[Peace-discuss] Behrooz Ghamari (UIUC): Iran's Elections

[Robert Naiman]

Perhaps others were aware of this, but it was just called to my attention.

http://counterpunch.org/ghamari12182006.html

Behrooz Ghamari is a professor of history and sociology at the
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. He is the author of the
forthcoming book, Islam and Dissent in Postrevolutionary Iran

The World Isn't Florida and the US Isn't Its Supreme Leader
Iran's Elections

By BEHROOZ GHAMARI-TABRIZI
December 18, 2006

On December 15, more than 60% of Iranians cast ballots in municipals
elections. With the mounting pressure of reformist coalitions, a
remarkable number of their candidates survived the draconian vetting
processes of the clerical establishment and turned this election into
a popular vote of confidence in Ahmadinejad's administration. Whether
they succeed in wining the majority seats in city and town councils in
Tehran and other parts of the country is not known yet. But the mere
act of the electorates' massive participation once more exhibited the
resilience of democratic institutions under the Islamic Republic in
spite of abundant social, legal, and political impediments. Had this
election occurred in an allied country of the United States, it would
have been celebrated as the highest achievement of American foreign
policy. But the Bush administration and the mainstream media disregard
elections held under an alleged "totalitarian" state as a nonevent.

There is an expression in Persian that if a wall's first brick is laid
unevenly, it will be skewed no matter how high it is erected.
President Bush won his first term by corrupting the votes in Florida
and later by exploiting the judicial system in the United States. This
set a devastating precedent for an administration which considers
itself to be above the law and believes it can wield its power
indiscriminately around the world. It is indeed one of most appalling
ironies that a President who assumed office fraudulently calls himself
and his entourage of neoconservative hawks the messengers of democracy
in the world. He might be right in believing that his mission of
spreading democracy in the world defines his presidency. But the
problem is that for this administration, like many others before it,
democracy means turning a nation into an American ally. According to
Bush, the world is divided into three camps: undemocratic, countries
impervious to American interests; democratic, countries yielding to
American interests; and those in between. There is nothing novel about
this strategic narcissism. American foreign policy during the Cold War
was informed by the tunnel vision of "American interests" which
compelled one administration after another to raise the heat of the
Cold War through successive proxy wars and coup d'états­­think Iran
1953, Guatemala 1954, Indonesia 1967, Vietnam 1965-73, Chile 1973,
Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua 1980s, and the list goes on.

The United States learned the wrong lessons in the Cold War. A
nation's right to self-determination, even at the expense of American
interests, must be respected. The US is not the Supreme Leader of the
world with power to override the outcome of elections in other
countries. When the Palestinians cast their ballots in favor of Hamas,
or the Venezuelans elect Chavez as their president, it is morally
wrong and politically bankrupt to punish them with economic sanctions
or conspire to overthrow their legitimate government because the White
House believes that the people have elected the "wrong party." The
Cold War is over, but the worldview that gave rise to it thrives.

President Bush's advisors would greatly benefit from reading Iranians'
numerous letters to the BBC's Persian service and interviews with
Iranian daily newspapers about why they vote or alternatively why they
boycott the elections. The majority who vote do so consciously to
underline their preference for a homegrown democracy with all its
faults over an imported American brand. One constituent wrote, "I
voted to prove that our true desire is to transform this system, and
to show that we don't need American democracy." Another letter from
Shahin Shar noted, "there is no room to breath freely, Iran's
international credibility and respect is diminishing, and we hope that
we are not on a path to war, I voted to change this direction." "I
want to know," another interviewee from Tehran asked rhetorically, "in
which other country in the world do they have carnivals on the streets
and the artists and celebrities go to neighborhoods to encourage
people to participate?" Another woman from Golestan described her vote
as a "declaration against right-wing populism and US warmongering."
Another voter from Mashad aptly observed, "Iranians always believe
that the neighbor's grass is greener [] I am 62 years old and I vote
proudly in all elections. I exercise this right and feel sorry for
those who fall short of their responsibilities and wait for some
invisible hand to come and rescue them. I know that they are
inexperienced and do not have any idea about other parts of the world.
I ask them to look at the Arab countries, all of those with good
relations with the US and tell me that they are more democratic than
we are." A young voter from Shiraz called the election a "velvet
revolution" that will strengthen "local decision-making and
non-governmental organizations."

Since President Bush has announced that he has been on a listening
tour, maybe he ought to extend the length of this most unusual
campaign and listen to the words and actions of the people he wants to
rescue in Iran.