Iranian election

[bascule]

So yeah, Iran, rumors of a rigged election, 2 million people protesting in the streets... pretty absurd.

 

What's your take? It seems to me like this will not end well.

[iNow]

My take is that it's a sham, and I happen to agree with the comments VP Biden made on MTP yesterday. Ahkmudinajad is claiming 65% of all votes in the city, where he barely has support at all. Reeks of rigging.

 

Also, it's not a democracy. They have this guy called a "supreme leader," which pretty much means any democratic issues can be quickly killed/squelched by him. You can't have both a democracy AND a supreme leader not subject to voting outcomes. It's a bit of an oxymoron.

 

It would be pretty bad if this thing were rigged, and it would make life difficult for us and the rest of the world as pertains to negotiation. Any time we opened talks with them, we'd know we were doing so with a person who didn't actually win the election. However, I can't help but to think that... in this day of twitter and text msg and internet communication... a rigged election would be better for everyone in the long run, as the younger people and women in Iran simply won't stand for it any longer if that's the case.

 

Tough call, though. I could very well be wrong about the rigging. Either way, it's nice to see at least the attempt at democracy in the region. Certainly a step in the right direction.

[Sisyphus]

Oh, I'm sure there was substantial vote-rigging, but I'm actually optimistic. Even if Ahmadinejad manages to retain his office, this feels like a turning point for Iran. Hundreds of thousands of people are protesting in Tehran. How can that not be the beginning of the end for the conservatives? The Times, They Are A-Changin', and all that.

[iNow]

And now it appears that Iran is banning foreign media from reporting on what is happening on the streets. Nothing says, "I won fair and square" better than a suppression of the press, arrest of dissenters, and slaughter of protesters.

 

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGSJEAPs_r2T2wxsL5G3t4z-jajQD98RP8GO2

Iranian authorities are restricting all journalists working for foreign media from firsthand reporting on the streets.

 

The rules cover all journalists, including Iranians working for foreign media. It blocks images and eyewitness descriptions of the protests and violence that has followed last week's disputed elections.

 

The order issued Tuesday limits journalists for foreign media to work only from their offices, conducting telephone interviews and monitoring official sources such as state television.

 

It comes as foreign reporters in Iran to cover the elections began leaving the country. Iranian officials say they will not extend their visas.

 

<...>

 

Hundreds of thousands of Mousavi's backers poured through Tehran on Monday in a massive show of unity — that ended in bloodshed when seven people were killed in a confrontation with pro-regime militiamen.

 

The Iranian state radio report said the deaths occurred during an "unauthorized gathering" at a mass rally after protesters "tried to attack a military location." It gave no further details, but it was a clear reference to crowds who came under gunfire Monday after trying to storm a compound for volunteer militia linked to Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard.

 

Any widening of protests by the opposition could begin to challenge the ruling clerics and the true centers of power in Iran.

 

<...>

 

A Web site run by Iran's former reformist vice president, Mohammad Ali Abtahi, said he had been arrested by security officers, but provided no further details. Abtahi's Web site, popular among the youth, has reported extensively on the alleged vote fraud.

 

Saeed Hajjarian, a prominent reformist, has also been detained, Hajjarian's wife, Vajiheh Masousi, told The AP Tuesday. Hajjarian is a close aide of former reformist President Mohammad Khatami.

 

 

This reminds me WAY too much of what happened a few months back with Mugabe in Zimbabwe during those quote unquote elections.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/16/iran.journalists.banned/

Iran's government Tuesday banned foreign media from covering rallies in Tehran being held in the wake of last week's disputed presidential election.

 

The decision comes after video footage emerged showing violence at demonstrations in support of opposition leader Mir Hossein Moussavi.

 

Moussavi has contested the results of Friday's election, which showed an overwhelming victory for hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

Moussavi's supporters have taken to the streets, often clashing with police and Ahmadinejad's backers.

 

Iran's government had criticized some of the media coverage and images, describing them as biased.

 

International news outlets, including CNN, can talk about rallies in their live reports, but they are not allowed to leave their hotel rooms and offices.

