|
“Ahmadi Bye Bye, Rowhani Hi Hi”
So I just ordered crow for dinner. I was wrong with my Iran election prediction. While I expected that Hassan Rowhani would get the highest vote count in the first round of the election, I did not expect him to get over 50 % and thereby win outright. I had expected 35+% for Rowhani and 25%+ for Ghalibaf. Rowhani won with 50.76% and Ghalibaf conceded after having reached only some 16.56% of the votes. The total voter turnout was 72.7%. Rowhani will be inaugurated as president on August 3 2013.
I take some consolation in that fact that I was not as wrong as the Washington Post editors:
Mr. Rouhani, who has emerged as the default candidate of Iran’s reformists, will not be allowed to win.
Or as wrong as the Israeli-Iranian expert Meir Javedanfar
[I]t is safe to say that moderate candidate Hassan Rowhani has no chance of success. There is little doubt that Mr Rowhani and the Stanford educated reformist Mohammad Reza Aref are far more popular than the conservative candidates. However, the supreme leader would not allow votes in their favour to be counted.
As I have maintained all long: Iran is a democracy, the Supreme Leader is not a dictator and in Iran the votes do count.
So who is Hussein Rowhani (Rouhani/Rohani)?
While he had the support of the “reformists” Rowhani is a centrist who has for a long time been a top politician:
Few question the revolutionary credentials of the mid-level Shi’ite cleric, who was active in the opposition that toppled the Shah in 1979. He remains on the security council and is also on the Expediency Council and the Assembly of Experts, two eminent advisory bodies in Iran’s multi-tiered power structure.
Rohani boasts military experience through prominent roles in Iran’s 1980-88 war with Iraq, including as commander of national air defense, according to his official biography.
He has, however, maintained a centrist outlook shared with former president Rafsanjani, a close ally.
Rowhani is a cleric and studied jurisdiction in Qom and Glasgow where he also received a PhD. He speaks fluently English, Arabic and Farsi as well as some German, French and Russian. He has written many books and articles.
Rowhani was the chief negotiator on the nuclear issue between 2003 and 2005. In a 2006 Time magazine piece he defended Iran’s nuclear program and warned:
Could it be that the extremists all around see their interests — however transient, domestic and short-sighted — in heightened tension and crisis? This situation, if not contained with cool head and if miscalculations continue, can easily turn into a crisis with potentially global ramifications for the rule of law under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and for the economic and security interests of all concerned in the region and beyond. It is high time to cease sensationalism and war mongering, pause and think twice about where we are heading.
Rowhani did not like how the Ahmedinjad government handled the nuclear issue. While he wholeheartedly defended that program he urged, mostly for economic reasons, for a more conciliatory approach in the negotiations.
In a interesting 2005 speech on his own nuclear negotiations, which was analyzed here (pdf), he clearly pointed out that the whole conflict with the “west” is about much more than the nuclear issues:
The speech also sheds light on how Iran perceives the various key players involved in the crisis: the United States, the EU3, Russia, and China. The American goal is to bring Iran to the Security Council based on the nuclear issue.
But Rohani perceives the United States as having a broader agenda. “We would not come out of the UN Security Council with only a solution to the nuclear case. They intend to raise all of their issues, such as the Middle East, terrorism, and the rest, there.”
There is more from and on Rowhani and the negotiations here and here.
Rowhani will be socially as liberal as Ahmedinejad was. But will probably have less conflicts with the conservatives within the political system. We do not yet know what his economic priorities are or how he will implement them. As he is near to Rafsanjani he may be less social-democratic than Ahmedinejad and go for less redistribution. He is likely to be more conciliatory in the negotions about the nuclear issue, something the Israel-firster hawks who want war already fear, but he can be expected to not give in to the outsized demands the U.S. has put on the table.
My congratulations and best wishes to Hassan Rowhani and to the Iranian people.
