THE FINAL stages of Iran’s presidential campaign have been transformed by passionate television debates, huge mobilisations of supporters and combative arguments between members of a hitherto much more closed elite into a real exercise in democratic participation. Anyone who has witnessed this rapid escape from political apathy has been impressed by it. While the election still leaves several crucial layers and centres of state authority relatively untouched, it is difficult to see how such an explosion of popular involvement can be put back into its box. Whoever wins will have to deal with a new political reality, driven especially by the men and women under 30 who are 70 per cent of the population.
Domestic economic and social issues have dominated this campaign more than the authoritarian clerical rule, regional destabilisation and pursuit of nuclear weapons through which Iranian policy is commonly viewed internationally. Outgoing president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has campaigned strenuously for a second term based on a record of reforms which boosted pensions, wages and loans to many of the poorest Iranians, together with the offensive and vitriolic anti-Israeli rhetoric for which he has become notorious. But he has met his match in a campaign which saw his record denounced by competitors and by highly influential figures in the regime who accuse him of lying and opportunism. His effort to tarnish the reputation of his chief opponent’s wife spectacularly backfired, boosting Mir Hussein Moussavi’s chances of being elected in today’s first round of voting.
Mr Moussavi, a former prime minister, attracted a growing reformist following during the campaign, especially by demanding more effective economic policies, better employment opportunities for young people, more freedom for women and a gradual opening up of society. Another candidate, Mehdi Karroubi, a former cleric, says women should not be forced to wear the Islamic veil and wants to see more women in the cabinet. And the fourth one, Mohsen Rezaie, formerly head of the revolutionary guards, also insists on more equality for women. By all accounts, these campaign commitments have made a difference in encouraging women to vote, in a hope for change that suddenly looks more possible. Much the same is happening with young people.
Iran is a complex society with several distinct centres of power. The revolutionary regime installed from 1979 is still in place through a system of clerical rulers who retain ultimate power by controlling security apparatuses, the judiciary and media. They also vet candidates, having let only this limited number of orthodox figures through to stand on this occasion. But these candidates have taken advantage of the campaign’s dynamics to voice new demands for change, and have been bolstered by growing popular interest. Power remains concentrated in clerical hands, but it is increasingly fragmented and challenged by different visions of the future.
This is a very welcome development. The rest of the world must take the opportunity offered by this democratic opening to engage seriously with Iran, on the assumption that its leaders understand world concerns.