Could today's Iran election be a 1975 turning point?

It’s difficult to predict how Iranians will react to this election. The peeling back of even the veneer of political choice and change may be the last straw for Iranians and eventually lead to another uprising, just as the shah’s 1975 scrapping of political parties helped spur the 1979 revolution.

Yalda Moayeri/Reuters
Presidential candidate Hassan Rohani casts his ballot during the Iranian presidential election in Tehran today. Millions of Iranians voted to choose a new president on Friday, urged by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to turn out in force to discredit suggestions by the United States that the election would be unfair.

Is today’s presidential election in Iran a 1975 turning point?

That was the year when the shah of Iran, who seemed at the zenith of his power, decided to take down the facade of democracy that had been hiding the dictatorial nature of his regime. He dissolved the two political parties, popularly nicknamed “Yes” and “Yes, Sir,” and replaced them with a single “Yes, Sir” party, called Resurrection. It set him on the road to his own downfall.

With this move, the shah basically gave Iranians three options: Join the party, leave the country, or go to prison. But Iranians recognized that a single party meant the end of any hope that the government would permit democratic reform. Overthrowing the regime became the only logical alternative for a people yearning for independence, freedom, and democracy. This simmering discontent eventually burst out in the 1979 revolution, by which nearly 3,000 years of monarchic despotism were brought to an end.

But the democratic revolution of nearly 35 years ago was hijacked by the ayatollahs, and now, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei may be walking in the path of the hated shah.

As the shah abolished the two-party system, so has Mr. Khamenei abolished any semblance of a competitive slate of candidates for today’s election. The Iranian Guardian Council, which vets presidential candidates, has eliminated those candidates who might have been perceived as having a reform or independent streak in them, including former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, whom the council declared unfit to run – to the dismay of reformists.

The most obvious reason for a slate full of conservative Khamenei loyalists is to avoid the upheaval that followed the 2009 presidential election. That was when many Iranian voters backed a reformer, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, and then took the streets to protest vote rigging and fraud when he lost. The demonstrators’ “green movement” was violently put down by the regime.

Despite Khamenei’s slate of “Yes, Sir” candidates, those who wear the reform label, such as Mr. Rafsanjani, have found someone to endorse on the list of six candidates.

His name is Hassan Rouhani, a cleric and former nuclear negotiator. He is trying to appeal to women voters and ethnic minorities, saying that he’ll form a ministry of women. His appeal also lies in his foreign policy experience as a former nuclear negotiator. With the help of reformsits as well as some conservatives, Mr. Rouhani is trying to garner a following among young Iranians.

Hopefully, voters will understand that Rouhani is a thoroughly conservative loyalist, highly unlikely to deliver any loosening of the Islamic security apparatus. He enthusiastically endorsed the crackdown on students in the uprising of 1999. If he is “elected” (in reality, appointed by Khamenei, if that’s his choice in these fraudulent elections), reform-minded Iranians will be just as disappointed as with reformist Rafsanjani.

After all, during Rafsanjani’s time as head of the parliament and later on as the president, in the 1980s and early 1990s, thousands of prisoners were executed and many of the regime’s opponents were assassinated. In 1997, German prosecutors implicated Rafsanjani and Khamenei in ordering the assassination of dissident Iranian-Kurdish leaders in the Mykonos restaurant in West Berlin in 1992.

Voters will likely recognize Khamenei’s “Yes, Sir” list for what it is, just as they did the fraudulent election in 2009, and the shah’s one-party move in 1975. But given the certainty of a crackdown on any post-election protest, they would be better off this time with boycotting the elections – denying the regime the legitimacy that it tries to demonstrate through multiple candidates and a supposed “winner.”

A mass boycott could, in turn, embolden Khamenei’s opponents within the regime and in society, potentially having a snowball effect. It would also send a message to Western governments, primarily the United States, that Iranians want to see the back of this regime and they are the masters of their house.

It’s difficult to predict how Iranians will react to this election. The peeling back of even the veneer of political choice and change may be the last straw for Iranians and eventually lead to another uprising, just as the shah’s move did in 1975.

For more than a century, social movements in Iran have attempted to realize the goal of more freedom. A point comes when oppression can be withstood no longer, when people feel they have nothing more to lose. This may still turn out to be that point.

Mahmood Delkhasteh is a political and human rights activist.  He is working on a book based on his doctoral dissertation, “Islamic Discourses of Power and Freedom in the Iranian Revolution, 1979-81.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.