Only a year remains until the next presidential elections in Iran and if one would like all ‎the things that took place in the recent parliamentary elections not to be repeated, then ‎there is no choice but to begin a discussion on an acceptable elections strategy right now.‎

One may safely assume that with the existing official executive agencies, supervising ‎bodies and other organizations involved in elections in Iran, the atmosphere in which the ‎next presidential elections will take place in 2009 will be similar to the environment in ‎which the recent parliamentary elections took place. So I would like to continue this ‎discussion by presenting a direct quote from my previous proposal and predictions ‎regarding the recent parliamentary elections because the points are as valid for the next ‎elections, albeit with some minor adjustments.‎

As the day of the presidential elections approach, the first thing that will be of concern to ‎political groups will be the process of vetting the candidates (examining the qualifications ‎of the candidates). In this light, let me quote what I had written earlier in this regard as ‎consultations were under way for the confirmation of the candidates to the Eight Majlis.‎

‎“The discussions that are currently under way with the election supervisory bodies aimed ‎at securing even the slightest conditions under which reformist candidates can participate ‎and compete in the voting will all be futile. Here is the reason: Essentially, one cannot ‎expect any positive results from a discussion in which one of the parties does not take the ‎other party seriously. What has repeatedly taken place in all the recent elections in Iran is ‎that despite all its protests over the elections process, the reformist faction has eventually ‎actively participated in the elections. Therefore there isn’t the slightest incentive in the ‎conservative faction to be flexible in the talks with a party whose hands are tied up and ‎who will participate in the elections no matter what conditions are prevalent within the ‎framework that is determined for the competition.” [“Participation without the Red ‎Lines?” Norooz, 12 February 2008]‎

Based on these calculations, I came up with a number of reformist candidates that would ‎be allowed to run in the elections prior to the event, which has now turned out to be ‎correct. “In view of the extensive disqualifications that have been made over the ‎reformist candidates desiring to run for the Majlis, one can at best expect a minority of 40 ‎to 50 individuals – the majority of whom owe their confirmation to run to the fact that the ‎hardline opponents were seen as the demarcation line that identified those that should be ‎disqualified – to make it to the Majlis, which in any case would not make any difference ‎to the direction of events in the Majlis.” [“What Must Happen for Them Not to ‎Participate?”, Emrouz, 27 February 2008]‎

I believe that even the current reports that former President Khatami is reconsidering ‎continuing political activities was predictable. This is what I wrote then: “In view of the ‎mind-set of the former President, his premature utility in the elections may easily lead to ‎his decision to completely stay out of politics because of the violations in the elections.” ‎‎[“Do not Utilize Him”, Norooz, 23 July 2007]‎

It does not require to emphasize that the above references do not apply only those who ‎are members of the group known as the “Reformists Coalition” in their elections ‎endeavors, but also include those in the reformist party known as the “Etemad Melli” ‎who separated their way from the coalition in the hope of having their candidates be ‎confirmed by the elections agencies. Let’s take a look at my predictions prior to the ‎elections regarding of the behavior of this latter group. “Etemad Melli party’s separation ‎from key reformist groups will not be beneficial for it. Positive results from talks with the ‎conservatists were a possibility in the past, but with this development, it no longer ‎exists.” [“An Impossible Concord”, Norooz, 28 August 2007]‎

At that time, when the secretary of the Etemad Melli party Mehdi Karubi strongly ‎criticized the “radical” reformists and predicted “definitively that the Eight Majlis would ‎comprise of moderate fellow thinkers, like the Fifth Majlis,” I stressed that, “To ‎‎‘definitively’ be optimistic that the future Eight Majlis would resemble the Fifth Majlis ‎‎(in which the conservatives had only a slight majority in the legislature) is the result of a ‎amazing naivety about the process of the coming elections. The real question is why ‎should the elections agencies act any differently in the upcoming elections in the coming ‎months than the way they had acted in the 2004 Majlis elections (when they outright ‎rejected the credentials of all reformist candidates).” [“Definite Expenditures, Ambiguous ‎Returns”, Rooz, 4 September 2007]‎

It is because of the experience that has been gained from the most recent election that I ‎would like extend the same view to the next presidential election in 2009. “By refraining ‎from presenting any list of candidates, reformists must for the first time make it clear to ‎their rivals that they have to take the consequences of the disqualification of their ‎candidates very seriously.” [“Participation without the Red Lines?” Norooz, 12 February ‎‎2008]‎

Reformists are getting ready for the next presidential elections in an atmosphere which ‎can be expected to be harsher than ever on the issue of the qualification or acceptance of ‎their candidates (and certainly more difficult than the last presidential election). Under ‎such circumstances, I can again stress on an updated version of my prediction that I had ‎presented on the even of the elections for the Eight Majlis: A concrete demonstration by ‎reformists that they would not be announcing a list of candidates in the uncompetitive ‎elections.‎

Still, there is not much hope that the conservatists would heed to the demands of their ‎rivals because of this posture. But the minimum value of such a position is that for the ‎first time it will be clear that participation in elections is not unconditional, something ‎that reformists can use to their advantage in subsequent elections.‎