Debate Among Secularists on Appropriate Electoral Behavior

Whenever elections come up, there are differences of opinion among the public and political activists and analysts regarding voting for certain candidates and supporting rival coalitions, as well as differing views on whether to actively participate in elections or to boycott and disregard the ballot box. As the date of the 10th Majlis (Islamic Consultative Assembly) and the Assembly of Experts elections approaches on March 7, various and distinct theoretical discussions about the nature of these elections have emerged. Even among political activists critical of the government and advocates for the separation of religion and state, there are distinct, differing, or contradictory views on desirable electoral behavior. In this week's program, we host three political activists and analysts with three different hypotheses regarding the upcoming elections: In Tehran, Hossein Tabarzadi, a disqualified candidate for this round of parliamentary elections and spokesperson for a political organization called Solidarity and Human Rights in Iran, believes in completely free and competitive elections but sees his candidacy and that of other disqualified candidates as an opportunity to protest the supervisory oversight and expose the limitations on political freedom; in Washington, Amir Hossein Ganjbakhsh, a member of another political organization called Solidarity for a Secular Republic and Human Rights in Iran, argues that even participating in non-free and limited elections can be an opportunity to strengthen the elected institutions of the regime at the expense of appointed institutions; and in London, Saeed Barzin, an independent political analyst, believes that participating in limited and less competitive elections can be a useful and effective method for advancing political development in a historical process, but only when the confrontation between the Supreme Leader's authority and its critics and opponents does not intensify. Mr. Tabarzadi, you believe in free elections and assert that participation in elections must be in a free and competitive environment, and that participating in limited and less competitive elections will not lead to political improvement. What is your argument? Hossein Tabarzadi: Our argument is that the first discussion is that we must recognize and safeguard our rights. The issue is that the approval of candidates should be by the people, not the Guardian Council, and then the conditions after the approval by the people should be free conditions for the activities of parties, meetings, and the press so that everyone can equally and fairly utilize these conditions. The third issue is that elections must also be transparent in the voting process. Voting should be conducted transparently, and the ballot box should be in the hands of representatives of parties independent of the government and representatives of the state. Therefore, the discussion of limited competition cannot fulfill the real demands of the people, and this process has occurred over the past 37 years, and in these 37 years, the best case was the sixth parliament during the reform period, which after a while did not yield any specific results and turned into the seventh parliament. Therefore, when elections are free, democratic, transparent, and fair, it can be believed that to some extent, the fundamental rights of the people will be fulfilled, and the precondition for all of this is the abolition of supervisory oversight. Mr. Ganjbakhsh, contrary to Mr. Tabarzadi, you believe that limited and less competitive elections can, under certain conditions, provide an opportunity to intensify the confrontation between elected and appointed institutions and thus improve the political situation. What is your argument in defense of this view? Amir Hossein Ganjbakhsh: Firstly, the point that Mr. Tabarzadi mentioned is completely correct. Free elections, freedom of parties or media, and respect for citizens' rights certainly have meaning within a democratic structure. As republicans, we defend this democratic structure and also endorse the strategy of free elections. However, elections, as a concept or as a movement in various political systems, have different functions. In the Islamic Republic, from its inception, two orders have emerged: the order of the Supreme Leader and the order of the Republic, meaning the ballot box. And this ballot box has always been crisis-inducing, contrary to the idea that it creates legitimacy for the regime. This started with the elections of Mr. Banisadr, the sixth parliament elections mentioned, and Mr. Khatami. The Supreme Leader has always tried to address this issue through fraud, especially during the two terms of Ahmadinejad, which created more crises for the Supreme Leader. Today, if we look at the political scene, we see that global realities and the realities of governance have forced a movement to emerge that sees the destructive power of the Supreme Leader as significant. The people have always participated in these elections, and every time they participated, it was precisely against the Supreme Leader. Whether it was the sixth parliament, Mr. Khatami, or this period, we saw it with Mr. Rouhani. So overall, when we look at elections, their function has been crisis-inducing for the Supreme Leader, and the effort is to reduce the destructive power. From this perspective, we look at elections, but it is still unclear whether such a capacity and potential will arise or not. Looking back, we see that the ballot box has played this role, and as you know, a coalition has emerged, from moderate principlists to reformists, and the key point is that the capital has come from the Green Movement. This is a very important point. That is, the force that stood against the Supreme Leader, and its leaders are still under house arrest, and we declare, as Ms. Rahnavard has said, that we will always remember them. Mr. Barzin, you have a third view distinct from the views of the other two guests, Mr. Ganjbakhsh and Mr. Tabarzadi. You believe that limited and less competitive elections can also be fruitful, but only if they do not exacerbate the confrontation between elected and appointed institutions. This is where you differ from Mr. Ganjbakhsh's view. What is your argument to support this belief? Saeed Barzin: I try to approach this from a realistic perspective and see the conditions positively, evaluating a kind of cooperation between the government and society. Elections are an opportunity for the government to strengthen its position and enhance its legitimacy and social base. To achieve this, it must bring people to the ballot boxes. People do not come to the ballot boxes by force of arms. Even if they do come by force, they know they have come by force, and it does not provide legitimacy for this government. People must come to the ballot boxes of their own accord and vote by their own hands and will. How can people be brought to the ballot boxes? They must be given incentives. Something must be given to the people to make them happy. An incentive must be given to the people to come to the ballot box and vote. The proposal that the Islamic Republic of