What are the arguments of those who advocate a boycott of the election? They say the legitimacy of a regime is negated through this. During the last thirty years, some group or the other has always talked of boycotting an election on its eve and those advocating boycott believe that by doing so they can bring the Islamic Republic of Iran to its knees. But the policy of boycott has failed so far. Boycotts have not succeeded in creating an effective social force. The policy of boycott can be successful, which is to negate the legitimacy of a regime, if at least 65 to 70 percent of a nation follow it and do not vote. But this is not something that has ever happened in the last thirty years.

 

During these years the policy of boycott has in practice turned into a release of feelings of protesting groups or has become a mere moral protest without accomplishing any definitive political gain. None of the expectations of those who have been advocating the policy of boycott has materialized during the last four years, even though forces under pressure inside the country have presented a commendable resistance against suppression. But never have these turned into an organized widespread disobedience, or in their own words, “to strengthen civil society and social movements.”

 

Regarding the forthcoming elections too, it appears that the social basis for mobilizing an effective boycott is absolutely missing. People are deeply unhappy and desire change of the current conditions through the removal of Ahmadinejad trough votes. There will certainly be a considerable number of people who will vote in the election disregarding the calls for boycotting them, and this is political defeat of the boycott.

 

But does criticism of a boycott mean acceptance and pinning hope in the ballot boxes in the Islamic Republic? This is what reformist do: They say that change is through the ballot boxes. Reformers who came to power during Khatami’s era through this belief completely failed in accomplishing their reforms. This is particularly important as now a large part of reformists have come to the conclusion that they must move even more moderately than they did during those eight years and be more passive.

 

So under these circumstances, must one vote or boycott the election? The reality is that our playground in this election has been defined by the Islamic Republic, as in the past. We must choose from amongst four presidential candidates whose red line is the Islamic Republic. On the other hand, we must not forget that we also face another reality: Someone by the name of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is taking the country on a course that will eventually end in nothing but the complete collapse of the country.

 

So what is of utmost importance is public’s wide participation in the election. We must not allow Ahmadinejad to win in the first round. If elections go into the second round, this will definitively lead to Ahmadinejad’s defeat. But this requires wide public participation in the elections, particularly the middle urban class. The wide participation of the middle class will destroy the conspiracy to perpetrate fraud in the election. By boycotting the election today, we are in fact raising the chances for success of this harshest and most authoritative section of the Islamic Republic.

 

So it is more beneficial to participate in the election and also encourage others to do the same, while at the same time we should not be over optimistic regarding any of the candidates and we should work to ensure that whoever is the strongest supporter of people’s democratic demands from amongst the two reformist contenders replaces Ahmadinejad. On the issue of who is this candidate, one must deliberate more, write more and hold more discussions. And do these quickly.