Voting or Boycotting: Perspectives from Experts

Western thinkers argue that voting is not merely a part of democracy, but democracy itself. A modern and civic action that can change the fate of citizens in some countries, whether it is a duty or a virtue. However, some citizens in a country like Iran, who directly elect their president or representatives, have recently been talking about a new action: not voting, boycotting elections, and turning their backs on the rights that the election of this or that individual can either enhance or diminish. Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian Revolution, considered voting a religious duty; defending Islam and Muslims: "Entrusting a country to someone who, if unfit, harms Islam and destroys the Islamic Republic is a vital issue for you, for Islam and Muslims. Do not take this lightly that we do not interfere. A group says we do not interfere; it is a political matter, what does it matter to us? This political matter concerns everyone. It relates to Islam. It relates to the preservation of Islam." Ayatollah Khamenei, the second leader of this revolution, summarizes the people's participation in elections in these terms: "The people's presence in elections can advance the country, keep it safe from enemies, create doubt and hesitation for the enemy in their plots, and force the enemy to retreat. A fervent election is a strong punch in the enemy's mouth." In another instance, before the recent presidential elections, Ayatollah Khamenei stated: "Every vote you cast for one of these respected candidates is a vote for the Islamic Republic." What is evident in these statements is that voting and participation in Iran have different meanings. In one context, it can mean choosing a responsible individual for a specific position, while in other contexts, it takes on new interpretations such as defending Islam or fighting against enemies. Sociologist Hossein Ghazian, residing in the U.S., analyzes the meanings produced by the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding the act of voting: "You know that meaning is something that is constructed. It is not something that exists externally. When something is constructed, there are people involved in its construction, and each tries to influence it with their tastes, interests, or beliefs. Therefore, this meaning is a kind of field for the struggle to construct meaning. Different meanings have been attached to this so far. But if we set aside these meanings, in a simple state, it means that I, as a citizen, for my public affairs in which I cannot personally intervene, or others similarly, go to elect a group as our representatives to do this work in our place. These representatives are called the government or parliament or other electoral bodies. Now this simple concept clarifies the mechanism of life in large modern societies and the meaning of voting as a contextual background. However, from this clear background, new meanings can be constructed and attached to it. That is, it can turn into a duty, become a virtue, a political act. Or not voting can become a political act. It depends on how individuals want to interpret that meaning. Therefore, we are either actually in a field of struggle to construct meaning, and each time the meaning of voting changes in a period." Beyond the meanings and interpretations of voting in the words of the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and what the decision of some citizens to abstain from voting may indicate, the important issue is that both voting and abstaining from voting are political acts in any political system. Ibrahim Soltani, a researcher and assistant professor at Eastern Michigan University, who has worked for years on concepts such as democracy and political theories, believes that equating voting with democracy reduces the concept of democracy, and the issue is not the vote itself but the impact of votes. "In every political system, whether authoritarian, democratic, or semi-democratic, voting or not voting can be considered a political act. The important and complex question is what the impact of these behaviors on the political fate of elections is in these different political systems, and in this regard, political systems differ from one another." In the memory of the Iranian nation, a recent event has registered that turns the word election into a special term that evokes sensitivities. The controversial 2009 elections, whose protesting leaders are still under house arrest, strengthened the discourse of boycotting elections that had previously existed. The act of not voting, boycotting elections, and withholding participation has become a political and civil act, according to its advocates. Hossein Ghazian believes that the act of not voting among Iranians has remained only at the level of declaration and has never reached the level of action: "Most of the things declared under the title of boycott have been 'declared' boycotts, not 'acted' boycotts. This means that none of these events have been a political act or a political act. Rather, it has only been a declaration to be recorded in history, to show our progressive stance and to indicate my distance from the political system. But none of these have turned into a political act for boycotting and have not had much impact in the real scene. The reason is that, firstly, the mobilization power for such a boycott is low. That is, the type of political actors who have pursued boycotting elections in Iran so far have not had the capacity to mobilize a large number of people to refrain from voting, and therefore the boycott has not become a collective political act that has meaning in the elections or has an effect on the elections." Ali Afshari, a political analyst residing in the U.S., is one of the activists who participated in elections in the late 1990s and early 2000s and actively promoted participation in elections, but nowadays he is among those who speak of the meaninglessness of voting or not voting in the Islamic Republic of Iran: "The experience of Khatami's presidency, the experience of the sixth parliament, and all of these have shown that the main issues of Iran and their resolution do not pass through electoral institutions, and they are structurally impotent, and appointed institutions are in a higher position than them, and their superior status does not allow this, and we are practically caught in a vicious cycle. In the current political conditions of Iran, with a government characterized by the Islamic Republic, which is an authoritarian and undemocratic system that uses elections and electoral institutions as a tool to legitimize the nature and structure of authoritarian power, participating or boycotting are neither absolutely practical. You might wonder how a nation in 1997 could show up at the polls in millions, vote, and later speak of boycotting elections. If the Islamic Republic of Iran does not deserve its citizens' votes, how is it that at one point it gains legitimacy with millions of votes and at another point faces a discourse of boycott? Ibrahim Soltani provides a description of the Islamic Republic that may somewhat answer this riddle: "Just as there are complexities in defining democracy, there are complexities in categorizing political systems, and it is not the case that we can only divide political systems into two categories: democratic and undemocratic. We are faced with a complex spectrum of diverse political systems, where one end of the spectrum has very democratic systems and the other end has completely totalitarian systems, and in between we encounter authoritarian systems, sultanic systems, and a group of political systems that fall in between, and I would like to emphasize these systems, and perhaps the Islamic Republic can be placed in that category. In fact, political systems are hybrid. Or, technically speaking, they are hybrid systems. These systems are those that have a mixed set of democratic and undemocratic elements. When you study their institutions, when you study the prevailing culture in that society and political system, you see a complex combination of various democratic and undemocratic elements present. Thus, we do not face a black-and-white categorization of democracy and non-democracy. We have a spectrum of political systems, and each political system can be closer to one of these two ends of the spectrum." Ultimately, if we consider the Islamic Republic of Iran as a hybrid system, as Ibrahim Soltani suggests, we must remain hopeful that the pendulum of this system will pause more and more in the realm of democracy.