Iran and the Requirements for 'Free and Fair' Elections

Elections provide the opportunity for citizens of a country to participate in the public sphere to determine their own fate and that of their community. This public process is considered one of the main pillars of a democratic society. It is a process through which people can choose their political leaders and, in a way, empower them. Various types of elections are held in Iran, including for the president, legislators of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, representatives of city and village councils, and members of the Assembly of Experts. The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, believes that over the four decades since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, all these electoral processes have been conducted freely, healthily, and competitively, and he has repeatedly emphasized this in his speeches. One example of these statements was made in September 2015: "Our elections have thankfully been healthy during this period. The point I want to make is that our elections have been among the best and healthiest according to international standards, with a high voter turnout. Unfortunately, one of the bad habits that some have inside is to constantly undermine the integrity of elections in every period. They repeatedly raise concerns about fraud and other issues before elections; this is wrong." Of course, Khamenei is not alone in this approach. In the final weeks of 2017, Hassan Rouhani, the President of Iran seeking re-election, also emphasized the freedom of elections: "The elections of the Islamic Republic of Iran, with their mechanism, have the people present and voting. When about seventy percent of people come to the polls in an election, it is clear that they believe in this election, and you see long lines until the end of voting time as people cast their votes. We have a very precise executive system according to the constitution. We have a strong supervisory system by the Guardian Council. Therefore, elections in Iran are free, healthy, competitive, and democratic." The characteristics that senior political officials in Iran use to describe elections in this country are concepts that are recognized internationally, and standards have been set for them. One of the main sources and references regarding electoral behavior worldwide, which forms the basis of many electoral laws in various countries, is Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This article states: "Everyone has the right to participate in the government of their country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will must be expressed in genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage, and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures." Over the decades since this article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written, various characteristics have been defined for the realization of this clause. Until recently, these factors were considered necessary for conducting fair and free elections. However, as Massimo Tomassoli from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, which assists governments in conducting elections, states, due to ongoing developments, such elections are now referred to as authentic elections. Tomassoli adds: "There are international standards that define 'authentic elections.' This is determined more based on the science and observations of international and domestic observers in most countries around the world. In the field of advisors and supporters of elections in the international arena, we no longer use the term fair and free elections because we need to specify how we define fair and free, and this term is somewhat focused on the event of the election day itself. However, the electoral process extends far beyond this day and event. In this process, the management of this cycle is important. A cycle that continues from the end of the previous election to the next election." In this cycle, various components are considered by experts, but not all of them hold the same priority. For example, Bill Sweeney, director of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems in Washington, names transparency as the main priority and states: "In my opinion, elections should be transparent and should be clear to all actors involved, whether political actors or civil institutions and ordinary citizens. The goal of an election is complete when citizens peacefully accept the result. This level of transparency should govern the entire electoral process, from candidacy, their approval, to the printing of ballots and all processes on election day itself." While Sweeney speaks of transparency, Todd Ravenner from the Middle East Democracy Project chooses another priority and states: "Certainly, there are various aspects, but the most important issue for being free and fair is that there should be a level playing field for all. That people have the opportunity to choose someone who represents their views. If this equal opportunity does not exist and the conditions favor one group or disadvantage another, it calls the result into question. Therefore, the most important condition is that all parties can convey their messages to the audience without obstacles." Ravenner also emphasizes that such a condition is not relative in his view and adds: "There are a series of internationally accepted standards regarding the definition of a suitable level playing field. In some countries, you see that candidates are disqualified even before they can enter the competition, or that some are disqualified based on factors beyond their control, and certainly, such a situation means there is no level playing field." This is why Bill Sweeney in Washington states that transparency is his priority, but the foundation of every priority is a legal framework that must exist, be known to all citizens, and be adhered to by power institutions, including the executive and legislative branches. Sweeney adds: "This legal framework should specify how the electoral process works, who can be a candidate, how parties operate, how candidates' roles are defined in society, what financial resources they have, and ordinary citizens should have access to this information. All of this is defined in electoral laws worldwide. At the same time, regulations regarding the electoral commission in the government and its duties and operations are also defined. The media's role and how to