 |
Former Iranian Prime Minister and reformist candidate for Iranian presidential elections Mirhossein Mousavi. (Reuters Photo) |
Mirhossein Mousavi’s announcement of his candidacy for president in the election set for June 12 has saved the Iranian political scene from a certain stalemate that could have jeopardized the whole system.
It is not the first time that the possibility of Mousavi running for president becomes the subject of much debate; it happened at the elections of Khatami’s two terms as well as those of Ahmadinejad. However, he used to decline each time despite the welcome many political factions gave to his candidacy.
Mousavi, attributed his decisiveness this time to his conviction that Iran’s current state is a deviation from the country’s original revolutionary path. The successive governments, according to him, did not jeopardize the principles of the Islamic Revolution despite their erroneous policies because the political context allowed correcting mistakes.
Nevertheless, Mousavi believes that the current situation is unacceptable; the Iranian people are being deceived by wrong statistics, and economic conditions are deteriorating.
That is what Mousavi himself believes. However, a closer look at the developments on the Iranian political scene reveals the fact that Mousavi’s candidacy came as a solution for the political stagnation Iran has been witnessing.
Ahmadinejad has refused to listen to the advice of any of his assistants, changing his ministers quickly and randomly. His monopoly over decision-making extended to include economic policies, which was reflected in his refusal to listen to economic experts, even the Conservative ones.
Thus, Iran has been waiting for the coming election with a strong conviction that the country’s stalemate cannot be solved without changing the political leadership.
Ahmadinejad Alone in the Race
The Conservatives’ criticism of Ahmadinejad increased after the last parliamentary election, culminating in the decision to withdraw their support for him in the upcoming presidential election. The Reformist supporters of Mehdi Karroubi and his party, the National Trust (Etemad-e Melli), did the same thing.
However, Karroubi – with his well-known diplomacy and decency – did not fall in the trap of attacking Ahmadinejad or the principles he advocates directly. Also, Karroubi did not engage himself in the debate on the dilemma of the Islamism and republicanism of the system, or criticize the Guardianship of the Jurist theory.
| Strange enough, most Conservatives do not detest Khatami. |
All this did not please liberal Reformists, who aspire for more than what is allowed in the Islamic Republic and repose a lot of hope in Muhammad Khatami, who announced his candidacy as a result of their pressure.
In the midst of these developments, Mousavi had remained silent as usual until events started to escalate as Conservatives threatened to support Ahmadinejad in the election with all the power they had if Khatami insisted on running for president.
Strange enough, most Conservatives do not detest Khatami; however, they claim that he is surrounded by hypocrites who do not believe in the principles of the Islamic Republic.
Conservatives made it clear that they would never forget how Iran looked like under the rule of Reformists, and how the the country deviated from the revolutionary path paved by the blood of Iranian people.
Khatami declared that he would not repeat his past mistakes, and that he had rearranged his political agenda. Yet, his statements fell on deaf ears, changing nothing about the Conservatives’ stance.
In a striking development, Kayhan, a Conservative newspaper, warned Khatami off running for president because he might be assassinated. Hossein Shariatmadari, Kayhan’s editor-in-chief and one of the Supreme Leader’s advisors, justified the warning by claiming that extreme liberals might use Khatami to ascend to power then turn against him.
Iran on the Brink of a Political Crisis
Regardless of the intentions of the newspaper, the message was clear and it became obvious that Iran is teetering on the brink of a political crisis.
| Mousavi’s decision to run for president, seems to be the last solution for the Islamic Republic’s political bankruptcy... |
Conservatives will not accept to be part of a peaceful political game in which they might lose some of what they have achieved in previous municipal, parliamentary, and presidential elections. They are not ready to sacrifice the power they have obtained, given that their Reformists competitors are more experienced and competitive now.
The possibility of one side ascending to power and refusing to give it up willingly is keeping both political factions skeptical of each other. And a monopoly over power by any of the two sides will bring the situation to the point of explosion.
That is the real threat to the Revolution and its principles according to Mousavi.
Thus, Mousavi’s decision to run for president, which was accompanied by Khatami’s decision to withdraw his candidacy, seems to be the last solution for the Islamic Republic’s political bankruptcy, and its inability to find a middle ground between its two main political factions.
Political Stagnation
How did the Iranian system reach such a state of stagnation? Finding an answer to this question requires going back in history.
Since its establishment, the Iranian system has been occupied by its survival. Perhaps the Sufi background of its founder made him a strong believer in the idea that the collapse of any system is eventual; therefore, he tried hard to find ways to fortify the system and elongate its life, creating a number of strongly connected decision-making centers, and a unique power-sharing system.
