Fill out the brief form below for access to the free report.
In honor of the Iranian people who once again were denied free and fair elections, the Freedom Collection blog is highlighting Iran this week. We have asked a number of leaders in the democracy promotion community to answer the following questions:
Where is Iran on its path toward liberalization? And is the demise of the clerical regime a necessary prerequisite for democratization?
We will be posting responses throughout the week.
On June 14 Iranians chose a popular “moderate” as president, leading to the question of whether the outcome is evidence that Iran is on a path toward liberalization. Sayyid Hassan Rowhani, a mid-ranking cleric and PhD, trumped his five conservative competitors with an impressive first round victory, giving his supporters hope for more social freedoms, political openness, and a chance to strengthen the economy by reconfiguring Iran's relationship with the rest of the world. While he almost certainly would not have been the popular choice in a free and fair election, where any man or woman could run for office, he was more in line with most Iranians than the other seven candidates hand-picked by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
There is barely a mention of Rowhani without the phrase “reformist-backed” attached. The international media have wrapped the President-elect in the cloak of moderation. Even former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has used folksy superlatives to describe the avuncular Dr. Rowhani, suggesting that he is a nice guy who can alter Iran’s trajectory to be more in line with Western expectations, particularly on the nuclear issue.
Lest we all get caught up in the frenzy of false hope, it might be wise to avoid too much hype about the results of this election, and accept them with significant caution and much lower expectations.
In the first place, Iran is still a theocracy. The Islamic Republic is in its 33rd year, and despite crippling economic sanctions, shows no sign of fading away? The clerical-military establishment remains solidly in place, and its influence was everywhere in this election, from vetting candidates who were assessed according to their loyalty to the Islamic Republic and Islam, to imposing massive restrictions both on the Internet and on domestic and foreign media coverage of the election, to mass arrests of activists and the detention of campaign workers.
Khamenei warned the candidates not to put the nation ahead of Islam. Iran's current head of the nuclear negotiating team, Saeed Jalili, was a candidate in the election as well. Considered to be a close ally of the Supreme Leader, he was said to be the most anti-Western in the contest. Although he ran a distant third in the poll, he will continue as the Secretary to the Supreme National Security Council, unless, of course, the new President decides to spend political capital on trying to make a change.
For the foreseeable future, the new President will be preoccupied with the economy and will be very limited in his ability to influence foreign and nuclear policy, let alone implement sweeping political reforms. So don't expect a liberal Iran anytime soon and don't expect western style democratization to sweep the clerical regime away. The opposite is closer to the truth – there will be no democratization until the mullahs are no longer calling the shots and the Iranian people can express their will in free and fair elections.
Michael Murphy is a special contributor to the Freedom Collection blog. Michael has been active in democracy promotion and international relations for the better part of four decades in Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, and the Middle East. He is currently a consultant based in Ottawa.
Chinese Prisoner’s Death Holds a Message for Americans and China
Liu Xiaobo, China’s most prominent dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner died this week. His death holds a message for Americans and for China.
Release of Chinese Political Prisoner a Timely Reminder to Support Freedom Advocates Abroad
More than half the world’s population still lives in countries where basic political rights and civil liberties are only partly respected, if at all.
Bringing Freedom to the Forefront of 21st Century Politics
Is the global liberal democratic order in danger? Purposefully constructed in the aftermath of World War II, this order -- and the American leadership that is central to its success --has contributed to securing peace and expanding prosperity in the United States and around the world. Today, that order appears to be dissolving. This crisis is not new or sudden; it has been mounting for several years. Global challenges like authoritarian capitalism, violent extremism, demographic pressures, and displaced populations have placed global freedom in decline. Fraying traditional alliances united by core values of freedom are increasingly weak to respond. It is alarming that the downdraft in democratic resilience over the past decade or more includes countries that have long been part of the consolidated democratic West. This is democratic deconsolidation. In much of the Western world, we see a rise in demagogic populism, illiberalism, nationalism, protectionism, and waning conf
The Importance of Speaking Truth to Tyrants
What the president of the United States says matters. Even during the realpolitik policies of détente under Richard Nixon, it was still clear that American policy was based on a set of core values. Nixon’s practical goals of reaching deals with America’s adversaries was never based on the “great chemistry” with himself or praising the Soviet or Communist Chinese leadership doing a “fantastic job.” When the president aligns himself with the autocrats and dictators, he aligns America with their oppression. He sends a message that corruption and brutality are not our concern. Contrast that with how Ronald Reagan defied much of world opinion in calling out the brutality of the Soviet system. Natan Sharansky, then a refusenik imprisoned in a Soviet gulag, later wrote for the Weekly Standard of his thoughts on Reagan’s pronouncement that the USSR was an evil empire: “It was the great, brilliant moment whe