Juan Moment (88)
from where I am standing your airy fairy musings on “freedom” have little to do with Iran hardly being a lighthouse shining the way when it comes to human rights.
Human rights neither is the only relevant issue nor the only relevant measure. You are free, of course, to choose any issue of your liking to measure a state. You are not free, however, to limit others to your choice.
Iran is a lighthouse and a source of hope in many respects.
One is that Iran shows that religion, saecular views, and democracy *can* go together. Another more important one is that a country *can* say “Thanks, no” to the zio/zusa establishment and can not only survive but actually thrive in many areas.
A country where people are executed in public does not qualify as a source of hope. Unless of course you get into seeing dead people tangling from cranes, which you may well do. I for my part don’t.
This statement of yours is a double betrayal. First it plays the “find 1 bad thing to condemn a whole system” game. Second, Irans opponents are killing in many more diverse and usually dirty ways. Furthermore the executions in Iran, as ugly as executions are anyway, are based on court rulings which again are based on law. That’s something important and something one can not say of israel und zusa.
Regarding your views on 400 ordinary folks randomly selected not being as wise as 400 elected party hacks out to ride the taxpayer gravy train, I have my doubts. Actually, I say bullshit.
So what? That’s not what I said anyway. I agree that it’s bullshit for the major part, but then, it’s bullshit you invented.
It seems you and I have a fundamentally different idea of what politicians are meant to be. In my mind their job is to represent the people, not lead them. Big difference.
Indeed. And one of the built-in shortcomings of western democracies.
You fail to explain *why* it’s important to represent people as well as who should lead.
Let me help out.
Peoples representation is indeed very desirable. For one simple and evident purpose: Whoever leads needs, unless he wants to run a tyranny, to know what the people want and need. And indeed, in that regard a group of citizens chosen by hazard is a better way to establish that important element of state governance than by selecting from a strongly biased pool of, say, bankers and the like.
But there is an important point you don’t adress: represent to whom?
But there’s still the question “who rules?” (and how). For this many important preconditions are to be met (which the vast majority of citizens do not meet).
The solution of the problem you mean (but fail) to adress is not different or new ways of selecting representatives. The solution is to make sure that those representatives are listend to and listened to respectfully – and – to have a mechanism in place to, if necessary, enforce that.
The required mechanisms therefore are not or only to a small degree changes in the selections of peoples representatives (although the proposed “lotto” system would quite probably be an improvement). The required mechanisms would be more along the line of giving the people more direct influence where desired and technically feasible and, very importantly, to give the citizens a tool like “un-electing” politicians.
Another extremely important step would be to break and abolish party systems. We have seen again and again that those systems develop a high dynamic of their own, leading to many undesirable and undemocratic issues such as politicians being more loyal to their party than to their constituents up to the point of making parliamentary proceedings and votings a farce.
And again it can be seen that Iran actually is way in front of fukuz. Unlike in most western democracies Iranians have a chance to vote for politicians and ideas rather than parties and representatives who again the vote (or simply deal) – often very differently – for other representatives or leaders. Furthermore, unlike in zusa, an Iranian president can not be simply baught.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jun 18 2013 2:51 utc | 90
@ATH
”And it sounds like you are aiming at delegitimizing the system of governance in Iran as much as you can.”
In my comments regarding Iran and its elections I try to stick by facts. I don’t try to fit the facts into my worldview, on the contrary I let facts lead me to whatever conclusion is logical. And I recommend the same approach to everyone. Now which one of the facts that I have given do you disagree with? Kindly count my facts with which you disagree.
“but based on the facts, not ideology, under the current circumstances, it is resiliently showing a great deal of backing by its citizens. ”
As I reminded you before in my previous comment, I do not dispute the fact that the majority of Iranians do not have a major problem with the system of the Islamic Republic. So I am not sure why you feel the necessity to repeat it.
