By Masih Alinejad

The Iranian new year has begun, but the old tale of election doubts remains in the streets of Iran. The election game has changed, but people’s demands have not. Some of the candidates have become more serious about running, but many Iranians have become even more confused. In the final days of the Iranian calendar year, the people of Iran were looking to those who had announced their candidacies to fulfill their social, economic, and political hopes.

However, matters changed suddenly: Mir-Hossein Moussavi, the prime minister during the Iran-Iraq war, announced his candidacy for the presidency and Mohammad Khatami, Iran’s former reformist president, withdrew from the race. Now Moussavi and former Parliament Speaker reformist Mehdi Karroubi are the only well-known figures still in the race. No official word has been heard yet from current President Mahmoud  Ahmadinejad’s camp, but Ahmadinejad’s participation in the election seems very likely.

Those in Iranian society who are critical of current conditions cannot discuss their demands with just any candidate. Conservative candidates such as Ahmadinejad would not engage in a discussion about amending chapters of the constitution, relations with the United States and addressing international sanctions and declarations. By contrast, such topics have been extensively discussed with Khatami and Karroubi. With Khatami no longer in the race, Iranians are waiting to see how they can inform Moussavi of their expectations.

Iranian society does have specific social, economic and political demands for each candidate. Domestically, Iranians seek a free press, freedom of thought in colleges and universities, and civil liberties through participation in various labor, social and cultural movements and groups. During election seasons, people are usually more at liberty to express their views. These days, in every election-related gathering, there are women, students, and workers – along with some media – carrying signs, letting the candidates know in no uncertain terms what they want: the release of their imprisoned co-workers and a guaranteed minimum level of freedom to engage in political activity. At the same time, some reformist parties, human rights activists and advocates want to establish a dialogue leading to a possible discussion on revising discriminatory laws. These groups want to see changes in, for example, the laws governing the press and some of the Shari’a laws on stoning and execution. They want to eliminate the vetting of presidential candidates by the Council of Guardians and laws discriminating against women.

In the economic arena, unemployment and job creation, as well as inflation, are clear social concerns. The rise in prices in the housing market has been so high and beyond estimates that the current government has asked the Information Ministry to investigate the matter, and some in the government are trying to blame a mafia group for the rapidly climbing prices. Each candidate has a clear image of the voters’ economic hopes and will be making promises during the campaign, but each will also fall short in fulfilling his promises.

Ahmadinejad in his last campaign promised to put oil money on people’s tables, but the rise in oil prices has not benefited ordinary Iranians. On the contrary, the 1997  summer fuel ration ratified by parliament made life even more difficult, causing unrest in the streets, where tens of gas stations were torched by angry mobs. Policies became apologies. In the winter, the southern provinces faced gas shortages, prompting government apologies. In the summer, power shortages in the south made life without air conditioners unbearable, prompting an apology by the Energy Ministry.

Economists, investors and manufacturers have written the president over the last several years to warn him about the tough economic conditions and suffering of the public. The government has responded by attacking the writers, accusing them of weakening the policies of the Islamic government.

Ahmadinejad faced dissent over the economy from within his own cabinet. As a result, he fired the ministers of economy, commerce and oil. In all, half of his cabinet has been replaced. However, inflation, unemployment and high prices have persisted. The pressure has been so harsh that several men set themselves on fire to protest the current living standards.

In the social arena, the rise in the number of violent crimes such as rape, assault and battery has increased public demand for a more noticeable presence of the security forces. However, past calls for the security forces to respond to crime have ultimately resulted in an abrogation of privacy and personal freedoms, rather than increased safety. The security forces enter homes and confiscate satellite dishes and confront improper dress, mostly of young people. The confrontations have become so harsh that the state-run television channel protested the violent approach on a television interview with the head of the security forces.

Most troubling has been the security forces’ “Fight against the Rowdies.” Many of the so-called “rowdies” were executed in public, many were subjected to public flogging, and many were forced to walk in shame in the streets while denouncing their crimes and being beaten by security agents. Such scenes did not meet with public approval, and the media denounced these punishments by publicizing the pictures of the violent, inhumane acts.

In foreign policy, many want to see tensions alleviated in international relations. Iranians do not want Iran to be isolated internationally. Although the state-run press has never expressed the general discontent of the Iranian public concerning Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric about “wiping Israel from the face of the earth,” moderate groups and papers believe that such radical stances weaken Iran’s position globally. They seek a more rational approach in foreign policy and look at the 6th Parliament as an example. Many members of the reformist 6th Parliament reiterated Iran’s right to obtain nuclear energy, while at the same time asking the government to devote attention to, and respect, negotiations with the international community. Some 83 percent of Iranians reportedly favor negotiating with the United States according to a poll conducted by the Ayandeh Institute.¹ Currently, the conservatives are not part of the trend of welcoming relations with the United States.

Iranians’ social, economic and political hopes vis-à-vis the presidential candidates are defined in terms of the difficulties experienced by Iranians. In the previous elections, Iranians hoped perhaps for a more open dialogue about politics and civil society. The ideal candidate was maybe one who believed in changes in these areas and would allow the publication of more newspapers and books, the showing of more films, and an exchange of different ideas. Today, Iranians just want to maintain what they have. They do not want yet another newspaper shut down. They hope to see the publication of a book that has already received a publication permit.

They expect their president not to create more tension with the international community, even if he is unable to expand relations. They want him not to expand poverty, even if he is unable to provide prosperity. They wish not to lose what resources they have to mismanagement of the economy, even if no more resources can be provided. In the social arena, if individual liberties cannot be expanded, then at least what few are currently enjoyed should not be taken away. If there is no serious resolve to increase public safety, at least do not increase the emotional discomfort of people by holding public displays of harsh punishment of the offenders.

These are the bare, minimum expectations of Iranians in Iran’s tenth presidential election.

Note: This article was translated from Farsi. The opinions expressed reflect those of the author, and not necessarily those of the National Democratic Institute or The Century Foundation.

–

Published on March 27, 2009