 |
Men sit at an election campaign center in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's birth village of Aradan. (Reuters Photo) |
Iranians will go once again to the polls to choose the members of their next Majlis (parliament) in one of the most muted elections in the history of the Islamic Republic.
The Iranian Majlis is somehow different from most political representation bodies in the Middle East. Though the electoral process in most parts of the region is characterized by violence and repression, the Iranian parliamentary elections are conducted in a relatively free atmosphere.
Also, the potential members of the new Majlis are not expected to rubber-stamp the government’s decisions; rather, they are expected to exercise real influence on the process of monitoring the government’s performance as well as on other major issues.
The historical experience of the Islamic Majlis with regard to its relationship with the executive branch, mainly the president, has demonstrated the Majlis’ ability to pass certain laws and to curb others.
Yet, this does not mean that the Majlis enjoys a role comparable to that of parliament in Western democracies. The whole process – from the early days of the elections till the end of the Majlis’ term – is orchestrated to a great extent.
Candidates for parliamentary elections have to secure the approval of the Council of Guardians for their candidacy. It is important to note that the Council of Guardians has the authority to disqualify candidates for illegibility, enabling it to keep the whole electoral process under its tight control.
Claims of unfaithfulness to the principles of the Islamic Revolution, rejection of Vilayat-i Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist) theory, or personal non-commitment to religious rituals are enough ground for disqualifying a candidate - and perhaps other party members as well.
Also, laws passed by the Majlis must be approved by the Council of Guardians, which ensures that the laws passed by the Majlis are consistent with the Islamic shari’ah and the constitution.
The Council’s reading and interpretation of the constitution and the Islamic shari’ah as well as the issue of laws’ incompatibility with either or both have been the subject of many heated debates in the Islamic Republic, leading to the dismissal of many laws.
History of the Majlis
Since the early days of the Islamic Republic, parliamentary elections have been an important part of the political life in Iran. The number of candidates is usually in thousands while the number of parliament seats is 290 seats. Also, the polling day usually has a good turnout (with the exception of the last parliamentary elections).
Members’ backgrounds have changed throughout the years. The first Majlis was dominated by ulama (religious scholars); however, the make-up of the Majlis would change considerably during the following elections. People with technical and professional backgrounds started to emphasize their role both in society and politics, especially after the end of the Iran-Iraq war.
Members of the Majlis have always been predominantly people with pro- conservative orientations. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the debates that take place inside the Majlis, and the outcome that is usually colored by the difference in political orientations. Thus, the fact that, for most of its history, the Majlis has been dominated by Conservatives does not mean that the voice of other political forces is not heard.
The 2000-2004 Majlis was an exception in terms of its make-up since the majority of its members were Reformists, who represented back then a new trend in Iranian politics.
The fierce battle between Reformists and Conservatives inside and outside the Majlis has rendered the Reformist camp weak and vulnerable; the victims of that battle included the president, the cabinet, the press, several civil society organizations, and – most importantly – the faith in the Majlis’ ability to bring about change or to sustain a level of moderation in Iranian politics.
Iranian people’s disillusionment was clearly reflected in the 2004 parliamentary elections. The same thing can be said about the upcoming elections, which is generating little popular interest.
Some observers suggest that there is nothing special about the upcoming elections. The number of applicants is more than four thousand, 30 percent of whom – mostly Reformists – were disqualified by the Council of Guardians. With the help of Khatami, Rafsanjani, and Kurubi, Reformists managed to convince the Supreme Leader to allow some of the banned applicants to run for elections, but still the number did not meet the expectations of the Reformists.
Fears of a low turnout on the polling day has motivated politicians in both camps to call for popular participation, hoping that a high turnout can change the political formula.
Ignored Elections?
But, a closer look at the developments in the Iranian political arena can show that the upcoming election is different in many aspects.
Observers – both inside and outside Iran – show little interest in the election. It seems that the Iranian political scene has lost much of its glamour, which used to attract much attention regionally and internationally.
Previous elections enjoyed extensive coverage from both the Iranian and international media, which is not the case this time.
Ahmadinejad’s election three years ago, and the relative harmony between the seventh Majlis and the government have failed to achieve anything on the economic level. The president was unable to fulfill his promises of “bringing oil revenues to the Iranians’ food tables.” According to many economic indicators, living conditions in Iran have deteriorated.
The outside world does not seem to be much interested in Iranian politics anymore. External powers know that they will not be able to achieve what they are aspiring to regardless of the make-up of the new parliament: a breakthrough in the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. Decisions concerning the nuclear program issue are made somewhere else, a fact that the West has already realized.
Moreover, other hot spots in the region, such as Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine, are attracting much attention.
Elections’ Results
Being citizens of one of what are usually called “Third World countries,” Iranians are expected to base their electoral choices on factors that have nothing to do with rationality.
However, it can be argued that, most of the time, people’s choice, whether we agree with it or not, reflects a tendency to maintain an equilibrium in the political system and to send clear messages the people in leadership positions about the preferences of the majority.
Iranians are well-known for their ability to surprise observers; they chose the least likely of candidates to win in the 1997 presidential elections, and they changed the parliamentary majority in the 2000 elections.
Yet, the disillusionment with Reformist determined the outcome of the 2004 parliamentary elections. And when the message was not comprehended well by the Reformists, Iranians decided to send a clearer message by bringing Ahmadinejad to power.
Thus, it can be argued that, through the ballot box, Iranians still have the ability to have a strong voice in the debate on their deteriorating living conditions and their country’s foreign policy.
Most likely, on the polling day, Iranians will neither vote for the weakened, exhausted Reformists, nor for the Conservatives who failed to fulfill their economic promises.
The make-up of the new Majlis will probably reflect less commitment to ideological slogans – both on the Conservative and Reformist sides, and more commitment to addressing people’s pressing problems.
Such a formula can be achieved through a coalition of Conservative candidates and more moderate ones, a tendency that is reflected in the electoral lists that contain the names of well-known hardliners as well as those of moderate candidates.
|
