Elections and Rouhani's 'Bitter' and 'Untimely' Joke

Hassan Rouhani, the President of Iran, in his latest remarks stated that 'elections in Iran are free, healthy, competitive, and democratic.' Rouhani's recent claim, made less than three months before two presidential and council elections, not only fails to inspire enthusiasm but is also a source of astonishment and regret. This bitter joke from Rouhani comes at a time when two candidates who protested the controversial and ambiguous results of the 2009 elections remain under house arrest without trial after six years, and the publication of news and images of Mohammad Khatami, the former reformist president of Iran, is banned in the country's media. The significance of the President's new statement is heightened by the reminder that he is responsible for enforcing the Constitution and safeguarding the fundamental rights of Iranian citizens. Which 'free, healthy, and fair elections' are taking place in Iran? One of the components of free, healthy, and fair elections is that, aside from limitations such as legal age, citizenship of the voting country, or not having a significant criminal record in ordinary crimes—which leads to temporary deprivation of social rights—no other restrictions should be imposed by the government on the eligibility of candidates. This important characteristic is effectively and meaningfully compromised in Iranian elections by the Guardian Council's supervisory oversight. The Guardian Council, by selecting candidates based on political-ideological criteria, effectively conducts two-round elections. The Guardian Council only allows citizens who have been approved by security and judicial institutions to enter the electoral competition. Freedom, health, and justice in elections are realized when all citizens and all political and ideological groups can vote for their preferred candidates. This requires freedom and security for various parties and organizations to introduce and promote their candidates under equal conditions and to have equal and fair conditions and facilities in the electoral competition. Such a condition is also absent in today's Iran; none of the leftist, national, secular, or national-religious political groups have such opportunities. This approach is intensified in presidential elections, where only candidates approved by the central power structure in the Islamic Republic, specifically the supreme leader, are allowed to compete effectively and ultimately. On another level, freedom, health, and justice in elections are realized when all citizens and all political and ideological groups can vote for their preferred candidates. This requires freedom and security for various parties and organizations to introduce and promote their candidates under equal conditions and to have equal and fair conditions and facilities in the electoral competition. Such a condition is also absent in today's Iran; none of the leftist, national, secular, or national-religious political groups have such opportunities. Furthermore, even some reformist parties that had the opportunity for electoral activity a few years ago (such as the Islamic Participation Front and the Organization of Iranian People's Fedai Guerrillas) are now not allowed to engage in official and group political activity. In another area, the Islamic Republic's broadcasting service is the only official media in Iran, and all 'non-entities' are deprived and prohibited from participating in it and promoting their views. Additionally, even other media outlets within the country lack the necessary freedom to republish the positions of critics and opponents of the established situation. The imposition of restrictions and threats against critics and opponents and their suppression, as well as the continuous and illegal arrests of civil activists and political and press activists, are well-known. Aside from these negative aspects, in a positive sense, military-security institutions (specifically the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) informally and illegally influence the process and outcome of elections. The charging of one or more candidates and the effort to ensure the victory of a particular perspective in elections, relying on financial resources and also exploiting the weak and flawed electoral frameworks in Iran, is not unexpected. The influence of the ruling security apparatus on the process and outcome of the 2005 presidential elections—which was heavily criticized by Mehdi Karroubi—is just one well-known example. The story of the 2009 electoral coup is still a hot topic in Iranian elections; where the process, basis, and outcome of the elections were blatantly attacked by the core of power. Perhaps this evidence is sufficient: the explicit statement of the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who in a speech after the 2009 elections declared that the return of reformists to power was a red line for the Guard. In such a situation, and with the aforementioned negative and positive components, to what extent do elections in Iran comply with the standards and requirements of free, healthy, and fair elections? Rouhani's grand claim and error Rouhani has beaten the drum of exaggeration in response to the U.S. State Department's statement regarding the quality of elections in the Islamic Republic. The President could have adopted a more realistic tone. If Rouhani had spoken of conducting healthy elections (meaning a relatively accurate counting of citizens' votes) and competitive elections (meaning the presence of candidates from the main factions of the government), one could have overlooked his claim; however, describing elections held under the scrutiny of the Guardian Council and other limiting and influential factors as 'free and democratic' is incomprehensible. Rouhani's strange claim comes at a time when the Islamic Republic does not allow independent civil and national institutions, or international bodies, to monitor the electoral process. Additionally, there is no independent, impartial, and fair judiciary in the Islamic Republic to address citizens' or parties' complaints about the conduct of elections. Last year, before the parliamentary elections, Rouhani himself criticized the quality of the Guardian Council's oversight; his new remarks—just weeks before the presidential elections—grant a blank check to the Guardian Council and ease the concerns of this institution regarding any oversight over the elections, as well as putting a smile on the faces of the security forces ruling the Guard and Basij and the broadcasting service. Rouhani's reference to the approximately 70% participation of citizens in elections does not resolve the shortcomings of elections in Iran. Such participation is an effort by citizens to repair and reform the established situation by choosing among 'available candidates' and not 'ideal candidates,' all within the context of numerous threats and limitations. When even Mohammad Khatami is not eligible to run in elections, and Mousavi and Karroubi have been under house arrest for about 74 months, it is unlikely that even reformists will accept Rouhani's claim. On another level, in a situation where there is a significant push and determination to announce the candidacy of Ebrahim Raisi and place him at the head of the executive branch, Rouhani's bitter joke and untimely comment about holding free, healthy, and democratic elections in Iran may later bring him to tears.