Published on June 21, 2005

Friday’s run-off vote in Iran offers a clear choice between an old-school hard-line conservative and a reluctant reformist

Last week’s presidential election in Iran, which failed to produce a majority-vote winner, will go into a run-off on Friday. Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a moderately conservative former president who has refashioned himself as a reluctant reformist, will face Mahmood Ahmadinejad, the ultra-conservative mayor of Tehran in what is expected to be the tightest electoral race in Iran’s history. The contest may not qualify as totally free and fair, but this democratic exercise held once every four years is the closest thing that Iranian voters are allowed by the all-powerful Council of Guardians, which presides over Iranian politics as supreme ruling body and sole arbiter of constitutional matters. But that doesn’t mean the outcome of the presidential election will count for little. It may be true that Iran’s home-grown reformist movement, which has been fighting for a pluralistic, liberal democracy, has long been frustrated by repressive theocratic conservative elements in the Council of Guardians. But the choice that Iranian voters will make in picking either Rafsanjani or Ahmadinejad as their new president will have serious implications both for Iran’s domestic politics and the country’s status as a key player in international politics.

The winner will replace current President Mohammad Khatami, who is required by the constitution to step down, having completed the maximum two consecutive four-year terms. Khatami, whose reform agenda has been consistently undermined by the Council of Guardians, dominated by ultra-conservative clerics and lawyers, will leave office with little to show for his sincere efforts to open Iran up politically, economically and socially.

But dwelling on their frustration is not an option for Iranian reformists. They have already been unpleasantly surprised by the unexpectedly poor showing of their prime candidate, Mostafa Moin, who came in fifth, and therefore did not make it to the second round. However, their main concern now is not to prove widespread doubt that the election may have been rigged, but to make up their mind whether to throw their support behind Rafsanjani.

The decision shouldn’t be too difficult to make. A win by Ahmadinejad is certain to roll back what precious little progress has been made during Khatami’s eight-year rule. Hard-earned freedoms, such as the gradually improved status of women and expanding range of individual’s rights, could be put in jeopardy.

On the other hand, a Rafsanjani presidency offers no guarantee that the reform agenda will make any meaningful headway as long as the repressive Council of Guardians, which continues to hold sway, refuses to become more flexible and responsive to Iranians’ democratic aspirations.

For the rest of the world, the most closely watched issue linked to the presidential election outcome is Iran’s widely suspected nuclear-weapon ambitions, which threatens to destabilise the Middle East. The international community’s fear that Iran could become another nuclear-armed rogue state is increased as Tehran continues to refuse to grant international inspectors full access to its nuclear facilities.

An Iran that is a sworn enemy of the US and Israel and controlled by mullahs who subscribe to extremist Islamic views, is a cause for worry to the international community. It is clear to Iranian candidates and voters that the country’s nuclear ambitions are too sensitive to discuss openly.

Rafsanjani, who served as president under late supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini during the early years of Iran’s revolutionary regime, has apparently abandoned his hard-line stance against the US and now advocates normalisation of ties with America. But if Khatami’s eight-year presidency was any indication, a Rafsanjani win would have little impact on the course of Iran’s foreign-policy posturing, which continues to be dictated by the Council of Guardians.

For the time being, any positive changes will occur in gradual increments and certainly not in a sudden spurt of democratic revolution like has been happening in some Central Asian and Middle Eastern countries of late. The best that anyone can hope for in the election is that citizens’ participation in the reformist movement will gradually lead to a more balanced and healthier interaction between broad-based democratic forces and the ultra-conservative Council of Guardians.

Post your comment to this story here