Iran

May 18, 2005 8:38 PM

Elections in IranIran Scan is an English-language blog covering the election in Iran. One of my favorite lines... "As the Iranian elections begin to look more and more like California's recent gubernatorial elections, one wonders whether these elections will similarly be more about the candidates persona as opposed to their policy."
posted by halekon (7 comments total)

Ahh. Democracy...

To choose from a couple thousand candidates for one that might come close to your chosen position on the problems that face a country.

How I long for that much freedom.
posted by Balisong at 9:24 PM on May 18, 2005

I was going to post this, too- you beat me to it. I am SO glad that there is an english language blog covering the elections, because I'm interested in what's going on but my reading and writing skills in farsi are not up to snuff for politics.

the difference between Iranian elections and American ones, is that Iranians actually show up to theirs, despite how bad all of the options are. My teacher put it to us in this (female-oriented) way- if your only choice is between a strict hejab and a slightly less strict hejab, GO VOTE, because it's the only choice you'll get.

Part of the reason so many of the candidates are unqualified is the horrendous brain drain problem that Iran has, with all of its educated people leaving for europe and america, and all of the domestic services being provided by europeans and asians. It's hard to run a country when everyone capable is jumping ship. It'll be interesting to see how this election goes.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 11:33 PM on May 18, 2005

How many of those 1000 candidates that registered will actually be on the ballot? Do the Mullahs do some weeding out of 'undesirables'?
posted by PenDevil at 12:46 AM on May 19, 2005

PenDevil -- yes, the Guardian Council ratifies nominations. Of 800 registered candidates in 2001, they only allowed 10 to stand. That there are lots of nominations is not in itself particularly surprising or interesting; when the preservers of the constitution reduce the numbers by such a huge margin, it's a good idea (if you're even vaguely liberal) to get as many names on the list as possible.
posted by melmoth at 2:08 AM on May 19, 2005

Of the 10 that were on the ballot were any of them actually liberal (liberal relative to the norm in Iran at least)? Were any of them actually from outside the theocracy?
posted by PenDevil at 2:43 AM on May 19, 2005

the difference between Iranian elections and American ones, is that Iranians actually show up to theirs, despite how bad all of the options are. My teacher put it to us in this (female-oriented) way- if your only choice is between a strict hejab and a slightly less strict hejab, GO VOTE, because it's the only choice you'll get.

It's my understanding that during the last election, moderates and liberals actualy boycotted the vote to protest what they saw as too much moderation of candidates by the mullas. According to this page voter turnout was 50.57%, compared to about 67% during the last round. Turnout in Tehran was only 28%.

In comparison, turnout in the 2004 election here in the US was 60% and 54% in 2000. So the diffrence isn't that great.
posted by delmoi at 7:45 AM on May 19, 2005

delmoi- in my opinion, boycotting is different from just not showing up. You're right though, the actual difference is not that great. My understanding is that in previous elections, turnout was much, much higher- in the 90 percent range right after the revolution, for example.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 9:20 AM on May 19, 2005