A lively contest—but will it matter?

Jun 17th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda

Mostafa Moin, a leading reformist, is putting up a strong challenge to Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the conservative front-runner in Iran’s presidential election. But whoever wins, it is unclear if Friday’s vote will change the way the Islamic Republic is run

ALL the campaign razzamatazz in the final days of Iran’s presidential election campaign might lead a casual observer to conclude that the nation has become the sort of liberal and pluralist democracy that George Bush wants to see across the Middle East. Tehran’s streets thronged with supporters of the various candidates; cars blared out campaign songs; there were even roller-blading girls handing out leaflets. Television stations screened slick, Hollywoodised propaganda slots, while coverage on state-run broadcasters was reasonably even-handed. What is more, it was far from certain which of the contenders—ranging from hardliners to liberals—would win. On polling day, Friday June 17th, the authorities extended voting by several hours, saying this was due to “massive participation”. Some hours before the close, an official told the French News Agency that about 55% of voters had already turned out—though there was no independent confirmation of this.

Iran today is indeed a less stiflingly repressive place than it was in the early years following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, in which a pro-western monarchy was swept away by puritanical Shia Muslim clerics who despised America—“the Great Satan”. Young Iranians have rather more freedom in how they dress in public, in their contact with the opposite sex and in the music they enjoy.

However, it has seemed increasingly clear during the two terms in office of the current, moderately reformist president, Muhammad Khatami, that for all the outward signs of democracy, ultimate power continues to rest with the mullahs—in particular the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Time and again, President Khatami saw his liberalising laws passed by the elected parliament, only for them to be overruled by the unelected Council of Guardians, a hardline group of clerics and Islamic jurists.

So it is unclear how much will really change, whoever wins the presidency this time. Opinion polls suggest that the front-runner is Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a conservative former president (1989-97) regarded as the second most powerful figure in the land after the Supreme Leader himself. Mr Rafsanjani has reinvented himself as a cautious reformer who would liberalise Iran’s economy and improve relations with America. But he may not gain the 50% of votes cast that he needs to avoid a run-off.

Of his six rival candidates, Mr Rafsanjani has faced strong challenges from two quite different characters: Muhammad Ghalibaf, a former police chief with strong support in the Revolutionary Guards—the regime’s main enforcers—who is nevertheless painting himself as a moderniser; and Mostafa Moin, a liberal who defended students’ rights during a spell as higher-education minister.
Curiously, the Council of Guardians tried to ban Mr Moin from standing, only for Ayatollah Khamenei to overrule them and reinstate him. Mr Moin and his campaigners have made much more of a splash than had been expected, while Mr Ghalibaf has cut a dash with lavish campaign commercials, showing him piloting a plane. Despite his hardline past, Mr Ghalibaf is seen as having reined in the excesses of the often brutal police force—in particular during pro-democracy protests in 2002-03.

As for the religious hardliners, they may now be regretting not uniting around one candidate, since none of the three remaining hardliners in the race has done well. The worst case for them would be a run-off between the liberal Mr Moin and the independent-minded Mr Rafsanjani, the candidate most able to challenge the ayatollahs. Some suspect that bombs in Tehran and elsewhere in the final days of the campaign, which killed several people, were the work of conservatives trying to scare voters from the polls; but the various attacks may in fact have unrelated causes.

In a country whose minimum voting age is 15 and where half of the 67m population is under 25, the main candidates have been keen to demonstrate that they understand young Iranians’ frustration at their lack of personal freedoms and gloomy job prospects. However, young voters’ enthusiasm for change is tempered by their scepticism that changing the president will really change the country. Many are expected to stay away from the polls.

The issue that most interests the outside world is Iran’s apparent attempts to learn the techniques for making nuclear bombs, and America’s determination to stop this. On Thursday an official of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran had admitted it continued trying to produce plutonium until 1998, having earlier claimed to have stopped doing so in 1993. (The Iranians later quibbled with this, saying they had not significantly changed their story.) Iran continues to resist the IAEA’s demands to let inspectors have full access to its nuclear installations. But none of the main presidential candidates has dared to antagonise the Supreme Leader by calling for an end to Iran’s nuclear defiance. Indeed, they barely mentioned the issue during the campaign, regarding it as too hot to handle.

Besides the nuclear issue, Iran’s international isolation is reinforced by its support for Islamist terror groups and its failure to back the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Though it is unclear if Mr Rafsanjani would, overall, be as much of a reformist as he now claims to be, he has long argued for an improvement in relations with America—and many in the West see him as the only candidate with the clout to persuade the Supreme Leader to agree to such a rapprochement.

The next Turkey? Or Ukraine? Or maybe North Korea?

With growth faltering, unemployment officially at 11% (the true figure may be almost twice as high) and inflation at 14%, the economy is the issue that most concerns Iranians. Since the Islamic Revolution, statist Iran has been greatly overtaken by liberalising Turkey, its big rival to the north-west. Freeing Iranians’ entrepreneurial spirit and making it easier for foreign firms to invest in the country’s colossal oil reserves would do more to improve the lot of its citizens than building nuclear bombs. Mr Rafsanjani and Mr Ghalibaf have talked of privatising inefficient state firms but, once again, whoever wins the presidency would face fierce resistance from the clergy.

Some Iranians see signs of an unstoppable popular desire for liberty, and dream of a Ukrainian-style revolution to free their country from the mullahs’ grip. The more pessimistic fear a drift towards becoming the next North Korea—a regime that brandishes nuclear weapons at the outside world while its people slide into penury. For all the recent signs of liberalisation, the clerical regime is determined to hang on and can still crush its opponents with impunity. Even if the successful presidential candidate is sincere in his promises of reform, he may have no more success than the hapless Mr Khatami in wresting power from the theocrats.

Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.