I've been trying to follow the Iranian election coverage via Andrew Sullivan and links the past few days, trying to make sense of what we see coming from Tehran and Iran.
Mir Hussein Moussavi, the former prime minister and chief rival to the establishment in this campaign, has inspired a youth-driven movement with calls for temperance in Iran's international and domestic policies: an openness to working to promote peace and stability in the Middle East, working with the West with an open hand rather than clenched fist, removing the moral police that scour the streets of Iran searching for deviants of Islamic Law, that the economy is not as stable as the establishment would like one to believe. There seems to be a snide side to what they've created and perhaps an element of it being "the cool thing to do," but an undeniable passion for one thing above all else in their voices - a call for the freedom of choice. Where have we heard that before?
And then there is Ahmadinejad - portrayed as an intelligent, wise, yet simple man and patriot who loves his country above all else. His supporters see him a sign of strength against the West and those who oppose Iran. But behind it all seems to be a fear of change, that the status quo and order of things could be shuffled around, and it is this fear that drives Ahmadinejad's followers. Fear of the unknown, that some kind of shift in policy will irreparably weaken Iran and cause it to collapse upon itself. Where have we heard that before?
The comparisons to our recent U.S. presidential election are very much appropriate, as the opposition to Ahmadinejad bears an uncanny resemblance to what those of us supporting Obama looked, sounded, and felt like for over a year. The same can be said of Ahmadinejad and McCain: not to paint McCain supporters as fascist suppressors of democracy and deniers of the Holocaust, but there were times during the 2008 campaign season where the stuff coming out of the Republican base was just as wacky and fear-mongering.
Pre-election poll numbers (pdf) (yeah, who thought those would be coming out of Iran?) give Ahmadinejad a plurality with 34% of the vote, with Moussavi holding 14% and 27% declaring they are unsure of who they will vote for. Of the unsure group, however, over 60% say they are in favor of reform and change in Iran's policies, perhaps making this race much closer than the open poll might suggest. Also, if a candidate does not have a majority of the vote from the open round of voting, a runoff is held a week later between the top two vote-claiming candidates, again creating an opening for Moussavi's numbers to move up.
Granted, Iran's Supreme Leader still runs the show. Granted, Ahmadinejad could win, go Bush's second term on Iran thinking he has a mandate and become even more radical and anti-west and close-minded. There is just as much potential disaster as there is promise in this election.
Far from it for me to make a call on how this thing is gonna turn out, but this I know for sure: there is a fight going on generationally in these elections - the U.S., Lebanon, Iran. The "Old Guard" is having trouble keeping their entrenched views as policy across the world. As much as I hate to say it, maybe Bush was right about something (GASP!) and democracy is on the march. But rather than with soldiers and guns as he promoted, the war is being fought by those who need to fight it - with ordinarily extraordinary people, gasping for the air of freedom and choice. This is democracy in action.
No comments:
Post a Comment