Election violations have always existed in Iran. But since the elections to the eight Majlis (March ‎‎2008), they have been unprecedented in scope and depth. Things have gone astray so much that ‎President Ahmadinejad’s Minister of the Interior did not allow independent observers (who are ‎legally allowed to observe the vote counting on behalf of the candidates) to be present at the ‎ballot countings, which subsequently led to the announcement of zero votes for many reformist ‎candidates (such as Majid Ansari), or even conservative critics of the administration (such ‎as Mohammad Khosh-shehreh).‎

With such a record and since there will be another presidential election in June 2009, and the ‎national debate over candidates is already heated, I would like to raise a few questions about the ‎nature of the next presidential race.‎

Question number one: Isn’t it possible that what happened at the latest Majlis elections would be ‎repeated at the 2009 presidential race? Can the 3-4 year record allow anyone to preclude similar ‎events? Are the characteristic of Ahmadinejad’s administration such that the possibility of ‎historic violations and rigging can be expected to be slim (especially in the situation which, if ‎they do lose the elections they will have to say good bye to their executive hold)?‎

Question number two: Should vast rigging and violations take place at the next presidential ‎elections, what are the participating reformist (the supports of Nouri, Khatami, Karubi, etc) ‎going to do? How are the supporters of any of these pro-reform candidates going to even prove ‎that violations have actually taken place? If the vote counting takes place at the building of the ‎Ministry of the Interior (which is administered by Minister Ali Kordan or someone similar to ‎him) and not at the election precincts and no observers are allowed to participate and monitor the ‎vote counting process, how are the candidates going to show whether the numbers that are ‎announced are true or not?‎

Question number three: If elections are held in the manner explained above, how are those who ‎have boycotted the elections going to prove that their calls to boycott the elections actually had ‎any effect on their outcome as a means to convince anyone of anything or make their final pleas ‎with the authorities etc? For example, if 55 percent of the eligible voters vote in the elections but ‎the ministry of interior (which in the eight Majlis elections did not even care that Iran’s ‎Statistical Bureau had a different figure on this and disregarded the protests and calls for enquiry ‎on this) announces that 65 percent voted, what are the supporters of the boycott going to do? ‎Expose the government on their websites? If so, then expose it to whom? To the Iranian people? ‎Is there anything that needs to be exposed to them by this time which they don’t know yet? Is it ‎for the international community? If for example 1,000 articles are written to show that in Iran ‎less than 50 percent of the eligible voters actually voted in the elections, is the international ‎community going to pressure Tehran over this questioning why the government has behaved in a ‎manner that less than 50 percent of eligible votes came to the ballot boxes, while it has already ‎put Iran under economic pressure and sanctions because of Iran’s nuclear policy? ‎

A concern: It appears that regardless of which candidate we favor or even whether we want to ‎participate in the elections or not, we are now arguing about the manner of approaching the an ‎election about which we have no way of knowing anything about its voters and their ‎composition, or those not voting and their characteristics.‎

Summary: If political groups succeed, by mobilizing their supporters, in increasing the ‎transparency of the elections by a mere one percent, they will have accomplished a big deed. In ‎absence of such an impact, if those supporting or opposing participation in the elections or the ‎reformist candidates succeed in ‘destroying’ their counterparts, the only achievement they will ‎have accomplished is to increase the hatred among reformers and pro-change supporters ‎compared to the past.‎

I recall one day an analyst from the conservative camp saying that “no matter how the elections ‎were held, they would be over one day, and things would eventually calm down even if there ‎were complaints for some two months, or the groups could start fighting each other.”‎

This was true in the past about the process of approval of candidates, and then became valid for ‎the way elections were conducted as well, and now they are debated over the way votes are ‎counted. ‎

In such conditions, what must prevent conservatists from doing new, albeit trouble-free, election ‎violations?‎