Monday, Jun 20, 2005
Monday, Jun 20, 2005 |
| Opinion | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Opinion
-
Editorials
The pro-reform camp in Iran suffered a severe setback in the presidential election held on June 17. The two candidates identified with this camp finished third and fifth in a field of seven. While none of the seven secured 50 per cent of the votes cast, required to win in the first round, the two men who will contest the June 24 run-off are known to be close to the theocratic establishment. One of them, former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, had a major role in creating the system in which clerics control the levers of political and economic power. The other candidate, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a favourite of the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij militia, the theocracy's storm troopers. Iranian reformers could not even take consolation from the voter turnout. Some ardent advocates of change had urged voters to stay away as a protest against an establishment that has nothing but contempt for the democratic processes. The turnout was just five percentage points lower than the 68 per cent recorded in the 2001 election, which was won by the pro-reform candidate, Mohammed Khatami. Iranian liberals are now left with the unpalatable option of rallying behind Mr. Rafsanjani in a tactical move to shut out a hardliner who can nullify the slight progress made during the eight years of the Khatami presidency. This is a sorry outcome from an electoral exercise in which all the candidates portrayed themselves as agents of reform. To a large extent, Iranian liberals have no one to blame but themselves. Over the last eight years they were not able to make up their minds on how they should work to achieve their objectives. Some argued that the reform movement should dissociate itself from the theocratic system and make it give way through a civil disobedience campaign. Others, including Mr. Khatami, believed reforms could be undertaken from within the system. The reform camp's failure to get its act together alienated the constituencies that eight years ago supported its cause with enormous zeal. These weaknesses were on display during the 2005 election as well. While the Basij and Revolutionary Guards turned out in strength to rally support for Mr. Ahmadijenad, the reformers did not appear to make a serious effort to mobilise their followers. With the hardliner securing 19.5 per cent to Mr. Rafsanjani's 21 per cent in the first round, the forward-looking forces in Iran will have to work hard if they are to hold on to the little ground they gained under Mr. Khatami's stewardship. If the record set by Mr. Rafsanjani during his first presidency between 1989 and 1997 is an indication, democratic reforms will at best move at glacial pace if he is elected once again. However, he has a reputation of being `pragmatic', so Iranian liberals will be hoping against hope that the reforms so ardently desired by the masses can be taken forward.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2005, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
