The saying goes that those who have deep sleep are more hurried when they wake up. Iran's ‎conditions have been "the most volatile" for a few decades now. There always is the feeling that ‎the situation is very volatile and something must be done quickly. But these quick and fast ‎actions have caused the situation to become even more volatile and again that slogan of "the ‎most volatile conditions" is repeated to entice factions and forces to engage in actions that do not ‎bear the desired effects. The tenth presidential election is among these so-called "determining" ‎events, it is "the last opportunity." Once again, everyone is saying that "the opportunity will be ‎lost" and that "something must be done quickly." ‎

If we have a chance to take a look at the slogans raised before the ninth and eighth and seventh ‎presidential election we will see or hear the same slogans, as if, in order to take action, Iranians ‎need to lie to themselves or exaggerate. This kind of behavior is found similarly among the ‎opposition, average citizen and the elite. ‎

Is the tenth presidential election really "the last opportunity" or is it "one opportunity"? It seems ‎as if there is much exaggeration in this slogan. It would be more desirable if political groups ‎devise their electoral strategies in a measured way and without taking hurried decisions. ‎

The reformists who served in the Khatami administration want to stay in power however ‎possible. They have repeated this claim again and again in theoretical, political, complicated and ‎even casual conversations. However, if reformists want to preserve their long-term interest in ‎maintaining power, they must match their words with their deeds. At the least they must agree ‎on a candidate who is able to cooperate and tolerate the opposing camp. Otherwise, they would ‎undermine their own interests. ‎

The issue of civil society, however, is different than that of reformists. Iranian movements do ‎well in progressing. However, they fall short in instituting their achievements. In current ‎conditions, every civil society organization or union must announce its demands so that the ‎candidates reveal their plans to gather their support. Any candidate must provide detailed plans ‎on how to deal with issues such the rights of women, ethnicities, and unionized workers. Using a ‎female minister, minorities in key posts, recognizing the right to organize for labor, teachers, ‎clerks, doctors, etc. can be the most minimal demands of the aforementioned groups from those ‎in power. ‎

In current conditions, no faction in the government deserves direct support unless its policies are ‎aligned with the direction of social change. ‎

What can be the approach of the opposition, which believes in political-civil society activism? It ‎seems as if this approach must be governed by the following four principles"‎

‎1. Announcement of clear and detailed plans that will affect all forces including those in ‎government, civil society, and others. If such a plan is announced civil society organizations will ‎use it as a model and reformist groups in government find the courage to articulate their ‎demands, because the opposition can reveal stances that government factions are unable to ‎articulate in the first instance. For example, the opposition must clearly announce demands of ‎the following sort: reliance on national not factional-governmental resources, logical relations ‎with American and the west, recognition of clear right of women and minorities to serve in ‎ministries and senior management positions without facing discrimination, etc.‎

‎2. Critique of government and administration's policies. The opposition must critique not just ‎the current government, but also the performance of reformists who were in power for eight ‎years. A critique of the ruling party reveals how successful this faction has been in ‎implementing its supposed capabilities. Managerial deficiencies by reformists must also be ‎clarified. ‎

‎3. Independent participation in elections. The opposition must articulate its goals on a national ‎level by providing a detailed roadmap. This kind of "identity-roadmap" can usher a new era for ‎the opposition and replace "identity-ideal." ‎

‎4. It is not conducive to interests of the opposition to support any particular candidate, but it can ‎ask voters not to vote for a particular candidate. However, if a candidate provided a clear and ‎detailed roadmap toward change, the opposition can, while maintaining its separation, provide ‎conditional support. ‎

The last word is that it is very dangerous for the opposition to fully support a reformist camp that ‎is without an identity or different roadmap. This is because we must remain clear about our ‎differences, unless similarities between the opposition's plans and a reformist candidate are very ‎pronounced. ‎