Ahmadinejad's re-election

The outside world had been keenly awaiting the result of last Friday's presidential election in Iran to assess the prospects of the winning candidate striking an understanding with President Barack Obama who has brought fresh hope for change in policy in dealing with the country that the US and the West suspect of clandestinely pursuing nuclear ambition. In that context, the outcome - victory for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or his main rival, former Prime Minister Mirhossein Mousavi - was being reckoned as a decisive factor. In the United States the re-election of President Ahmadinejad, which is being disputed by the Mousavi group, has been viewed from two entirely different perspectives. The hardliners, favouring the imposition of stricter sanctions on Iran without losing any more time on the ground that delay would help it move closer to the goal of producing the bomb, see Ahmadinejad's victory as a welcome sign. His victory makes the issues clear, as under him the Iranian stand on uranium enrichment, perception of Israel and ties with Hezbollah and Hamas have been quite well known and there is little likelihood of a shift. Thus with Ahmadinejad as President, the US and the West would be able to move quickly from the present stage, tightening sanctions or taking whatever other action they deemed necessary if, as expected, Iran sticks to its present stand. In the view of these observers, Mousavi's election would have left the US in unnecessary suspense about a possible shift in Iranian policies and valuable time would have been lost in reaching a definite conclusion. There would have been the hope that a moderate President might be able to exercise enough influence with the conservative religious lobby to make concessions to the West. Mousavi would like to have an opening with the West and, therefore, would be better for the West to deal with. On the other hand, some US and Western circles have been upset by the re-election of an aggressive exponent of Iran's national interests, particularly, in continuing to enrich uranium, their principal security concern. As it is, Ahmadinejad romped home easily obtaining 62.63 percent of the votes cast. A record 85 percent of eligible voters went to the polling booths after an intense election campaign lasting several weeks. Mr Mousavi, the runner-up who ended up with the support of 33.75 percent of voters, has, however, hotly disputed the result, claiming that victory has been stolen from him by the authorities through practising "fraud", not making sufficient number of ballot papers available at certain key polling stations and even preventing his supporters from exercising their right to vote. Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei forwarded his petition against rigging and for a re-run of the election to the Guardian Council, which has expressed its readiness to have a recount done. According to the indications available, Mousavi and the other two defeated candidates are insisting on election to be held afresh, which is hardly a possibility. Angry supporters of Mousavi came out on the streets, but the police used brutal force to quell the "illegal" outpouring. The result: seven protesters dead and many more injured. There is little doubt that liberal Mousavi was able to inspire the younger generations that it was time for the country to change the conservative, restrictive approach to life as well as relations with foreign countries. The Iranian polity lacks certain basic democratic credentials, as they are generally understood. The country has regularly held parliamentary and presidential elections but the Guardian Council has the constitutional power to vet the candidates for their suitability to stand. Its veto renders a large number of candidates ineligible, which is a negation of democratic principles. Acts passed by Parliament could simply be thrown out of the window by the Guardian Council. The press does not enjoy much freedom, as is evident from the fact that the authorities did not allow Mousavi's paper, Kalemeh Sabz, to hit the news-stands because it carried his claim of having won the election. President Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, enjoyed overwhelming support of the rural areas and the poor; for, like them, he lived a simple life. Besides, a huge number of government officials are reported to have voted for him. The surprise and frustration that some political and media circles in the US expressed at Ahmadinejad's re-election carry some bitter lessons. First, in case they assessed from the election campaign that liberal-minded Mousavi would carry the day, they remain as ignorant of the mood of the people of Iran today as they were when the Shah's regime was tottering on its last legs. The inveterate hostility against Tehran's policies that President Bush and his hawkish team never failed to spew out could not have turned the Iranian people against a leader who stood up against them and, indeed, responded to them in equal measure. Secondly, in case the US and Western allies thought that Mirhossein Mousavi or, for that matter, another moderate leader could be brought round to roll back the uranium enrichment programme through a negotiated deal, under pressure of sanctions or under threats of military action, they simply failed to realise that the national sentiment would not permit it. The orchestrated opposition to Tehran's cherished peaceful nuclear ambition had hardened the resolve of the Iranian people not to give up their right recognised under international law (the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). Thirdly, there is the ground reality of the Iranian constitutional system that leaves it to the supreme leader and the Guardian Council to make decisions about key areas of the country's policies. The President has little role in altering Iran's present stand on uranium enrichment. At best, Mousavi would have stopped referring to the Holocaust and Ahmadinejad's prognosis about Israel's destruction. However, there is a ray of hope in President Obama's address to the Muslim world when he said that Iran had the "right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty" in case 'access to peaceful nuclear power' somehow could be interpreted to include the right to enrich uranium. E-mail: mqkay@yahoo.co.uk