Iranian Election Crisis

[Dreamer94]

Do you guys support the claim that the elections were rigged to protect Ahmadinejad since he had support of Supreme Ayatollah Ali Sistani?

IMO, the voting fraud is a bit of a complex matter to me. I'm neutral on the issue; I'm not an Ahmadinejad support nor a Mousavi supporter. But their policies are most intriguing to me. Ahmadinejad, for example, has my support for the right to develop nuclear energy--in peaceful methods, though. It is proven that he actually used some of that nuclear energy to fuel the country's energy. What I don't support, however, is his hardline strategies, especially on women. In many ways, Iran is so similar to Saudi Arabia; the only difference is that Iran is a Shiite Islamic Republic and Saudi Arabia is a Sunni monarchy.

Mousavi, however, is a bit confusing to me. He's a big fan of women's rights and all that, but his main focus isn't on Iran's nuclear energy, but mainly domestic policies. I haven't really heard him talk about what he's planning to do in the future concerning Iran's nuclear energy. Will he diminish the program or will he continue it? The problem is, though, that's he is very pro-US relations kind of reformist, so in essence I think he wants to halt the nuclear energy program.

Regarding the rigged elections, I still don't know. Interestingly, though, I think Iran is moving closer to an another revolution that will separate the religion from the state.

[wikinerd]

Do you guys support the claim that the elections were rigged to protect Ahmadinejad since he had support of Supreme Ayatollah Ali Sistani?

IMO, the voting fraud is a bit of a complex matter to me. I'm neutral on the issue; I'm not an Ahmadinejad support nor a Mousavi supporter. But their policies are most intriguing to me. Ahmadinejad, for example, has my support for the right to develop nuclear energy--in peaceful methods, though. It is proven that he actually used some of that nuclear energy to fuel the country's energy.

...

Regarding the rigged elections, I still don't know. Interestingly, though, I think Iran is moving closer to an another revolution that will separate the religion from the state.

The words in bold illustrates the problem. A peaceful revolution or not, the country is not exactly very stable.

I'd say you should put nuclear use on hold until the country is more stable and the elections are transparent. The only way nuclear powers can be stopped from using this to their advantage is if they have a transparent, responsible government where use of it will cause controversy and has to be made answerable. (And no, I wouldn't say that the current main nuclear powers are the ideal ones either— but at least they're stable.)

And just before you point out the difference between peaceful and military use of nuclear material, the line can be thin (just take a look at the fuss N. Korea stirred up). Nuclear waste can be used as weapons too.

This is, of course, only my opinion on the matter.

[Mattias]

What evidence would suggest that they were rigged?

Have large amounts of money been wired to people's bank accounts?

Are there dead bodies?

Have there been death threats?

Polls are not always accurate- we should all know that?

And usually, if things are rigged, you can tell because a certain party will benefit from it.

No one is benefiting anything from Amnesdfsdfs (cannot spell) from winning.

Even he isn't- he's not doing it for money or power.

So, no, I think the Iranian democratic system has worked.

[Vvi]

They want votes recounted in Iran, but that's a pointless move if the totals are correct but fraudulent voting slips were counted too (for example, if 10,000 pre-filled slips were cast for Ahmadinejad).

And Mattias, you don't need dead bodies and all that cash/death threat stuff to prove that elections were rigged. The last Kenyan presidential elections were rigged and none of that stuff appeared. There were simply thousands of pre-submitted voting slips already filled out, but no one can prove that it's election fraud really (unless you can prove that the people on the slips don't exist, but they almost always did. The voting slips were filled in for people living in the countryside that wouldn't have voted).

And political parties always benefit from winning elections, rigged or not. You have the power to enforce the policies you want. I think the reaosn Ahmadinejad won is because he supports and pays out subsidies for the poor on basic products like bread. The middle class didn't back him, but there are more porr Iranians than there are rich. He's also seen as anti-West (which works in his favour).

I don't understand why countries have to have nuclear energy unless they're suffering from an energy crisis. Iran has lots of sun; use solar energy. Iran has lots of oil; use that up first. Iran is a coastal country; use dams to generate electricity. Some countries like France rely heavily on nuclear energy, but their government isn't threatening others with its nuclear arsenal; they are responsible countries, while others like Iran at present are more rash. If Iran did elect a new president who could prove that politically Iran is stable (i.e. no chance of a coup and those who wish to launch nuclear weapons/enrich uranium further are not in danger of coming to power), then they should be allowed nuclear techonology. For example, I think the US' move of placing nuclear weapons in Pakistan was seriously flawed; the country is now in the midst of fierce fighting between government forces and the Taleban. If the Taleban do take over and gain access to the weapons, I doubt they'll treat them with as much responsiblity as the current government does.

[Dreamer94]

They want votes recounted in Iran, but that's a pointless move if the totals are correct but fraudulent voting slips were counted too (for example, if 10,000 pre-filled slips were cast for Ahmadinejad).

I agree. The underlying issue here isn't fraud elections, but really a growing discontent towards Ahmadinejad by much of his country as we see now--the middle class and especially women who want their rights in Iran.

I don't understand why countries have to have nuclear energy unless they're suffering from an energy crisis. Iran has lots of sun; use solar energy. Iran has lots of oil; use that up first. Iran is a coastal country; use dams to generate electricity.

Politically, what's more defying: nuclear energy or solar energy? I think Ahmadinejad wants nuclear energy because he realizes the significance and the controversy it would generate. In fact, I think he will continue to pursue it in the future because really, all he wants is Iran's status as a superpower. The sad truth is, however, that Iran is not perfect: the economy's supporting a 25% inflation rate, the military isn't as strong as it should bee, and so what's left? Nuclear energy.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Masooma

[Mattias]

They want votes recounted in Iran, but that's a pointless move if the totals are correct but fraudulent voting slips were counted too (for example, if 10,000 pre-filled slips were cast for Ahmadinejad).