Iran currently has is that it says, 'First, I will establish security, meaning I will not allow the country to become like Syria, Lebanon, or Afghanistan. Second, I will create conditions for economic activity and development. That is, I will provide the bread and water for the people. Third, I give the people the right to choose among political programs that have some (I emphasize some) differences.' These are the incentives that the regime is willing to give to the people. Of course, it does not provide liberal democracy, does not give the right to be elected, does not give rights to women without hijab, but it says, 'I will provide security, I will provide economic development, and I will give limited election rights.' In return, what does it want? It wants legitimacy. That people come to the ballot boxes and participate in the decision-making process, and the government becomes strong. This becomes the basis of a social contract. The government gives an incentive and receives an incentive. This becomes the basis of a social contract. Here, there is no divine obligation that believers have a duty to go and pledge allegiance to the government. The religious duty of a believer to a religious regime is not a sacred duty. This is a social contract. The government gives the incentive of security, development, and limited elections and, in return, wants limited legitimacy. The people can accept or reject this proposal for the contract. Mr. Tabarzadi, what is your assessment of the viewpoints of Mr. Barzin and Mr. Ganjbakhsh? Hossein Tabarzadi: First, I emphasize that we ourselves are candidates. We have not boycotted the elections and have not even presented a formula for non-participation. We have suggested a free ballot box and that people have the right to vote for candidates who have been disqualified by the Guardian Council but have been approved by the people, such as the candidates of Solidarity. I emphasize this first. However, regarding Mr. Ganjbakhsh's view, I believe it has a functional aspect and that, in any case, the issue of the right to choose, democracy, and the right to self-determination reduces to the level of a political function and political maneuvering. I do not deny that elections in the Islamic Republic have always faced challenges. This is true. These challenges, especially in the current stage of the Assembly of Experts elections, I saw that seven, eight, or ten people were specified by some citizens and said, 'We will disqualify these.' This is a good thing and something that is happening. However, I do not think that the challenge is so serious that it can have a very decisive impact on the fate of the people and pose a serious challenge to the government. I tie this part of my speech to the remarks of Mr. Barzin, who says that a social contract is established between the people and the government through this. Even if this were the case, it would be somewhat appropriate. But you know that engineered elections are designed to prevent all these issues. That is, it has already been determined how the composition of the next parliament will be. The IRGC has come and carried out these extensive disqualifications. The government has also realized this issue. That is, it has realized that it must significantly reduce the risk of elections, and the rulers, the Guardian Council, and the Supreme Leader are also more calmly organizing these elections. Therefore, while I do not reject the positive aspects of my friends' views, I emphasize, as a democrat, the right to free choice and the right to self-determination and the transparency of the ballot box as fundamental rights emphasized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and we, as Solidarity and the Democracy and Human Rights group, cannot interpret and reduce the issue of elections to a political maneuvering in the field of what will happen in the field. Mr. Ganjbakhsh, what is your response to Mr. Tabarzadi's argument? Also, please provide your critique of Mr. Barzin's view. Amir Hossein Ganjbakhsh: Regarding Mr. Tabarzadi, we agree in a different way. That is, we believe that participation, in any case, in a way that can be challenging is good. But I take this to the structural level and say that this conflict that has existed since the beginning of the revolution between elected institutions, meaning the Republic of the regime, and the lawless despotism of the Supreme Leader, has continued. This is a factional state, turning into a structural conflict. That is, whoever becomes president must stand against the Supreme Leader. Because he is governing, he cannot act as a revolutionary base against thieves, including the issue of Syria and Libya, being like Syria and Libya precisely comes from the fact that we have an aggressive foreign policy, like that of Mr. Khamenei, who wants to change the world and attract the whole world towards himself, and this meets with reactions in the region, and we are now tasting it in the nuclear field. The second point is that Mr. Barzin's words make sense when related to a legal society. When you are signing a contract, it is a collection of rights. It is not a barter. In Iranian society and in the form of the Supreme Leader's power, it has always had a dictatorial form. It fundamentally does not tolerate rights. While the other part always tries to establish a law even among its own. We saw in the sixth parliament and Mr. Khatami's elections that it does not even recognize the rights of its own, and with these supervisory oversight measures that have been discussed, this clearly indicates that it is completely in crisis and afraid of the people's vote and tries to shorten it. Just as it was said, this contract arises when the destructive power of the Supreme Leader is eliminated. That is, we must be able to cut the Supreme Leader's hand from various places of governance and state management to take steps towards the emergence of a legal aspect, and in the legal aspect, reformist struggles for the rights that Mr. Tabarzadi rightly pointed out become possible. Otherwise, it will continue to turn on the same heel. And do not think that Mr. Rouhani himself will be able to gain a majority in the parliament in this election and think that the problem is solved; it is by no means solved, as the sixth parliament and Mr. Khatami's era clearly showed. It is a beginning, considering Mr. Khamenei's illness and the bleak future of the Supreme Leader, that we move towards the legalization of society and be able to create a democratic social contract between the people. Mr. Barzin, what is your response to the statements of Mr. Ganjbakhsh and also to Mr. Tabarzadi's argument? Saeed Barzin: Mr. Tabarzadi stated that elections should be democratic, transparent, and fair, equal and just. These are all correct in terms of ideals and legal discussions. But the social reality of our history is not. We must look at elections as part of a long-term historical process and trend. If you consider very lofty ideals, in practice and in everyday political practice, you become paralyzed. The point that Mr. Ganjbakhsh makes, that elections are against the Supreme Leader and crisis-inducing for the Supreme Leader, I do not accept this.