 

<...>

 

In addition to restricting foreign journalists, Iran also blocked access to certain online communication tools -- text and video -- but many Iranians were able to find a way around the restrictions.

Edited June 16, 2009 by iNow

[ecoli]

It looks bad on the short term, but I'm pretty enthused about the long term changes for Iran and twitter. Someone brought up a good parallel between now and S. Korea in the 80s.

 

We have two major changes going on here: how Iranians view themselves (esp. the contrary between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi supporters) and how the rest of the world now views the Iranian people. If you look at this twitter trending topic (http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23IranElection ), people are clearly getting over their notion that the pseudo-terrorist regime is being supported by the people. This hugely changes the type of political options we have in dealing with Ahmadinejad and his nuclear weapons quest.

[CharonY]

But wait a tick. Both candidates have to be approved by the supreme leader, right? So it makes sense that only Ahmadinejad himself would profit from rigging the election. The true power, however, will still reside with the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

I think the role of Mousavi as reformer might be somewhat overstated in the media. But it makes it so easy right? Ahmadinejad = evil dictator, rigging elections, Mousavi = progressive good guy.

 

(And there is Khamenei who does not care either way...).

[The Bear's Key]

Oh, I'm sure there was substantial vote-rigging, but I'm actually optimistic. Even if Ahmadinejad manages to retain his office, this feels like a turning point for Iran. Hundreds of thousands of people are protesting in Tehran. How can that not be the beginning of the end for the conservatives? The Times, They Are A-Changin', and all that.

Plus let's say the Iranian citizenry end up declaring and obtaining independence by themselves, like we did over 200 years ago.....the appreciation for their newfound liberties -- self earned -- would likely be more profound than within Iraq.

 

The best factor contributing to our prizing of liberty is that another nation didn't come to our rescue, demanding England to free us, and then handing us our liberties.

 

So Iranians would benefit in the long run from self-liberalization, unless they specifically asked for outside help. Plus they wouldn't have neocons attempting to birth a pure market system as was their plan for Iraq.

 

 

My take is that it's a sham, and I happen to agree with the comments VP Biden made on MTP yesterday. Ahkmudinajad is claiming 65% of all votes in the city, where he barely has support at all. Reeks of rigging.

And yet another demonstration of the need for open-sourced voting machinery Which can't be rigged as easily if the public can inspect the vote's mechanisms and software used.

 

Think I'll help pass along the concept to Iranians surfing the web. If perchance, the citizens of Iran were to mandate and then get established open-source voting, it's possible for it to become a revolutionary model that other nations (who are likewise repressed) could follow.

 

As of now Google Translate seems the best option for communication, as Babel Fish doesn't have arabic. The challenge then is to find a good web spot for communication, and ensuring that narrow meanings like "open-source" are translated correctly....maybe I'll re-run each translation backwards (arabic to english) to measure its accuracy.

 

Edit: (Tried "open-source voting" on the translator and ran it backwards after. It works -- however, "open-source software" doesn't re-translate back accurately. Might need a real arabic speaker to translate eventually, dunno)

Edited June 17, 2009 by The Bear's Key
clarifications and grammar

[Sisyphus]

Plus let's say the Iranian citizenry end up declaring and obtaining independence by themselves, like we did over 200 years ago.....the appreciation for their newfound liberties -- self earned -- would likely be more profound than within Iraq.

 

The best factor contributing to our prizing of liberty is that another nation didn't come to our rescue, demanding England to free us, and then handing us our liberties.

 

 

Except the French. It didn't originate with them, but we still would have probably failed if not for their assistance. Also, the Iranians wouldn't be obtaining "independence." I definitely agree with the main point, though.

[CaptainPanic]

Also, it's not a democracy. They have this guy called a "supreme leader," which pretty much means any democratic issues can be quickly killed/squelched by him. You can't have both a democracy AND a supreme leader not subject to voting outcomes. It's a bit of an oxymoron.