monitor and cover elections must also be addressed." Various organizations and centers in different countries examine the electoral processes worldwide, and one of the ways to improve the conditions for conducting elections in countries is the results of the research of these centers. However, Massimo Tomassoli in New York, referring to one of these reports, believes that the conditions of countries and regions must be considered in evaluating an election based on international standards. Tomassoli states: "I refer to an academic project conducted by a group of specialists called the 'Authenticity of Elections Project,' which is also supported by international theories. This project provides an index and analyzes various approaches in different countries, and has 11 subcategories to examine the authenticity of elections. Subcategories such as electoral law, the counting of votes, the independence of electoral organizers, and so on. As a result, we have a better understanding of what we mean by authentic elections, although we must consider the national and regional context in these definitions. For example, what we assess as weak execution in one context may be the best result we can achieve in another context and location; for instance, this is true for elections after a conflict." One way to assess the integrity and authenticity of elections in countries is through independent domestic and international monitoring of elections. Massimo Tomassoli sees the necessity of monitoring as related to the stagnation of democracy and adds: "Conditions may change even in countries with a high level of authenticity. Non-stagnation is a characteristic of democracy. Therefore, having processes that ensure monitoring and that people know the main aspects of an authentic election are accurately implemented is very important mechanisms. These processes also provide an opportunity for a learning process to take place; a country can learn from its previous electoral processes and reports from the media and independent observers. This can lead to improving the situation and strengthening capabilities and increasing the independence of electoral organizers." In electoral processes, democracies generally involve two categories of observers. The first group consists of domestic observers, who are present during the electoral process, either from the candidates or independent individuals, usually representatives of civil society. The second group of observers participating in this process are international observers, who are usually sent by recognized organizations such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union, or the African Union to monitor how an election is conducted. Of course, NGOs are also active in the field of international monitoring, and in some cases, their framework of actions differs from larger organizations. Monitoring is conducted at the invitation of the country organizing the elections. Anna Zamits, a project manager at some NGOs and a freelance journalist, who began her international monitoring work at the age of 21 with an NGO, speaks about one of the most recognized methodologies available for international monitoring, developed by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe: "In short-term monitoring, you travel to the country where the election is held, stay there for about a week to ten days. You receive training, and for example, if the election is held on a Sunday, you start preparing on Friday. One of the most important tasks is to identify the location because you usually go to a place you are not familiar with. You typically have a driver and a translator for your duties. Then on Saturday, you check how the polling place is being prepared. Usually, the polling place should have everything it needs for election day, such as ballot boxes and ballots, a day before the election. You check all these, ask questions, and become aware of any problems, and prepare a report about this. Then on Sunday, you usually start the day by observing the opening of the polling place at six or seven in the morning. Usually, you stay in that location for about an hour, asking all questions from the election commission representative, including how many ballots they have, how many people are likely to vote, and what the demographic makeup of the area is." Ms. Zamits is a Polish citizen. She has been an international observer in nine elections in Eastern Europe and emphasizes a fundamental characteristic for the work of an international observer, stating: "The most important thing an observer must do is not to interfere. We are not there to fix anything on election day. If we witness unusual or illegal issues, we note them. Perhaps we ask about them to ensure that what we see is correct. Usually, no one says this situation is unusual but tries to explain why the process is this way. Sometimes domestic observers tell us that there were problems in the morning, so we ask about that and inform our office. Throughout the day, we score polling places, and the one that receives the lowest score, we return to check the conditions again. This does not mean they have committed an offense; sometimes, it is technical problems or the process not being correctly implemented. The elections in the polling places are also based on these observations throughout the day." Countries such as the United States, Turkey, or Egypt always invite international observers to monitor the electoral process. However, the goals of all countries in inviting international organizations for monitoring are not evaluated in the same way. In this regard, Todd Ravenner from the Middle East Democracy Project warns about the misuse of international observers by authoritarian regimes, stating: "These countries invite international observers or some questionable observers to create the perception of free and fair elections or to use part of the reports from international observers in their favor. As a result, international observers can be a useful leverage, but we must be careful that they do not become a stamp of approval for elections that are not free and fair." This is why Massimo Tomassoli, a representative of the IDEA organization at the United Nations, believes that the process of conducting international monitoring should also be continuously reviewed and revised. Tomassoli states: "The issue is that monitoring itself does not guarantee the quality of the review. You may have observers who behave biased themselves.