Iranian democracy

[crackerjack]

Much talk of possible vote-rigging, even suggestions from Moussavi camp that people should avoid casting their ballots in mosques, which sounds almost suicidally brave on his part.

Ahmadinejad may lose (good!), but western media badly underestimated his appeal last time...

Moussavi has promised an end to the religious police and jaw jaw with the great satan. He sounds too good to win. But the enthusiasm for the process in Iran is palapable. Even if their boy wins, can the Mullahs keep a lid on it?

 

[josef k.]

It would be really a positive step if Ahmad was unseated.

 

[josef k.]

Cunt

Venezuela's socialist leader, Hugo Chávez, is backing Ahmadinejad, AP reports.

Chávez described him as "a courageous fighter for the Islamic Revolution" and praised his "defence of the Third World, and struggle against imperialism"

 

[crackerjack]

Venezuela's socialist leader, Hugo Chávez, is backing Ahmadinejad, AP reports.

Chávez described him as "a courageous fighter for the Islamic Revolution" and praised his "defence of the Third World, and struggle against imperialism"

Chavez is a fucking knob. That's my considered opinion.

 

[vimothy]

Mousavi Supporters, Isfahan:

 

[scottdisco]

But the enthusiasm for the process in Iran is palapable. Even if their boy wins, can the Mullahs keep a lid on it?

if you've not checked them out Cracker the two opinion pieces from Yank broadsheets i've put on the 'Bama goes Cairo thread are worth a min of yer.

i am hopeful that the best candidate gets in and ultimately optimistic in general for Iran (of course) but guardedly cautious about what this Event means for the people of Iran - short to medium term anyroad - for all the obvious reasons to do with the Khomeinist dictatorship that we know and wuv.

 

[josef k.]

I think the Mullahs are ultimately pragmatists, and may consider massive electoral fraud unwise. The election is really for the Iranian government's press spokesman - why not elect someone who is likely to improve relations with the US? Iran has been willing to deal with the US before.

 

[crackerjack]

if you've not checked them out Cracker the two opinion pieces from Yank broadsheets i've put on the 'Bama goes Cairo thread are worth a min of yer.

Ta Scott - will do this pm

 

[crackerjack]

I think the Mullahs are ultimately pragmatists, and may consider massive electoral fraud unwise. The election is really for the Iranian government's press spokesman - why not elect someone who is likely to improve relations with the US? Iran has been willing to deal with the US before.

Sure, under Khatami, Moussavi's mentor.

The Mullahs are obviously more pragmatic than some of their rhetoric - and Obama wwill make a much worse demon than his predecessor - but ultimately they want to retain control, and the lesson of the Gorbachev era is that small steps of liberalisation have a way of getting out of hand.

 

[scottdisco]

The election is really for the Iranian government's press spokesman - why not elect someone who is likely to improve relations with the US? Iran has been willing to deal with the US before.

good comments Josef.

the Boston Globe piece i refer to in your Obama Does Cairo thread has some reasons to fear an uptick in persecution of really vocal domestic activists if the nice guy gets in (as Iran is competent enough to send their agents throughout Caucasian states to her north bumping off dissidents when they feel like it, i am sure if they need to re-up internal repression*, then that is a very small thing for the state apparatus)

what Hugo C is reported to have said does not surprise me, he is just another caudillo who views foreign policy through a particularly stupid prism

* not including that against religious and other minorities which continues as a matter of course

 

[vimothy]

I think the Mullahs are ultimately pragmatists

Yes, but their calculus is one of survuival: its the people vs. the IRGC vs. the IRGC... watch Rezaee?

 

[josef k.]

...lesson of the Gorbachev era is that small steps of liberalisation have a way of getting out of hand.

But the lesson of Khatami was that Mullahs were able to keep a lid on reform - in fact, they consolidated their power during his Presidency. I don't know what Ahmadinejad is still doing for the Mullahs, really... why they would think that they needed him. That said, I'm not really an expert in Iranian internal politics, and the factions involved there.

 

[crackerjack]

But the lesson of Khatami was that Mullahs were able to keep a lid on reform - in fact, they consolidated their power during his Presidency.

I agree that better relations with the US won't do the Mullahs any harm. But I'm intrigued by Mousavi's pledge to dismantle the religious police - can he do it? Would they let him?

 

[vimothy]

why not elect someone who is likely to improve relations with the US? Iran has been willing to deal with the US before.

I think that they want to. But the internal pressures are preeminent. The Mullahs will pick a compromise candidate who is least worst for all their constituent groups. If they pick Moussavi, Ahmedinejad's supporters in the IRGC will be alienated. If they pick Ahmedinejad, Moussavi's supporters will be alienated. And Ahmedinejad doesn't even carry all of the IRGC any more. Complicated.

 

[vimothy]

Polling data: http://www.irantracker.org/analysis/iranian-presidential-election-polling-data

 

[crackerjack]

Is it assumed Karrubi and Rezai's votes will mostly go to Mousavi in the event of a run-off?

 

[josef k.]

Presumably, the conservative Rezai's will go to Ahmad.


This is cool:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/public...ans_Online_Public/interactive_blogosphere_map

 

[vimothy]

I'm not sure -- I've heard that the split within the IRGC is rather severe, though.

 

[vimothy]

As in, Rezai is very critical of Ahmedinejad. He's standing against him.

The way I see it, Iran is not a democracy (no free press, no independent vote countering, no freedom to stand, etc). The vote just measures popular sentiment. The Mullahs have to factor that sentiment in, because they don't want to be deposed or cause any instability that could lead to them being deposed. But equally, they have to factor in the sentiment of the people who underwrite their control of the state. Ceteris paribus, why not have a president/spokes person who doesn't alienate most of the rest of the world (thought there are certainly benefits to this approach from the perspective of the Iranian leadership). But all things are not equal. They need a compromise candidate, one who doesn't provoke the people, but also one who the Pasdaran can accept.

 

[scottdisco]

let's bring in an on-song Craner