Dashed Hopes in Iran

By Shaul Bakhash

Published February 27, 2004, issue of February 27, 2004.
  • Print
  • Share Share

Only a few years ago Iran appeared to be on the cusp of fundamental democratic transformation. The 1997 landslide victory of President Mohammad Khatami had ushered in an era of expanding social freedoms and increasingly open political debate. Then, in 2000, a coalition of reformist parties won a working majority in parliamentary elections, promising to build on President Khatami’s accomplishments by expanding civil liberties, curbing the excesses of the judiciary and security agencies and promoting greater transparency of state institutions.

Those days of hopeful anticipation could not seem more distant. Last week’s controversial parliamentary elections — in which conservative forces won by excluding almost all reformist candidates from the ballot — dash reformist hopes of using the political process to liberalize Iran, at least for the foreseeable future.

The conservatives’ victory is the culmination of a four-year campaign of repression mounted in response to the 2000 parliamentary elections. Conservatives, led by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, used their control over the judiciary, police, and security and paramilitary forces to block reform at every turn. Dozens of newspapers and magazines were shut down. Editors and investigative journalists were put on trial and sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Khatami’s own interior minister, responsible for licensing new political parties and professional associations, was forced out of office, then tried and imprisoned. Several prominent intellectuals were killed — as was eventually revealed — by agents of the intelligence ministry.

At the same time, the judiciary appropriated new powers to arrest and prosecute individuals for their views and writings, and the constitution was interpreted in egregious ways to expand the powers of the supreme leader and the Council of Guardians, a body dominated by senior clerics that can veto laws passed by parliament and disqualify candidates for elected office. It was the Council of Guardians that made possible last week’s conservative electoral sweep by disqualifying hundreds of candidates, including 87 sitting reformist legislators and more than 120 other prominent reformist candidates. In response more than 100 members of parliament staged a four-week sit-in, 125 handed in their resignations and the largest reformist party eventually voted to boycott the elections — all to no avail.

The conservatives now have a clear majority in the new parliament and will set the legislature’s political agenda for the next four years. Moreover, they are expected to complete their domination of the government by winning back the presidency in 2005. Khatami cannot run for a third term, and the reformists lack an equally charismatic figure to lead them. The Council of Guardians is unlikely to allow reformists it has already barred from parliament to stand for the presidency.

Conservatives probably will fail to roll back the freedoms that women and the young have won in matters of dress, intermixing of the sexes, social mores and choosing the films they wish to watch or music they wish to play. But major changes are to be expected in the political sphere.

A likely bloc of between 50 and 60 reformist deputies in the new parliament may be vociferous in their opposition to the conservatives, but they will lack their most prominent and able leaders. Moreover, the voice they provided in the current parliament to protest restrictions on the press, arrests of journalists and intellectuals, and the excesses of the judiciary, security agencies and Council of Guardians will be far weaker. The main reformist parties outside parliament will probably face further restrictions on their activities, as will the press. Even as the votes were being counted, two of the remaining reformist newspapers were shut down.

While the latest elections may have dealt a knockout blow to the reformists, the response of the public has been muted. Disillusioned by the maneuverings of conservatives, weak reformist leadership and missed opportunities, many Iranians had already given up on the hope that the political process would bring about a transformation of the regime.

When hope for reform, freedom and accountable government was high in the period from 1997 to 2001, voter participation in parliamentary and presidential elections averaged 67%. By contrast, the turnout for this election — around 50% nationwide — was low by the standard of recent Iranian elections. In Tehran and some other major cities last week, no more than 30% of eligible voters cast ballots.

Growing voter indifference to the political process provides the conservatives with some breathing space. But indifference could easily turn to anger if the conservatives fail to create jobs and the vibrant economy they promise or if they intrude again on the private lives of Iranians. It is too early to tell if the pragmatic centrists in the conservative camp will prevail over the hard-liners who, given room, would severely restrict the political space and tamper further with the constitution.

At present, the Iranian public is quiescent. Having experienced the terrible upheavals and disappointments of one revolution, Iranians prefer that change be orderly. But stability can prove fleeting when the citizenry feels alienated from its government and is cut off from any means of redress.

The conservatives would do well to heed the lessons of recent Iranian history. A quarter-century ago, Iranians lacked a political outlet to articulate discontent. The press was muzzled, parliament a rubber stamp and real political parties non-existent. The result was the revolution that brought down the Shah and created the Islamic Republic. It was the third time in the 20th century that Iranians took to the streets and seriously challenged governments that were arrogant in their exercise of power and unresponsive to public opinion. If the conservatives ignore the Iranian people’s hunger for change, they may eventually be in for a rude awakening as well.

Find us on Facebook!
  • "I’ve never bought illegal drugs, but I imagine a small-time drug deal to feel a bit like buying hummus underground in Brooklyn."
  • We try to show things that get less exposed to the public here. We don’t look to document things that are nice or that people would like. We don’t try to show this place as a beautiful place.”
  • A new Gallup poll shows that only 25% of Americans under 35 support the war in #Gaza. Does this statistic worry you?
  • “You will stomp us into the dirt,” is how her mother responded to Anya Ulinich’s new tragicomic graphic novel. Paul Berger has a more open view of ‘Lena Finkle’s Magic Barrel." What do you think?
  • PHOTOS: Hundreds of protesters marched through lower Manhattan yesterday demanding an end to American support for Israel’s operation in #Gaza.
  • Does #Hamas have to lose for there to be peace? Read the latest analysis by J.J. Goldberg.
  • This is what the rockets over Israel and Gaza look like from space:
  • "Israel should not let captives languish or corpses rot. It should do everything in its power to recover people and bodies. Jewish law places a premium on pidyon shvuyim, “the redemption of captives,” and proper burial. But not when the price will lead to more death and more kidnappings." Do you agree?
  • Slate.com's Allison Benedikt wrote that Taglit-Birthright Israel is partly to blame for the death of American IDF volunteer Max Steinberg. This is why she's wrong:
  • Israeli soldiers want you to buy them socks. And snacks. And backpacks. And underwear. And pizza. So claim dozens of fundraising campaigns launched by American Jewish and Israeli charities since the start of the current wave of crisis and conflict in Israel and Gaza.
  • The sign reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances.”
  • Is Twitter Israel's new worst enemy?
  • More than 50 former Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the current ground operation in #Gaza.
  • "My wife and I are both half-Jewish. Both of us very much felt and feel American first and Jewish second. We are currently debating whether we should send our daughter to a Jewish pre-K and kindergarten program or to a public one. Pros? Give her a Jewish community and identity that she could build on throughout her life. Cons? Costs a lot of money; She will enter school with the idea that being Jewish makes her different somehow instead of something that you do after or in addition to regular school. Maybe a Shabbat sing-along would be enough?"
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?

We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.