And Mattias, you don't need dead bodies and all that cash/death threat stuff to prove that elections were rigged. The last Kenyan presidential elections were rigged and none of that stuff appeared. There were simply thousands of pre-submitted voting slips already filled out, but no one can prove that it's election fraud really (unless you can prove that the people on the slips don't exist, but they almost always did. The voting slips were filled in for people living in the countryside that wouldn't have voted).

And political parties always benefit from winning elections, rigged or not. You have the power to enforce the policies you want. I think the reaosn Ahmadinejad won is because he supports and pays out subsidies for the poor on basic products like bread. The middle class didn't back him, but there are more porr Iranians than there are rich. He's also seen as anti-West (which works in his favour).

I don't understand why countries have to have nuclear energy unless they're suffering from an energy crisis. Iran has lots of sun; use solar energy. Iran has lots of oil; use that up first. Iran is a coastal country; use dams to generate electricity. Some countries like France rely heavily on nuclear energy, but their government isn't threatening others with its nuclear arsenal; they are responsible countries, while others like Iran at present are more rash. If Iran did elect a new president who could prove that politically Iran is stable (i.e. no chance of a coup and those who wish to launch nuclear weapons/enrich uranium further are not in danger of coming to power), then they should be allowed nuclear techonology. For example, I think the US' move of placing nuclear weapons in Pakistan was seriously flawed; the country is now in the midst of fierce fighting between government forces and the Taleban. If the Taleban do take over and gain access to the weapons, I doubt they'll treat them with as much responsiblity as the current government does.

Okay, true.

Nevertheless, I believe the elections were fair.

It's as you said- there are more poor than rich, and he had the support of the poor.

To be quite honest, I think the US government is trying to blow this up as much as possible in order to create doubt among other countries on whether or not the Iranians have a stable government.

Go underdog!

Edited June 18, 2009 by Mattias

[Dreamer94]

The United States hasn't done much concerning the current elections. Except for his stating his growing concern "growing concern", Obama said he was neutral on the issue.

[dragooneer]

There appears to be quite a bit of evidence to suggest rigging. Election results came in blocks of one million, rather than by province as they had before, which is a little fishy. Plus, the vote per province supposedly showed similar percentages in each province, which is a little strange (urban and rural would be split a lot differently, home provinces should be skewed towards the home candidate by a noticable amount). Also, the enforcement of the issue seems a little extreme - if it was legit, then why give your thugs full reign to violently silence dissidents?

[Sandwich]

The impression I got was that the main foreign policy is decided by Ayatollah (their spiritual leader) and that it's only really domestic policy over which the presidents have any major say, although of course I think the whole thing has to be cleared by the spiritual department, too. I guess in such a deeply religious country where the religion trumps the democracy in many respects (or at least controls it to the extent that democracy becomes a loose term) it's inevitable it would happen that few decisions can be made against the wishes of the religious establishment.

I actually think that Ahmadinejad would have won anyway, but I don't think the elections were fair. It is my understanding of it that he even announced he'd won in places before the election results were even announced! He also won in Mousavi's home town which is statistically extremely improbable. A huge proportion of the young voters and female voters ought to have voted for Mousavi, but they had massive turn-out on the day, which means that it wasn't just the people who wanted change who all flooded out to vote, but also the hard-core fundamentalists who want it kept as it is.

On a personal level, I believe Iran is too politically unstable to be trusted with nuclear technology. I think it's a crime to deprive them of it in order to supply themselves with power etc., but they're simultaneously likely to be a threat. It's the seat of fundamentalist Islam in many respects as there are few controls over extremism there and the major problem with extremists is that they follow the terrorist ethos that

1. all of the West is evil

2. innocent lives can be sacrificed on a large scale with no warning to effect the destruction of the West

3. their lives can be given up in the process.

These are two principles highly incompatible with nuclear weapons capacity!! Nobody ever uses nuclear weapons because of the HUGE spill-out. Destruction on a supremely massive scale just can't be justified by anything except for on principles of terrorism. It may be extremely unlikely that anybody would want to destroy a huge section of the world like that UNLESS they had it as part of their agenda.

That's the only reason I'd worry if Iran had nuclear capacity. All it takes is one gang of mental people to cause unprecedented damage and destruction, and unfortunately the government, goals and transparency of the country is such that it's hard to feel secure they have it all under control at this moment in time.

I also think that what happens to women and the way they have to live their lives is criminal. Where's the choice? It's just not there, and it's soul-deadening. I've read all sorts of unpleasant articles about what happens to these women (and it's not necessarily actively being killed or beaten by their husbands, that's rare, but a significant number commit suicide because they can't stand being trapped where they are), and it's really quite appalling that the choice isn't there.

Being honest, I'd like for there to be some sort of revolution if only to get out of the horrible circle, but having seen the violence from the police trying to keep everything under control and Ayatollah's recent statement that those who go against the outcome of the election have to 'bear the full responsibility of the outcome on their shoulders' makes me simultaneously wish it on no person that they be the one to complain! It's certainly no democracy at the moment, regardless. No democracy fails to launch an enquiry when this sort of thing happens, no democracy has an overarching leader actually capable of taking decisions (similar set-ups, such as that of the UK where the Queen technically leads the country, are incomparable as the Queen has more or less absolute zero power or say in decisions) because then it's not really the voice of the people, it's the voice of a man and his council. Anything which goes on after that is going on underneath a higher authority, but that's just not the way democracy is meant to work, no matter how forgiving and go-with-the-flow that higher authority might be. By all evidence, Ayatollah appears to go along with the people's choice, but it seems clear that in this election, the choice of the people was not transparently dealt with.