On the morning of the ninth presidential elections in Iran in August of 2005, I was a guest on a ‎CNN program. In response to the anchor's question asking why I was boycotting the event, I ‎said, "none of the candidates had been freely selected by people. Many original candidates had ‎been deprived of their rights only because of the opinions of a 12-man agency. The 12 men ‎represent only a segment of the population." ‎

That morning I did not know what the election results would be. However, I was certain that ‎boycotting that election would usher an era of change, and change was exactly what the freedom ‎movement in Iran needed desperately following the failure of the reform movement. I knew that ‎electing another "office coordinator" - a term Khatami himself used to describe his role - would ‎not solve the problems of my generation. Other candidates were not planning to introduce ‎fundamental change to the system. And we were not allowed to pick our representatives either. ‎

The generation that identified itself as the heir to the revolution and the ideology of political ‎Islam may not have the right to change the constitution. However, for my generation, which did ‎not play a role in forming this system or its values, that right is reserved. The presence of the ‎Guardian Council and its role in eliminating critical and opposition candidates is a good reason ‎for discrediting every election that has been held to this day and every election that will be held ‎in the future. It assumes that people are unintelligent and unaware of what is good for them, so ‎every few years a lucky bunch find their way into office through unfair rules. ‎

Are elections not a tool for realizing people's rights? Why should we not put forward conditions ‎for our participation in this tiring game? Commitment to realizing at least one such condition ‎may be the best way for reformist to regain their lost credit. For example, conditions such as ‎releasing all journalists and political prisoners, or eliminating the Guardian Council's role in ‎disqualifying candidates, or a ban on the military's participation in elections could somewhat ‎legitimize the coming elections. ‎

Setting forth conditions for participation in elections is, in effect, another chance for utilizing the ‎power of boycott. As a well-studied political tool, boycott can become a source for change. Of ‎course, this tool must be used wisely and timely to have its effect. ‎

In that case, if the regime insists on ignoring the demands of the democracy movement, the ‎regime alone will be responsible for the boycott of the election. Proponents of participating in ‎elections at all costs will also be responsible for spending the nation's political capital without a ‎plan. Just as boycotting a free election does not help realize the interests of the people and the ‎nation, unplanned and unconditional participation fails to do so as well. ‎