Elections: The Supreme Leader's Exploitation of 'Security'

With about a month until the parliamentary and Assembly of Experts elections, Ayatollah Khamenei, in a significant speech, reiterated his perspective on the concept of elections. Independent of the authoritarian and narrow-minded approach that characterizes the views of the system's top leader, a meaningful axis in his recent remarks was the emphasis on the keyword 'national security.' The head of the political system, referring to the importance of achieving a 'healthy competition' in the upcoming elections, considered 'the participation of all' as the 'first condition' and stated: 'Everyone should come. Those who may have issues with the Islamic Republic system, but have no issues with the security of the country.' He also added: 'Today, this system has preserved the security of the country. This is what [the regime's opponents] want; they should enter the field for the continuation of national security.' This is not the first time in recent months that Ayatollah Khamenei has emphasized the keyword 'national security'; just a few days ago, he encouraged even the regime's opponents to participate in the elections, stating: 'Even those who do not accept the system should come to vote for the preservation of the country, for the credibility of the country. Someone may not accept me; that is fine, but the elections do not belong to the leadership; they belong to Islamic Iran... Everyone must participate in the elections; this will keep the country within a complete security framework.' The region's insecurity and the importance of security for Iranians are palpable, based on data gathered from social layers and secret surveys of the regime's security-intelligence institutions. Ayatollah Khamenei is sufficiently aware of citizens' need for security and seeks to exploit it for his political purposes. In other words, the key issue of citizens' need for security in a region where Iran is located has created a common ground between society and the authoritarian government, similar to what occurred during the nuclear crisis. The unprecedented crisis in Syria, the emergence of the ISIS monster in that country and Iraq, alongside unfortunate events in the two eastern and western neighbors (Afghanistan and Iraq), linked with the economic crisis and the livelihood problems of the majority of society, as well as the suppression of opponents in Iran, have highlighted the need to live in 'security' for various social layers and a very significant part of the opposition. Thus, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, by taking advantage of the strange and increasing insecurity in the region—especially in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and even Turkey—tries to insist solely on one element, namely 'the presence at the ballot boxes on election day,' without referring to the real foundations of 'national security' and the requirements for its realization, directing and appropriating the civil participation of citizens and their political-social demands for his own desired outcomes. In Ayatollah Khamenei's view, national security does not connect with free, healthy, and fair elections and their requirements. He does not think about real political participation arising from a free and secure environment for holders of diverse opinions and the competition of various political parties and groups within the framework of the constitution. Thus, he explicitly states that if he invites the regime's opponents to participate in the elections, it does not mean that 'someone who does not accept the regime should be sent to the parliament.' From the perspective of the system's top leader, merely increasing the number of participants at the ballot boxes is sufficient evidence of the bond between the nation and the government and is adequate for maintaining national security. The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic is content with the formation of semi-competitive and regular (periodic) elections and sees no need for free participation of individuals and groups in civil society and effective political processes. This is evidenced by the fact that for nearly five years, he has kept two candidates who protested the 2009 presidential election under house arrest. Ayatollah Khamenei knows well that merely holding an election does not confirm the democratic nature of a system and does not strengthen national security; just as Saddam's nearly 100 percent votes in Ba'athist Iraq were not evaluated as democratic support. Not only must elections be held freely, healthily, and fairly to be realized in practice, but the participation of individuals and political currents in the electoral process must also be free and secure. Furthermore, the freedom and integrity of elections can only be achieved when the basic rights and freedoms of the people are realized. In such a context and situation, a real intertwining and genuine bond occurs between the nation and the political authority, leading to positive and deep-rooted security outcomes. However, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic astonishingly continues along the same path that was famously exemplified in the 2009 elections. Adopting this approach, especially in the post-JCPOA period, is regrettable from a national interest perspective but not unexpected. It was predictable that 'heroic flexibility' and 'deals' would only occur in relations with global powers and not in interactions with civil society; especially since the bloody and acute suppressions of 2009 and 2010, and the state of the economy and personal concerns of the people, have significantly reduced the focus on studies and expanded and deepened conservatism and realism—not realism. Although Ayatollah Khamenei emphasizes the concept of 'national security' in his recent remarks about the elections, by endorsing the actions of the Guardian Council and fully supporting Jannati and his allies, he shows that he defines this concept (national security) under his political-ideological projects and the core of power, specifically under the security of the authoritarian system based on the absolute rule of the jurist. He ignores the requirements and foundations of national security in civil society (including the realization of political participation and the holding of free, healthy, and fair elections) and settles for a minimal interpretation of citizens' political participation (presence at the ballot boxes, and nothing more). This approach is difficult to contest in terms of its destructive and costly consequences for Iran's national security—of which Ayatollah Khamenei claims.