The Dutch, English, Danish, Swedish, Norwegians, Spanish (all functioning democracies) have a surpreme leader as well. We just call it head of state (king or queen). They call it different. Same deal though. Our constitution says that queen has the power to stop any law. And (although I am not sure) she can send away ministers and/or the entire government. Not sure about the power of the heads of state of the other countries I mentioned.

 

The difference is that our system is slightly more stable and that we're friends of the USA. I bet that if any of the previously mentioned countries would ever annoy the USA, the democracy would be questioned and the position of the head of state would be called undemocratic. Right now, nobody complains.

 

It would be pretty bad if this thing were rigged, and it would make life difficult for us and the rest of the world as pertains to negotiation. Any time we opened talks with them, we'd know we were doing so with a person who didn't actually win the election. However, I can't help but to think that... in this day of twitter and text msg and internet communication... a rigged election would be better for everyone in the long run, as the younger people and women in Iran simply won't stand for it any longer if that's the case.

I don't see how this is any different from both the elections where Bush got "elected". Even if the outcome of the much debated recounts were different, the system in the USA is such that a minority can elect a president. The popular vote isn't the same as the actual vote because of the electoral college.

 

All I try to say is: don't judge too hard... examples of all the things you say can be found in the modern Western society as well... on both sides of the Atlantic.

 

Tough call, though. I could very well be wrong about the rigging. Either way, it's nice to see at least the attempt at democracy in the region. Certainly a step in the right direction.

Indeed - instead of shouting that the election isn't fair, applaud the fact that they even have an election where more than 30% of the votes go to the opposition!

 

I think the democratic situation in Iran isn't half as bad as in many other countries. They're even going to recount the votes in some areas.

[Sisyphus]

But wait a tick. Both candidates have to be approved by the supreme leader, right? So it makes sense that only Ahmadinejad himself would profit from rigging the election. The true power, however, will still reside with the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

I think the role of Mousavi as reformer might be somewhat overstated in the media. But it makes it so easy right? Ahmadinejad = evil dictator, rigging elections, Mousavi = progressive good guy.

 

(And there is Khamenei who does not care either way...).

 

Good point. But Mousavi doesn't need to be a good guy to be a much better choice, and a good sign for what Iranians want.

[iNow]

The Dutch, English, Danish, Swedish, Norwegians, Spanish (all functioning democracies) have a surpreme leader as well. We just call it head of state (king or queen). They call it different. Same deal though.

 

<...>

 

All I try to say is: don't judge too hard... examples of all the things you say can be found in the modern Western society as well... on both sides of the Atlantic.

Absolutely. Very good points, and I appreciate the insight given by the context you describe.

 

 

I think the democratic situation in Iran isn't half as bad as in many other countries. They're even going to recount the votes in some areas.

 

In order to perform a recount, mustn't one previously perform a first count?

[SH3RL0CK]

Good point. But Mousavi doesn't need to be a good guy to be a much better choice, and a good sign for what Iranians want.

 

 

Isn't that what was once said about Sadaam Hussein?

[CharonY]

I have to say I am totally uneducated when it comes to the intrinsic of the politics in the middle east (or probably anywhere else, too, for that matter). However, can anyone point out, why precisely Mousavi is a better choice? Also a better choice for the Iranians, or a better one from the viewpoint of the West. The mass media is not really helpful in that regard. You know, today's reformer becomes tomorrow's dictator and so on...

[Sisyphus]

Isn't that what was once said about Sadaam Hussein?

 

Ok, but do you see how you can say that in any situation? It invalidates nothing. Mousavi campaigned on ending government monopoly on the media, disbanding the "morality police," codifying absolute equal rights for women, and trying to establish friendly relations with Europe and the United States. Oh, and not only does he admit the Holocaust actually happened, but he says it was a bad thing! So yes, even if in every other respect he's no better, he's still a much better choice for Iran and for the world, even if "that was once said about Saddam Hussein."

