Peace message in Iran’s election

Despite a rigged list of candidates, voters in Iran’s Feb. 26 election found a way to elect relative moderates who seek a less threatening country more open to the world. The vote was a humiliating blow to Iran’s clerical rule. 

AP Photo
An Iranian voter shows her hand with numbers 30+16, a reformist's slogan urging people to vote all reformists and moderate candidates in Tehran, for both parliament and Assembly of Experts elections, as she fills out her ballot in a polling station in Tehran Feb. 26. Iranian moderates, who support last year’s nuclear deal, won a 59 percent majority in the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member body which will choose the successor to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has been Iran's top decision-maker since 1989.

Shaping the Middle East to become more peaceful may seem a daunting ordeal but not when its people are allowed to speak. In a Feb. 26 election that was really more of a plebiscite, voters in Iran sent a clear message to their controlling clerics. They want Iran to be open to the world, not self-isolating by threatening other countries or barring foreign investment.

Here’s what Iranian voters were up against to send that message. The regime had rigged the list of approved candidates so that only a minority of those running could be considered relative moderates. And state TV was biased in support of hard-line candidates loyal to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his nonelected power centers. Yet despite the stunted democracy, voters were able to triple the number of reformist members in parliament. More important, reformers took a majority in the Assembly of Experts, the body charged with selecting the next supreme leader.

Voters also defeated many hard-line candidates opposed to last July’s nuclear agreement that lifted most sanctions on Iran. Overall, the election results boosted the political strength of President Hassan Rouhani, a centrist who won the 2013 election with the support of moderates and who wants to open the economy and create jobs. Nearly two-thirds of Iranians are under age 30 and have no memory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

How did reformers achieve this victory, especially with the regime’s ban on most social media?

They mobilized popular support using a Russian-designed messaging application called Telegram, an encrypted platform used by at least 20 million of Iran’s 77 million people. Activists were forced into operating in cyberspace after a violent crackdown on pro-democracy protests in 2009 following a highly rigged election. “We act within the system,” said Mohammad Reza Aref, a former vice president and a reformist candidate, at one campaign rally.

The regime’s conservatives still hold much of the power in Iran, but their legitimacy has now been badly tarnished. Rather than resort to street demonstrations, reformist voters were able to outsmart the regime by using the limited competition within a constrained electoral system. During the campaign, former President Mohammad Khatami, a leading reformer barred from state media, posted a video on Telegram urging Iranians to vote for “those who care for reforms, improvement, progress in the country as well as the removal of threats and limitations.”

If this election leads to a less threatening Iran, it may be remembered as a historic marker for a peaceful Middle East.

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.