‎‎

Sara Samavati

Iran Freedom Movement (IFM) recently publicly for international supervision of Iran’s ‎forthcoming parliamentary elections. We spoke with the secretary general of the group, ‎Dr Ibrahim Yazdi. Stating that “the Guardians Council openly continues to insist on its ‎unlawful ways”, Yazdi said that no alternative other than international supervision is left ‎on the matter. He further said that the regime was not at odds with the Iran Freedom ‎Movement, but with the issue of freedom. Here are the excerpts.‎

Rooz (R): Dr Yazdi. This is the first time that an opposition group inside Iran is calling ‎for international supervision. Why was such a request not made earlier, during the ‎seventh parliamentary elections?‎

Ibrahim Yazdi (IY): Every political proposal must be made in view of the prevalent ‎conditions. During the seventh Majlis elections, many political groups, particularly ‎reformist inside or close to the regime, were still optimistic about the role of the ‎Guardians Council. But things did not change. During the next coming elections, ‎conditions remain the same as they were and the Guardians Council openly stresses on its ‎unlawful practices. So when even domestic courts do not have the authority to look into ‎the complaints regarding the work of the Guardians Council, and the Council defiantly ‎refrains from appearing in the courts what hope is left. So international supervision is the ‎only means that is left.‎

R: As you said, it may be late for such a call. And so what is left is what you said: the ‎transfer of the call and demand of the Iranian nation for its full sovereignty to the ‎international community, and pushing both sides to less costly solutions and away from ‎adventurism. Why does the call for international supervision reduce the possibility of ‎adventurism for the international community and the regime?‎

IY: Political events and developments do not normally take place all of a sudden. The ‎reformers and the regime are both at a decisive corner. If the Guardians Council and the ‎regime insist on their old ways – and all the evidence indicates that they are bent on ‎doing this – difference will be exacerbated even further domestically. Under these ‎circumstances, desires and tendencies for change will take place from the outside and ‎grow, whose results nobody can predict and which would not be in the national interest of ‎the country. These interests go beyond the regime. So raising such a plan and idea may ‎lead to a change in behaviors. ‎

R: Your proposal is most likely aimed at winning over other reformist groups in this ‎regard. Did your group discuss this idea with others prior to its announcement? If so, with ‎which groups?‎

IY: We discussed this with some groups close to the IFM, but they were not ready for it.‎

R: Since it may safely assumed that the regime will not accept this proposal, what is your ‎next step?‎

IY: Despite the record of the Guardians Council, we should still wait and see how they ‎will behave after candidates sign up for the Majlis and the complaints over the ‎disqualifications. To become a candidate to a public office is a basic right of every ‎citizen. This right must be asserted. Registering as a candidate is a step towards ‎strengthening the public’s right to participate. International supervision can only be ‎meaningful if people have utilized their rights, and registered for elections to public ‎office. Furthermore, international supervision is not going beyond the state. In any case, ‎disqualifying candidates to the Majlis will be costly to the rulers.‎

R: Do you plan to ask for international monitoring during the next Presidential elections ‎too?‎

IY: The state must behave in such a manner that elections supervision takes place ‎domestically, thus negating the need for international supervision. But as I said, the ‎behavior of the state has not left any other alternative than to ask for international ‎supervision. So if they continue with the same practices during the next presidential ‎elections, then the call for international supervision will be even greater for the ‎presidential race.‎

R: You had said that you do not believe in the notion that participation in the elections ‎necessarily means participation in all the elections and a way to request political power. ‎Does this mean that you IFM is boycotting the elections?‎

IY: No. LFI does not believe in boycotting the elections.‎

R: Are any of the other reformist groups interested in cooperating with the LFI or other ‎new age groups?‎

IY: There is plenty of interest. But working with IFM is costly, and under the current ‎circumstances, they do not see it in their interest to do this. After the elections such ‎cooperation will most likely be greater.‎

R: How much domestic and international support do you think your call will have?‎

IY: There has been domestic support already. I do not know of foreign support.‎

R: Regardless of the support or rejection by the sate of IFM’s proposal, will the IFM ‎present candidates for the forthcoming elections? Do you think some of your candidates ‎will be able to go through the filters of the Guardians Council?‎

IY: The right to participate is every citizen’s right. We invite and welcome the public’s ‎exercise of their citizen rights. Registering to vote as a candidate is one such practice. But ‎the call for the public to go to the polling stations and voting, or the call for support for a ‎particular candidate or a party depends on many serious things. Current conditions are not ‎such that a member of the IFM would be accepted as a candidate to run for public office. ‎Even prominent reformers will be disqualified by the state.‎

R: In view of the close proximity of the elections, what do you think will be the results of ‎the race?‎

IY: If there is no change in the behavior of the regime, then the outcome is very clear and ‎its impact is that difference will grow further, including among pro state activists and ‎groups.‎

R: In your last interview with us, you spoke of the hesitancy of reformers to cooperate ‎with the IFM or with religious-political groups. Why do you not raise this issue at the ‎public level?‎

IY: Raising such issues will not improve conditions, under the prevalent circumstances.‎

R: Some time ago there was a proposal that IFM change its name in order to apply for a ‎party license and openly participate in politics. Why is now not a good idea for such an ‎idea?‎

IY: That was not a sincere proposal. At the time that this proposal was made at the ‎Ministry of the Interior, we asked them put it into writing. They refrained. When some ‎less prominent members of the IFM applied for a license for a new political party, the ‎Ministry of Intelligence referred the case to Majlis Committee on Article 10 of the ‎Constitution, and they turned the request down. You must note that they are not against ‎newspaper or party names. So changing a name will not alter anything. You probably ‎remember that when Jame’ newspaper was shut by the government, Neshat newspaper ‎replaced it, the former head of Iran’s judiciary attacked it ruthlessly during a Friday ‎congregational prayer and said this is the same banned Jame’ newspaper. And when they ‎were rewriting the press law, they took note of this in order to prevent a banned ‎newspaper from appearing under a different name if its editorial board comprised of the ‎same individuals. The regime is not at odds with the IFM. What they have issues with are ‎freedom and so changing names will not solve the problem.‎