‎

Issa Saharkhiz

Only a day is left for candidates to register for the upcoming parliamentary elections, to ‎be held on March 14, while about ten weeks remain to the event. But the question on the ‎minds of many citizens still is: Should I participate or should I boycott the elections? A ‎general look at the news, and a quick analysis of the political declarations or the speeches ‎of the groups and individuals seems to indicate that boycotting the elections does not ‎seem to be the main debate. At least not until today. In comparison to 4 years ago, the ‎call for boycotting the elections seems to be lost or at the least very diminished.‎

The media’s preoccupation is with the call for participation in the elections. But the call ‎has a caveat, with some calling for conditional participation, while others calling for an ‎unconditional one. About half of the 43 million eligible voters believe in conditional ‎participation. Members of this group either do not generally believe in political ‎participation altogether, or have chosen not to participate in this specific election. The ‎exact break down of these two views is almost impossible, but it depends on whether the ‎elections are “free, clean, and just.” ‎

One of the features of the forthcoming elections is call for ‘conditional participation” ‎while the other is that view that this is “the final test” that will decisively impact ‎everything. Which way will the voters turn is determined by the registration rules for the ‎candidates, acceptance or disqualifications of the candidates by the authorities, or the ‎absence of interference in the event by state operatives. ‎

Whether this is really the “final test” or not is a subject that requires a separate analysis ‎and discussion that can be undertaken at another time. But the issue of whether ‎participation is to be conditional or not is an important immediate question which can ‎make a difference on which way voters sway. In addition to the domestic and foreign ‎environment at the time of the forthcoming elections, this issue is shaped, on one hand by ‎the political leadership and the way it views such issues as “republicanism”, the role of ‎the elections, the degree to which the elections are to be “free, clean and just,” and, on the ‎other hand, by the interpretations of political parties, groups, the elite, and civil society ‎activists have of the same. ‎

Perhaps if it was possible to independently and with confidence monitor the twin pillars ‎of the elections - i.e. ayatollah Janati and general Afshar – and the government machinery ‎below it would be possible and easy to pass a judgment on to whether the elections were ‎in fact “free, clean and just’. Some efforts have already been made to make such ‎independent oversight possible. One is through the creation of the Committee for the ‎Defense of Free, Clean and Just Elections, initiated by some prominent political, social, ‎legal, religious and academic personalities. The other is the call for “international ‎monitoring” of the elections made by a long-standing and tested political party. ‎

The first effort has been made by individuals with varying, and even opposing, views and ‎ideology, but who share the same concerns about the elections. Others have thrown in ‎their support for the group and have applauded the 23 rules that have been formulated by ‎the group, and its two subcommittees that have been created for this purpose. And even ‎though these rules resemble principles and ideals, which are more appropriate for more ‎advanced countries with little practical relevance to Iran, but its underlying commitment ‎about non interference in the elections process or the promotion of the importance of ‎participating, or not, in the elections, is the right step for the 100-year long historic ‎aspiration of this nation, which will gain even greater support if implemented. ‎

The initiator of the second effort is Iran’s Freedom Movement which recently published a ‎critical analysis on the role of the Guardians Council (which supervises the elections ‎process and the candidates) and its supervision through appointees, and whose views ‎echo those of many political activists. ‎

Both of these efforts are constructive steps for the country, but if under the current ‎circumstances they are not widely supported, they will not bear fruit. And if this happens, ‎then everything concerning the elections will once again be ambiguous until the last ‎minutes. ‎

Perhaps the best stand to take at the moment is to advance the idea of “conditional ‎participation,” subject to a “free, clean and just” process. And the best way to accomplish ‎this is to register to participate in the elections at different levels and layers and at the ‎same time press for “independent and reliable” monitoring of the process, for the purpose ‎of materializing the remaining goals of the 1979 revolution, which were “freedom and ‎republicanism.”‎