Iran's election looks like it was rigged. Which begs the obvious question as to why.
Obviously Iran is a corrupt undemocratic theocracy but the usual means of rigging elections is to prevent all but a select group of pre approved candidates from standing in the first place and then let the election proceed normally.
It might make sense as a gesture of hostility against the outside world but the amount of internal dissent it has created seems like a high cost to pay for a gesture.
Update: My theory, which I haven't put to any thorough examination, is that the Ayatollah's decided to fix the election only after the results of the Lebanon election where Hezbollah's alliance did worse than anticipated. After all if that was followed by a 'reformer' winning in Iran it would create momentum for reformers.
Nope - it was ridicule
2 hours ago
9 comments:
"prevent all but a select group of pre approved candidates from standing in the first place"
That's exactly what they did - Mousavi is a former Prime Minister and very much an insider. Which makes the whole thing even stranger.
I think the regime have well & truly fucked this one up.
If they had a brain between them, they'd have accepted Ahmedinejad's unpopularity & prepared for him to lose. They could easily have come to terms with Mousavi- like Mark Wadsworth says, he's hardly Richard Dawkins, is he? In fact he could have solidified the Islamic Revolution, & that would have been something worth... regretting for liberal secularists like myself.
But no, they had to go into panic mode & come up with some totally implausible results to keep the only man they deem acceptable in power. To my mind it shows that they are dead men walking, & as Iran becomes more young & urban & poorer, despite Ahmednijad's lying claims to represent the working class, they haven't got much longer. I only hope that a peaceful change is brought about by Iranians themselves, rather than the alternatives which I dread to imagine.
As an aside, just look at how beautiful some of those girls are. If God existed, would he really want his own creations to be buried alive in a hijab rather than have the world delight in them? I think not.
I thought the Telegraph article you linked to was pretty unimpressive in giving any evidence it was rigged - in fact I was going to say is there any? But this Guardian article has a lot more.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/14/iran-ahmadinejad-mousavi-elections-result
Mark is exactly right.
The reformist is the Gorbachev candidate. Ahmadinejad is Brezhnev. Both are members of the sanctioned party.
Would there be any change in fundamentalism at the top though?
"Would there be any change in fundamentalism at the top though?".
No, the position of chief Ayatollah isn't up for election.
"If they had a brain between them, they'd have accepted Ahmedinejad's unpopularity & prepared for him to lose. ".
Yes, particularly as the presidency is largely a decorative part of the Iranian constitution.
Mousavi is no democrat or liberal except by comparison with Ahmadinejad. When the real rulers (the ayatollahs) approved him as a candidate, they probably had no idea of how the masses would nevertheless seize upon him as a symbol. Once that happened, they couldn't allow him to win, but the fraud was so blatant (Ahmadinejad 62%?!) that it just ratcheted up public anger even more.
So I basically agree with Asquith's comment. They hugely under-estimated the level of mass discontent, they over-estimated their own cleverness, and now they've massively, royally blown it.
"they probably had no idea of how the masses would nevertheless seize upon him as a symbol. ".
Could be, it would explain why the fix seems so rushed.
I think you might want to publicize this.
http://my-own-doubts.blogspot.com/2009/06/hacking-iranian-government.html
Richard Dale is trying to help the Iranians crash government websites.
I hope you and your readers will take a look and maybe spread the word.
This is one in the server for Amahdidinnerjacket and his girl-hurting pig-fuckers.
Pardon my Spartan.
Post a Comment