[SH3RL0CK]

Ok, but do you see how you can say that in any situation? It invalidates nothing. Mousavi campaigned on ending government monopoly on the media, disbanding the "morality police," codifying absolute equal rights for women, and trying to establish friendly relations with Europe and the United States. Oh, and not only does he admit the Holocaust actually happened, but he says it was a bad thing! So yes, even if in every other respect he's no better, he's still a much better choice for Iran and for the world, even if "that was once said about Saddam Hussein."

 

That is true. However, I am more concerned with the actions that will be taken by various individuals rather than rhetoric. Ahmadinejad speaks loudly, and his actions (such as their alleged missile and nuclear weapons programs) are concerning, but otherwise is keeping a fairly low profile (i.e. not invading Kuwait). Mousavi might be someone who speaks quietly, but will do more to cause problems for everyone else once in office. But I can't really predict his future actions, so I have to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

 

That said, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei isn't going anywhere anytime soon that I am aware of.

[iNow]

However, can anyone point out, why precisely Mousavi is a better choice? Also a better choice for the Iranians, or a better one from the viewpoint of the West.

A better choice for both. For one, Ahmedinajad has mismanaged the Iranian economy incredibly badly, and that tends to be the key deciding factor when Iranians vote... The person who manages the economy in such a way that it puts money in their pockets. The programs of Ahmedinajad have been very poor indeed, and he is directly responsible for much of the economic woes of Iran, who are worse off than most other countries. The voters there would hold this against him very much...

 

Also, Sisyphus covered many of the other points in his post after yours.

[Pangloss]

I'm just back from vacation, deep in Southern Utah hiking trails and jeep roads, where I was tragically/happily disconnected from the news (pics in Gen Forum later this week, I promise). I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at the fact that there is actual substance to the charges of vote rigging (the stories I did hear tended to focus on the size of the demonstrations and the media blackouts).

 

I have to say there's a stunning irony here in the way the "revolutionary" government is suddenly discovering that the will of the people can change, and maybe wasn't so firmly rooted in religious firmament as they believed. (Has anybody told Rush Limbaugh about this?)

 

Anyway, to someone my age, to whom the phrase "America Held Hostage" belongs to Ted Koppel and not Rush Limbaugh, this is a fascinating turn of events.

[iNow]

Sounds fun. Welcome back, man.

 

One of the things that I REALLY love about this whole story is how it's turning our traditional American perceptions on their face... our perceptions about the Iranian people. For so many years so many of us have cast their people into tiny ideological boxes, painting them with broad brush strokes and completely missing the important details. Now, with what we're seeing from these young people, and the huge outpouring of passion coming from them, I think we're forced to challenge some of the narrow viewpoints about those people previously held by so many. These aren't some sort of zombies marching in lock step with their leaders...

 

For me... This really puts a face on the Iranian people, and I certainly like what's looking back at me.

[ecoli]

It's putting a particularly real face on, in my experience. One of my very close friends is in Tehran right now, quite literally in the middle of the protests. One of her friend's was beat up by some thugs and another has gone missing.

 

It's been interesting talking to her about politics and how clueless the MSM is about what's going on. Interestingly, she detests Mousavi and thinks that he is little better than Ahmadini. This is not a protest in support of Mousavi, but against the General council and deep rooted corruption. And people are probably dying because of it.

 

Her, being an American/Irani/French woman, has an incredibly unique perspective and couldn't help draw some parallels between this and the American civil rights movement in the 60s. American young people (obviously including myself here) just don't know what its like to take to the streets in order to defend basic civil rights. That's what is happening in Iran.

[CharonY]

Actually what ecoli describes echoes what an Iranian colleague (who emigrated to Germany, but his family is still in Iran) wrote me. From what little I understand of Iran (almost completely herasay) the political situation in Iran is incredibly complex and as usual the media representation is lousy at best (it doesn't stop them from giving uninformed opinions, though).

Of course, my view is also extremely biased as the few Iranians I know are academics and probably be what the media would call "moderate" (they do hate the label, though).

