By Geneive Abdo
Middle East analyst, The Century Foundation

Four months before the Iranian presidential election, competing candidates and factions are already entering the race with great drama and fanfare. Unlike other recent elections, when Iranian voters were apathetic, thinking their vote could make little difference, the upcoming June 12 election is generating widespread public interest and debate. For many Iranians, the election will serve as a referendum on the tenure of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the policies of his conservative administration.

This election is also critical for Iran’s relations with the West. Recent overtures by U.S. President Barack Obama have made Iran’s leadership and the electorate optimistic that, even if diplomatic relations are not fully restored, at least the relationship with the United States will be less icy. Obama’s promise to talk to Iran without pre-conditions has left the political establishment aware that the selection of the next president will help shape the immediate future of U.S./Iranian relations.

With the stakes so high, familiar as well as new faces are entering the contest. There is no official campaign season in Iran, so contenders tend to announce their candidacies haphazardly, often months apart. Some potential candidates sat on the sidelines, waiting to see if Ahmadinejad would run for a second term. In late January, Ahmadinejad entered the race, signaling that he felt he had the support of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

At times, Khamenei has vacillated in his support for Ahmadinejad. He has openly criticized the dire state of the economy, which Ahmadinejd pledged to improve during his 2005 presidential campaign. Yet, despite harsh criticism from fellow conservatives and reformers alike, Khamenei has given Ahmadinejad the go ahead. Now, Ahmadinejad’s bid for another term is prompting his rivals, among them Iran’s struggling reformers, to put forth their strongest contenders.

No one is better placed to compete against Ahmadinejad than Seyyed Mohammed Khatami. There were months of speculation whether Khatami, the two-term former president, would risk another campaign. When he left office in 2005, Khatami’s initial popularity had declined significantly. Iranians believed he never delivered on the grand promises he made, including creating a free press, establishing the rule of law, and bringing Iran out of world isolation. But after four years of Ahmadinejad, the Iranian electorate is more pragmatic. Many have lowered their expectations of fundamental change in the political system and are willing to accept Khatami, despite the limitations his presidency might face. On February 8, Khatami finally announced that he would run to serve the desires of his supporters, positioning himself as the reluctant leader and champion of the reformists. His candidacy is already invigorating the political system, which is precisely the goal of Iran’s Supreme Leader.

Khamenei needs Khatami now just as he needed him in 1997. Khatami’s participation lends respectability to the election by offering a competitive and compelling race. He also is a reminder to the West that Iran’s political system is not monolithic, but rather consists of competing political and theological structures. After four years of an Ahmadinejad presidency, which reaffirmed the stereotype of Iran as an extremist, anti-American, anti-Israeli state, Khamenei knows he needs to present Iran’s gentler face.

While the Iranian regime wants to convince the world – and its own citizens – that its elections are free and fair, it would be a stretch to characterize them as such. The electoral process does not begin with the candidates’ announcements nor does it end at the ballot box. Whether a candidate throws his hat into the ring and whether he actually wins largely depends upon Ayatollah Khamenei and the Council of Guardians, a body of six clerics and six jurists appointed by the Supreme Leader. The Guardians will review the candidates who have nominated themselves to run for president and then approve a final slate of contenders. By law, the Guardians are required to state specific criteria for any candidate disqualifications, but more often than not ambiguous reasons are given, such as “lack of dedication to the Islamic republic.” Supreme Leader Khamenei has great influence over the decisions of the Guardian Council. Khatami previously stated that he would not run unless he had a guarantee that the Guardian Council would approve his candidacy; his declared candidacy indicates he has received the go ahead from Khamenei.

Pictured above: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (left), and former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami.

Now that it appears Khamenei and the Guardians have assured Khatami he will be placed on the final slate of candidates, the question is whether he will be allowed to win. Reformists inside Iran are predicting that he will need a large voter turnout – 70 or 80 percent of the electorate – to win if the election is fair. They think Khatami could beat Ahmadinejad by a margin of 2:1. But there are still no guarantees for Khatami that the regime will honor the election results.