By the way, the fact that you may have the backing of the majority of your citizens, does not mean that the system is admirable. Having the majority’s support is necessary but not sufficient. Hitler’s coalition with DNVP had majority’s support (turnout 71.6%), voter turnout in Turkey in 1983, under the junta of Kenan Evren, with extremely heavy restrictions on political parties was more than 75%. This Erdogan character has had his last election with a turnout of more than 85%. I can go on, but I think I have already made myself clear.
”As for the disqualification of Rafsanjani and Mashayi, and all others, this was based on the existing rules of the election process and had nothing illegal”
Which rules? GC does not give any reason for its decisions regarding disqualifications. Just so that you can see what I mean, our good host ‘b’ believes that Rafsanjani was disqualified due to his “age”. Mr. Kadkhodaei did not mention anything regarding “age” but rather he “>http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/May-22/217940-iran-bars-rafsanjani-mashaei-from-election.ashx#axzz2TvGrdVIH”> said:
”The spokesman for the Guardian Council, Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, said Monday that candidates who were limited in their physical abilities would be barred, a comment that was widely seen as aimed at Rafsanjani.”
Interestingly Mr. Khamenei (with a handicapped arm) only 5 years junior of Mr. Rafsanjani is qualified to hold the position of Supreme leader. And Mr. Rafsanjani himself is not too old to hold the position of the head of the expediency council. But he may be too old for being the president.
Mr. Mohammad Marandi speculates (the same link):
“I think one of the most important arguments that’s being put forward against him (ie. Rafsanjani) is that four years ago he and his supporters questioned the validity of the presidential results, to say the least,”
There is also the MP, Mr. Tavakkoli, who “>http://www.rajanews.com/detail.asp?id=158123”> is not sure that based on what reason the decision was made against Rafsanjani:
“What was the most important reason for the disqualification of Ayatollah Hashemi? Letter of the law or political expediency? Kadkhodaei (the speaker of the GC) last night said that GC will follow the law and regime’s high expediency. The decision for the disqualification of Ayatollah (Rafsanjani) was based on which type of reasoning? The letter of the law or the high expediency?”
So based on what Mr. Tavakkoli’s quote from Kadkhodaei (ie. The speaker for GC), quite contrary to what you think the disqualifications don’t have to necessarily be based on the letter of the law, they could also be based on the high expediency of the regime as well!! (LOL…so much for the rule of law, huh?)
And of course then there is also the case for Rahim Mashaei. Our own ‘b’ says that he should not have been disqualified.
“>http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/May-22/217940-iran-bars-rafsanjani-mashaei-from-election.ashx#axzz2TvGrdVIH”> Mr. Marandi thinks otherwise. Marandi speculates (what else can anyone do other than speculation, GC doesn’t have to give out any reason for its decisions!):
“He’s not a political heavyweight, he’s never had a high ranking official position, meaning for example as a government minister…But I think most importantly what would lead to his disqualification is the fact that he and the president used government funding for his unofficial campaign in numerous provinces and in Tehran over the past two or three months. And that definitely goes against the spirit of the law,”
Now I know what the letter of the law means, and Mr. Kadkhodaei also said the letter of the law, but I am not sure what “spirit of the law” means in this case.
And of course there is also Ayatollah Moemen who is one of the GC members who “>http://khabaronline.ir/detail/286329/”> said as early as mid April 2013 that:
”Have no doubt that if we so much as smell “deviance” from a candidate, that we will disqualify him.”
Of course “deviance” means only Mashaei and co; that is common knowledge. So in essence Ayatollah Moemen has already given the reason for Mashaei’s disqualification (and I think being a member of the GC he is a hell of a lot more qualified than Mr. Marandi)
So As you can see Brazil and Spain did not lose their qualification games nor did they cheat! It was deviance and the high expediency of the regime (read that as doing ones best to secure a principlist victory) which was the reason, not the letter of the law.
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jun 18 2013 7:12 utc | 95
|
