Thinking about the elections in Iran

The furor over the elections in Iran days ago seems to me to be a good illustration of the difficulty of finding understanding and insight about foreign affairs from a seat on the American shore. The short period of time between the end of balloting and the announcement by both leading presidential candidates that they had won the election strained credulity since millions of ballots had to be counted and the counting is largely done by hand. This troubling phenomenon was obscured, however, by the highly visible coverage of Mousavi supporters taking to the streets, first by the thousands and then by the hundreds of thousands. The western media's empathy to the story of the young, reformist forces out every night before the election in Tehran seemed to sweep away a more analytical look at what was happening. Admittedly the articulate and seemingly westernized urban movement provided fodder for good storytelling, but the press too easily simply repeated the crowds' assertion that the election was stolen. Only around the edges of the discussion were questions and assessments looking harder at the situation.

What seems clear without debate is thought-provoking and worthy of our attention. The likelihood that all the ballots in the country had been counted fast enough to allow Ahmadinejad to declare victory ( Mousavi shortly afterward) seems slim, and one possible interpretation is that the current regime was going to take the election regardless of results. On the other hand, it seems much less clear that the number of educated, urban, reform-minded Iranians so visible in Tehran was substantial enough to outvote the non-urban and more conservative voters elsewhere. Forty million voters are said to have participated. Commentators who've looked hard at the numbers from provinces around the country versus past elections can point to oddities in the numbers in the provinces which stress credulity. But there is no structural way to reach inside the data and point to a clear thread of falsification. Apparently the election process involves appointed electoral management committees in the provinces. These committees are set up by the Interior Ministry. When the results from the provinces are collected and gathered, they are then sent to the Interior Ministry where a separate process reports out the mass numbers. No mechanism exists to reconcile the two sets of numbers. As such it can't be said whether or not the reported numbers are accurate. Another anomaly in timing is that the numbers were announced before the three day period allowed for the candidates to review and respond to them.

Another undeniable reality is that the Iranian government has taken extreme measures in shutting down internet, phone, and other communications access. Such draconian measures may come back to haunt them. I remember well the observation of Dr. John Damis, my professor of North African studies years ago regarding revolutions. Nowhere, he noted, did people rise up in societies where all people were heavily and hopelessly under the thumb of an oppressive government. Revolutions, he said, take place when educated elites with expectations find their hopes dashed and opportunities closed to them. It is the disappointment which triggers rebellion not the oppression. Iran, regardless of the realities of this election, shows the burgeoning signs of a rebellious class.

In mentioning Dr. Damis, I must note his recent passing. He was a good man, a thoughtful and knowledgeable political scientist, and an example to me of the kind of observer and thinker I wanted to be myself. He will be missed.