And despite internal and external challenges that could have crippled some of the most stable governments in the world, the institutional framework drawn by Ayatollah Khomeini was able to protect the system.
Thus, on the practical level, the system seems to be quite strong; however, the theory on which the Islamic system in Iran was established has been suffering from a number of cracks. The theoretical problem continued to aggravate over the years, reaching a level that cannot be ignored.
In this context, Mousavi’s candidacy can be viewed as a nostalgic move that aims at reminding people of the challenges the Revolution faced during its early years, and at creating a state of national unity.
During the early 17 years of the system’s life, the burdens of war and reconstruction did not allow people to discuss the system’s philosophy. However, the ascendance of Reformists to power put the system’s philosophical basis under question, and pushed people to express doubts about its claimed infallibility.
Perhaps that is what brought Reformists to power in the first place.
Islamism or Republicanism
The main problem with the system’s philosophy revolved around the nature of the relationship between citizens and the government, an issue that has been extensively discussed in the Iranian political literature.
| Khamenei saw that the probability of a clash occurring between Conservatives and Reformists was increasing. |
The outcome of the debate at best, however, has been discussing the issue with more courage, and using terms that were unacceptable before. So, some Iranians have started to question whether their civil and political rights are gifts from the Jurist responsible for guiding the Shiite community till the return of the Occulted Imam, or alienable rights. In this social and political contexts, liberals emerged on the political scene again.
At the same time, the political arena witnessed the appearance of another political force that started calling for the belief in what is known as the Absolute Guardianship of the Jurist, and for making it one of the cornerstones of the Islamic system.
That theory deals with political rights as a gift from the Supreme Leader, and poses him as an everlasting destiny rather than an elected leader. Thus, it makes the Supreme Leader the source of authority.
In the midst of that debate, Ayatollah Khamenei remained silent, and he did not express his support for any of the two sides.
Yet, he reacted by changing his title from the Revolution’s Guide to the Owner of the High Position for Guidance. His name should not be mentioned after his new title as an indication of the need to deal with him on the basis of his legal personality (i.e. his position).
Being the person responsible for the system’s survival, Khamenei saw that the probability of a clash occurring between Conservatives and Reformists was increasing, especially after the failure of the Expediency Council to create a balance between the parliament – which is controlled by Reformists, and the Council of Guardians – which is controlled by Conservatives.
The situation escalated to a level at which both sides ignored national interest, and focused only on delivering blows to each other. Therefore, it was necessary for the Supreme Leader to find a solution, which turned out to be Ahmadinejad.
Resurrecting the Past
Ahmadinejad raised the slogans of social justice and revolutionary ideals, which was appealing to the Iranian masses. Also, the ultra-conservative president promised to improve the economic conditions of the low-middle class. The revolutionary slogans were enough for people to rally behind him in the search for an escape from the Reformists’ economic failure, and their insistence on using a rhetoric that appealed only to intellectuals and liberals.
Also, Ahmadinejad was an escape from Construction Cadres known for their infrastructure projects and big business deals that did not benefit common people much.
| Ahmadinejad’s ultra-orthodox allies were about to be defeated in parliamentary elections if it was not for the promises he made... |
It is important to note that Iranians do not trust the capitalist economic policies of traditional Conservatives and their allies – the bazaar merchants, which could have caused an economic disaster long time ago if it was not for social welfare.
All this provided Ahmadinejad with a historic chance to direct the Iranian system towards a new phase.
However, after ascending to power, Ahmadinejad ignored traditional Conservatives on purpose. But he had then to achieve social and economic successes in order not to need their support, which did not happen.
Ahmadinejad’s ultra-orthodox allies were about to be defeated in parliamentary elections if it was not for the promises he made during his visit to Qom to traditional Conservatives to abide by the rules of the political game, and to share power with them.
Ahmadinejad was given a second chance; the result of his visit was defeating the Conservative alliance led by Larijani, Ghulam Ali Haddad Adel, and Qalebaf.
However, Ahmadinejad’s performance remained below what was required by traditional Conservatives. As a result, he satisfied neither his allies, nor the Iranian people. Hence, many people are calling now for ousting him from power, and returning to the point where everything stopped four years ago: the attempt to find a middle ground between Reformists and Conservatives.
All this reflects the state of political bankruptcy Iran is witnessing, which is urging its leadership to attempt to resurrect the past to deal with a complicated problem that can jeopardize the whole system.
|