In recent years, there have been complaints that the polls were manipulated, including charges the outcome was rigged at the voting booths. In 2005, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, who ran against Ahmadinejad, complained that pro-Ahmadinejad Basij paramilitaries manipulated the vote count to ensure his victory. Further, high-ranking commanders in the armed forces have used their influence to endorse candidates – a step that contravenes legal requirements that the state remain neutral. This election season is no different. On January 26th, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, Maj. General Hassan Firouzabadi gave a speech endorsing Ahmadinejad.

Mehdi Karoubi, a reformist and former speaker of parliament who declared his presidential candidacy in October 2008, has warned that he plans to make public any electoral irregularities, and he issued an angry response to the Supreme Commander’s statements. In a letter he wrote to him, Karoubi charged him with assuming the title of “Supreme Commander who intervenes in elections.” Clearly the underdog, Karoubi is not only overshadowed by reformist rival Khatami but he is also not on the best terms with Khamenei. Karoubi’s decision to raise the issue of election manipulation, however, could put the Guardian Council on notice. In previous elections, the Guardian Council disqualified many experienced candidates. In some parliamentary elections, thousands have been banned from running for office, and in the 2005 presidential election many women were prevented from running.

Such an electoral process makes becoming and staying a candidate tricky business. Khatami has already demonstrated a bit of realpolitik as he navigates his candidacy. In a February 3speech, he departed from his usual calls for democracy and reform and instead gave full support to the Islamic system, showing uncharacteristic deference to Khamenei. “The person who comes to power should know that this is an Islamic republic. He should comply with the (Islamic) system … and in this system there is a Supreme Leader … He (the president) should preserve the importance and successes of the Supreme Leader … and also pay attention to the things that disturb the Leader.” Khatami also emphasized that the future direction of Iran must be charted according to the constitution, in a move designed to reassure the political establishment that should he be re-elected, the risks he tried to take when he was president would not be tried again. In 2000, during one of the many tense moments of his presidency, Khatami, frustrated by his limited power, suggested that the constitution be revised to give the presidency more authority. Shortly thereafter, the conservative establishment forced him to retract his statements.

Working in Khatami’s favor now is a sense in Iran that he would be better suited to engage President Obama than Ahmadinejad. If Iran hopes that this is the moment to change the relationship, Khatami is their best representative. Not only is he an intellectual, like Obama, but he is viewed by the United States and Europe as a man suited for diplomacy and dialogue. During his last presidency, Western governments courted Khatami, and he was respected inside Iran for attempting to integrate Iran into the international community. But precisely because of his popularity abroad, which his conservative foes are using against him, Khatami will walk a fine line on the campaign trail between appealing to his younger supporters, who want to end Iran’s isolation, and hardliners, who believe that dialogue with the United States undermines the power of the regime.

While relations with the United States will be an issue during the campaign, domestic issues, particularly the economy, will likely figure more prominently in the political debate. During the 2005 campaign, Ahmadinejad promised to help Iran’s economy, reduce high levels of unemployment and improve the lives of the downtrodden. In August, the government pledged a major economic plan to ensure that low income families pay fewer taxes while gaining greater government benefits, but the middle class is suffering and plummeting global oil prices do not work in Ahmadinejad’s favor. He is likely to rely on voters in the rural provinces, much as he did in 2005, to be the base of his re-election. In a February 18th speech in Yazd, he noted that he has “come to know the detailed aspects and challenges of the people living in the small and isolated provinces” through his 52 trips to the provinces.

Playing to the rural electorate may help bolster his populist credentials, but corruption charges threaten to undermine Ahmadinejad’s candidacy. His presidency has been plagued with such charges and a recent startling revelation could provide a fatal blow. In February, Iran’s National Audit Office revealed that more than $1 billion in surplus oil income from 2006-2007 failed to be deposited in the state treasury. Pressure on Ahmadinejad to explain the missing money is mounting, and during the week of February 16th parliament bitterly criticized him and his government.

« Read the rest of this issue of the Bulletin

–

Published on Feb. 25, 2009