 

Incidentally he also sent me that, which is kind of hilarious (if probably a bit unfair): http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=231547&title=jason-jones-behind-the-veil

[ecoli]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=231547&title=jason-jones-behind-the-veil

 

These types of videos are always amusing but I wonder how accurate they are (besides for the whole sample size issue). I'm sure American politics is on the news in Iran a lot more often than we're exposed to Iranian politics.

 

I'd be interested to see us both quizzed on a more neutral subject, in terms of inherent information bias.

[bombus]

Surprise surprise, I have a proposal that the vote rigging story is a hoax...

 

See here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article22875.htm

 

Also, find out more about Mousavi (the loser) Butcher of Beirut - not such a nice guy??

 

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22903.htm

[ecoli]

Surprise surprise, I have a proposal that the vote rigging story is a hoax...

 

See here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article22875.htm

 

A little far fetched and paranoid, but not impossible, I guess. With a regime and populace so at odds, it wouldn't take much to destablize it. The protests aren't really pro-Mousavi after all, but anti-old guard and pro-freedom.

 

I also find it amusing that the article (Info clearinghouse is not a great resource, btw) you posted links to Lew Rockwell's blog. LRC is a libertarian conservative and friends with Ron Paul, a man who I'm sure you have only good things to say about.

 

Also, find out more about Mousavi (the loser) Butcher of Beirut - not such a nice guy??

 

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22903.htm

 

Again, something that could be true, but feels exagerrated, not in the least because the source is Info Clearinghouse.

[D H]

Surprise surprise, I have a proposal that the vote rigging story is a hoax...

Nonsense.

 

Moderate votes boycotted the 2005 election in droves, leading to a low turnout in 2005. They didn't like the choices available to them in 2005. Moderates decided not to boycott the 2009 election and instead mobilized in droves. The turnout for this election was very high.

 

Mousavi declared himself a winner before polls closed for a simple reason: Exit polls data showed him to be the clear winner. The Supreme Council declared Ahmadinejad a day before they could have possibly counted the paper ballots for a simple reason: Every election in Iran is rigged.

 

 

Also, find out more about Mousavi (the loser) Butcher of Beirut - not such a nice guy??

 

Admittedly not such a nice guy.

 

Have you ever had to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of evils? I see you are from Wales, so you don't get to vote for your Prime Minister. Suppose you did, but also suppose that Oliver Cromwell won the day. Rather than singing that Cromwell lay buried and dead, you would pay tribute to him -- and you would only be able to vote for candidates approved by the Lord Protector. (For those of you in the US, imagine that all Presidential candidates had to be approved by Pat Robertson.) Do you think you would be able to vote for someone who didn't stink?

[bombus]

Nonsense.

 

If that's what you think, that's fine. I simply don't know enough to judge.

 

Do you think that the Bush/Gore election was rigged in the US?

 

Admittedly not such a nice guy.

Have you ever had to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of evils? I see you are from Wales, so you don't get to vote for your Prime Minister. Suppose you did, but also suppose that Oliver Cromwell won the day. Rather than singing that Cromwell lay buried and dead, you would pay tribute to him -- and you would only be able to vote for candidates approved by the Lord Protector. (For those of you in the US, imagine that all Presidential candidates had to be approved by Pat Robertson.) Do you think you would be able to vote for someone who didn't stink?

 

I think an option to vote for 'none of the above' should be compulsory on voting cards.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

(Info clearinghouse is not a great resource, btw)

 

 

Again, something that could be true, but feels exagerrated, not in the least because the source is Info Clearinghouse.

 

Many articles on Information Clearing House are from other sources - most being perfectly reputable. The Paul Craig Roberts article is produced by ICH directly though. ICH does publish articles from very well respected Journalists such as John Pilger, and Paul Craig Roberts is also very well respected

 

In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists in the United States

 

Look them both up on the web.

 

I agree that one should always check out the sources and add pinches of salt accordingly, but I would not recommend dismissing ICH as unreputable.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A little far fetched and paranoid, but not impossible, I guess.

 

Is it? I'm not saying it isn't, but what do you base that opinion on?

Edited June 27, 2009 by bombus
Consecutive posts merged.