On the day of the eight Majlis elections, the contrast between the larger presence of voters in the ‎reform movement's strongholds, located mostly in the west, northwest, and north of Tehran, and ‎even some districts in south of Tehran, and the relatively lesser presence in areas traditionally ‎affiliated with the conservative movement, located in east and south of Tehran, was so stark that, ‎starting on Friday night, rumors were flying around in political circles that conservatives are ‎looking for ways to rig the election results. ‎

The initial reports of reformist victories in various districts apparently convinced election ‎administrators to find a solution to the problem of the reformists' election observers (who, by ‎law, have the right to monitor proceedings). The solution was to kick out election observers and ‎journalists from independent and reformist parties from precincts. The move immediately ‎aroused the protest of reformists, but to no avail. The right to monitor election proceedings was ‎taken away from reformists in a flash. ‎

A deputy secretary of the E'temad Melli party Rasoul Montajabnia, conducted an interview with ‎the news website "Roozena" the night before the elections, in which he protested the behavior of ‎the Guardian Council and the Ministry of Interior [both of which are responsible for ‎administering the elections] in handling Tehran's elections. He said, "In the final hours of ‎voting, they kicked out many of E'temad Melli's observers from voting centers, and told many ‎others that they could remain in the center, but not get close to the counting tables and monitor ‎the results." ‎

Meanwhile, the reformist website "Baharestan Hashtom," published more detailed reports on ‎how the elections were engineered and exposed plans that were underway to replace the names ‎of reformists elected to the Majlis with the names of candidates from the opposite camp. This ‎demonstrated the serious concerns pf reformists regarding the integrity of the elections. ‎According to unofficial reports the Ministry of Interior which was using a computer system to ‎count the ballots, must have had a clear idea of the general election results a day after voting had ‎concluded. However, the ministry prevented the election committee from publishing this ‎information and allowed only a handful of select people access to the information. ‎

Finally, in continuation of the tradition of lack of transparency, election administrators ‎announced that 14 conservative candidates have won seats in the Majlis in the first round with ‎the remaining 16 seats to be determined in the second round. In reaction to this announcement, ‎representatives from reformist parties gathered at the ministry to provide evidence of rigging and ‎irregularities. ‎

A similar scenario was implemented during last year's Tehran city council elections, when ‎election officials did not allow more than 4 reformists to win seats in the city council, and ‎replaced the names of 5 other reformist victors with those of conservatives so that the majority of ‎Tehran's 15-member city council could belong to the conservative camp. ‎

This much is perhaps predictable and ordinary, given the non-democratic character of the Iranian ‎government. However, when the issue of appropriate solutions to confront such "engineered ‎elections" comes up, there is room for much discussion. ‎

In reality, election violations of this sort take place from time to time in other non-democratic ‎and semi-democratic countries. However, reactions in capital of those countries to such ‎violations, compared to reactions in Tehran, differ widely. In those countries, reacting to ‎election violations does not mean what just happened in Tehran: that representatives or ‎candidates from parties go to election administrators and protest! Rather, they ask for help from ‎the people and address the public directly, and the results of those pleas are usually public ‎gatherings and civil protests, which puts election administrators under pressure. ‎

Reformists must know that as long as their reaction to election violations is limited to passive ‎measures such as simply protesting the administration of the election, such irregularities will not ‎end. The unsuccessful results of previous passive reactions must at least be used to confront ‎future violations. As the famous Farsi saying goes, "Whenever you catch the fish from the ‎water, it's fresh!" ‎