However, one aspect that I still find quite curious has been that, for some media outlets, the biggest differentiator between the candidates was that the more moderate candidate, believed in a less strict dress code.
Now call me old fashioned, but I wouldn't have thought that the prospect of being denied a less strict dress code would be a catalyst for a revolution in support of popular democracy, eh?
Print | posted on Monday, June 22, 2009 2:25 PM