The Mark 2010

No real change can take place in Iran until the country's clerical authorities are challenged – something none of the candidates in the upcoming election seem willing to do.

After enduring Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s odious anti-Semitic rants and his confrontational style for four years, the international community will be watching Iran’s June 12 Presidential elections closely. The hope is that the new president – assuming the incumbent does not win another term – will drop the Holocaust denial and the wiping-countries-off-the-map rhetoric and will instead engage with the world on various geopolitical issues.

It is possible that a new Iranian administration will answer the nervous prayers of the international community. But will the election also answer the Iranian people’s prayers for democracy and human rights? Regrettably, the answer is no.

To understand that pessimism, it is important to first know a little about the Iranian political structure. By constitutional design, Iran has two parallel governments: one elected, the other clerical and unaccountable. It is the latter branch – currently headed by Ayatollah Khamenei – that holds the real power in Iran. The clerical establishment controls the armed forces, the tightly-monitored media, and, in large part, the purse strings. Presidents can come and go, but Iranians will be no closer to meaningful democracy so long as such significant powers are vested in unelected clerics.

But the democratic deficit is not limited to the clerical branch. The rot runs much deeper. Even the candidates who run for elected office must first be approved by Iran’s powerful and unelected Guardian Council. This 12-member body can decide whether a candidate has the proper qualifications to run for office. It is hard to know exactly, but it appears that the primary qualification is complete fealty to Iran’s theocracy.

This year, nearly four hundred individuals registered to run for the presidency. The Guardian Council deemed only four of them adequately qualified. Will any religious minorities or women be able to run? Not a chance. The Guardian Council even disqualified former members of the Iranian parliament.

And who are these four candidates that made the cut? Will any of them champion human rights and democracy?

The Western press is fond of categorizing the battle as one between “conservatives” and “reformists." But, in reality, despite minor policy differences between them, all four are utterly loyal to Iran’s Islamic government.

Ahmadinejad will, of course, be running. His legacy is an economic freefall, international isolation and disappearing civil liberties. Also in the running is Mohsen Rezaie, a former leader of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, a force known for its brutality and corruption. Mr. Rezaie has the unique distinction of being wanted by Interpol for his role in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Argentina.

On the “reformist” side will be Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi. Mousavi served as Iran’s Prime Minister from 1980 to 1988 and, to his credit, managed the Iranian economy deftly during the years of war with Iraq. But his tenure as Prime Minister also coincided with the darkest period for human rights in Iran. Throughout the 1980s, imprisonment, torture, and execution of political opponents were commonplace. And in 1988, the government carried out a large-scale massacre of all political prisoners. Mr. Mousavi may or may not have had a direct role in that repression. But he certainly raised no public objections.

As for Mr. Karroubi, he is the former parliament speaker who was long known as a radical cleric, but has changed his tune in recent years. He has said that he will push for changes at the margins, but has given no indication that he will challenge the undemocratic core of the theocracy.

The pundits and observers will follow this election with real anticipation. Once the results are announced, assuming one of the “reformists” wins, the Western commentariat may even celebrate the winner as a harbinger of change.

But those of us that care about the human rights movement in Iran have heard this story before. We remember how President Mohammad Khatami was similarly celebrated in 1997 and 2001. Yet Khatami proved to be worse than ineffectual. He did not draw attention to the brutality of Iran’s theocracy because, as he has said repeatedly, he believed in its legitimacy. And when the time came, in 1999, to speak up in support of protesting pro-democracy students attacked by paramilitary groups, Khatami simply stayed silent.

The winner of this year’s election, whomever it may be, will be little better than Khatami. Despite that, some Iranians, both at home and in the diaspora, will participate in the insignificant electoral charade on June 12. I will not be among them.