Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Iran’s Stolen Election (Laura Secor of the New Yorker)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 12:28 AM
Original message
Iran’s Stolen Election (Laura Secor of the New Yorker)
"There can be no question that the June 12, 2009 Iranian presidential election was stolen. Dissident employees of the Interior Ministry, which is under the control of President Ahmadinejad and is responsible for the mechanics of the polling and counting of votes, have reportedly issued an open letter saying as much. Government polls (one conducted by the Revolutionary Guards, the other by the state broadcasting company) that were leaked to the campaigns allegedly showed ten- to twenty-point leads for Mousavi a week before the election; earlier polls had them neck and neck, with Mousavi leading by one per cent, and Karroubi just behind. Historically, low turnout has always favored conservatives in Iranian elections, while high turnout favors reformers. That’s because Iran’s most reliable voters are those who believe in the system; those who are critical tend to be reluctant to participate. For this reason, in the last three elections, sixty-five per cent of voters have come from traditional, rural villages, which house just thirty-five per cent of the populace. If the current figures are to be believed, urban Iranians who voted for the reformist ex-president Mohammad Khatami in 1997 and 2001 have defected to Ahmadinejad in droves.

What is most shocking is not the fraud itself, but that it was brazen and entirely without pretext. The final figures put Mousavi’s vote below thirty-five per cent, and not because of a split among reformists; they have Karroubi pulling less than one per cent of the vote. To announce a result this improbable, and to do it while locking down the Interior Ministry, sending squads of Revolutionary Guards into the streets, blacking out internet and cell phone communication and shuttering the headquarters of the rival candidates, sends a chilling message to the people of Iran—not only that the Islamic Republic does not care about their votes, but that it does not fear their wrath. Iranians, including many of the original founders and staunch supporters of the revolution, are angry, and they will demonstrate. But they will be met with organized and merciless violence. Already, Youtube clips are streaming out of Iran, many of them showing riot police savagely beating protestors. Mousavi and Karroubi have been placed under house arrest.

When it comes to the instruments of democracy in Iran, there is understandable confusion abroad. Iran has elections, and in 1997 Mohammad Khatami won them by a landslide and initiated an eight-year period of internal reform. But this is only half the story of the reform years. The other half involves the relentless occlusion of the reform agenda by clerics who outrank the president, and the systematic elimination of every loophole through which another Khatami might creep into the state apparatus. By 2005 the country’s hard-line Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, had made it abundantly clear that he did not intend to tolerate a divided government. The mood of the electorate, in 2005 and at the two mid-term elections since, has been cynical and despondent. It was logical to conclude that no candidate who ran in the 2009 race could be expected to put up real resistance to the Leader, and that no reforms would be successful. And so it was particularly stunning to watch Iranians resurrect their hopes and place them in Mir Hossein Mousavi—even if they did so for the main purpose of ejecting Ahmadinejad from power.

...

In the days before the vote, my Iranian contacts breathlessly compared the atmosphere in Iran to that of 1979, the year of the Islamic Revolution. In the last twenty-four hours, the unavoidable analogy has become 1989. The big question is where we are: Wenceslas Square or Tiananmen.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/06/laura-secor-irans-stolen-election.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
napoleon_in_rags Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. There are a lot of posts on this tonight. Where does any of it put us?
Whatever happened, the old guard is in control. Any conversation about what we do about it will be the same old conversation about Iran, which we've been having since they were put in the "Axis of Evil". So is this a game changer in some way I am missing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I'm not thinking of where it puts *US*, I'm thinking of where it puts *Iran*
It's important to millions of people in Iran for obvious reasons --this is any hope of their democracy on the line.

Whether or not it makes a difference to us strategically, who knows at this point.

But as free people, shouldn't it make a difference to us to know and appreciate that an election has been brazenly stolen? Doesn't knowing that and feeling that it is significant have intrinsic value regardless of whether it affects our foreign police or not?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napoleon_in_rags Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I agree.
I'm not putting you down for posting it, I am just wondering where it puts us. IS it a game changer???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yes, it's a game changer
If the election was stolen, it's a game changer because of what that means.

It means Iran's leaders knew they couldn't win without stealing the election.

It means that Iran's leaders have found yet another enemy --their own people.

It means that we are dealing with a country whose leadership feels threatened in more ways than they did 3 days ago.

That's a big deal in my mind.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napoleon_in_rags Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. So it could be that if we let Iran go their regime will topple on its own?
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 10:10 AM by napoleon_in_rags
Without pushing from US and Israel? Sounds like a positive development to me, if we take the opportunity instead of unifying them all against a perceived foreign threat! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonCoquixote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
4. Let's be honest
Yes, I get annoyed when some Foreigners come here and go "well your elections worked out so nice in 2000, didn't they?" But the fact is, if Mahomoud is in power, in part, it is because George Bush was the very best thing that happened to him. These two employed the same strategy; appeal the the religious hardliners, and the fear that unless everybody fell in line, doomsday would come.

The truth is, if Mahmoud wins, we will need to engage in diplomacy more than ever! The worst thing for him would be a USA that actually wants peace. If McCain were in power, we would probably have been at war already, and this election would not have been close at all! We need diplomacy now, more than ever, and furthermore, we cannot allow Betanyahu to try and spin this into the war he wants badly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 03:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC