The Economy: The Main Loser in the Third Election Debate

Political economy has been described as a sorrowful and exceedingly tedious science. The main subject of this science, in its general definition, is 'the management of scarce resources.' This means that human needs are limitless, while the available resources to satisfy these needs are limited. The economist's goal is to find solutions for the optimal use of scarce resources to better and more fully satisfy needs. Economic discussions, with their tedious formulas and theories, revolve around the contradiction between 'limited resources' and 'unlimited needs.' The presence of economics in electoral battles is not easy due to its complexity and tedium, and there is always the risk that discussions about 'resource management' may descend to a low level. However, voter behavior towards the promises of candidates is not the same in all countries. People who are more mature and future-oriented due to historical and cultural reasons demand accountability from candidates for power, with the simple question of what resources they will rely on to fulfill their promises (increasing purchasing power, raising growth rates, reducing unemployment, etc.). There are countries that turn electoral debates into an intensive training period to raise citizens' awareness, including in the economic sphere. In these countries, 'resource distribution' is discussed simultaneously with 'resource provision,' and people better understand the relationship between these two concepts. Conversely, there are other countries that reduce elections to a suitable arena for the rampage of 'populists.' The third presidential election debate in Iran, held on Friday, was originally supposed to address economic issues, but it is unlikely to have contributed to increasing the awareness of the Iranian people in this area. Although many economic topics were discussed in this debate, from smuggling to export development, the banking system, sustainable employment, and targeted subsidies, the debate's atmosphere was chaotic in terms of both the topics raised and how they were addressed, and the intensity of accusations and personal attacks exacerbated this chaos. Despite this turmoil, two major discourses in the economic sphere can be identified in Friday's debate: 1) The populist discourse based on resource distribution, represented by Ebrahim Raisi and Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf. Despite painful experiences in Iran and the world over the past four decades, they once again divided Iranians into two categories: 'the oppressed' and 'the oppressors,' presenting themselves as the offspring and spokespersons of the former. They used new terms instead of these two concepts, the most famous being 'the 96 percenters' and 'the 4 percenters' coined by Mr. Qalibaf. To assist the '96 percenters,' there is no better way than distributing money. This 'money spraying' or 'helicopter distribution' (as termed by experts from the 'Research Center of the Parliament') has become a major tool for populists in the Islamic Republic to buy votes, a decline that will not soon leave Iran's economy. 2) The discourse based on 'resource management,' used by Hassan Rouhani and Eshaq Jahangiri. Among the six candidates for the Islamic Republic's presidential election, the president of the eleventh government is the only candidate who has published an economic program. This text, which clearly reflects Eshaq Jahangiri's views as well, is the most comprehensive and coherent economic program ever presented in the history of Iranian presidential elections, and this initiative should be viewed positively. Although this program is not without flaws, it addresses the major economic challenges of Iran and offers solutions to confront them. Rouhani's program, which is likely to have the support of a very large segment of Iranian economists, requires a separate review that will soon be published on this site, along with criticisms and questions that will naturally arise about it. Here, we only emphasize that the proposed program, as the main support for the positions of Hassan Rouhani and Eshaq Jahangiri in Friday's debate, addresses the fundamental weaknesses of Iran's production system and how the country can be pulled out of its current backwardness by optimally utilizing its scarce resources. However, we will see that the same program sometimes avoids raising some of its fundamental questions or hastily passes over them. The further decline of 'social capital' The third election debate showed that nearly four decades after the Islamic Revolution, the level of economic culture among many of the beneficiaries of the system arising from that revolution has not changed. It is very concerning that Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, after about twelve years of sitting in the mayor's chair of a metropolis like Tehran, promises to double Iran's national income in four years of his governance. A politician, no matter how 'populist,' does not exercise caution in presenting his slogans. Mr. Qalibaf's promise requires achieving an average growth rate of 26 percent per year during the presidency, ten times the average annual growth rate of Iran since the revolution, and two and a half times the average annual growth rate of China over the past thirty years. Has the level of political and economic culture in Iran fallen so low that presidential candidates can say whatever they want to the people? Beyond these promises, the revelations of candidates against each other, as witnessed in Friday's debate, further erode the remnants of Iranian citizens' trust in officials. Findings from surveys on 'social capital' in Iran indicate that public trust in the country's institutions and official figures is at a very low level. In Friday's debate, the dark files that candidates opened against each other dealt another blow to this trust and consequently to 'social capital.' In other words, alongside the severe shortage of 'physical capital' to invigorate Iran's economy, the decline of 'social capital' also negatively impacts the business environment in the country. From this perspective, the economy can also be considered the major victim of Friday's debate.