United States Institute of Peace

The Iran Primer

New Articles

Iran's Conservatives: The Headstrong New Bloc

Shaul Bakhash

       This is the fourth in a series on parliamentary elections due in March 2012:


       In preparation for the 2012 parliamentary election, Iran's diverse conservative parties are already forging a strategy to marginalize or even exclude their principal opponents, especially reformists and supporters of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The conservative bloc has begun by trying to craft a common platform and candidates list for the 2012 parliamentary (Majles) election.

       The conservative camp is going after the reformists because they represent a vision of a more democratic and liberal Iran that is anathema to them. Conservatives are also going after the followers of Ahmadinejad, who once enjoyed strong support in the Majles, because the president has   alienated conservatives across the political spectrum. He has been especially dismissive and even contemptuous of the conservative-dominated legislature and its prerogatives. And to the discomfort of the traditional establishment, he has used populism to appeal to villagers and the mass public above the heads of established institutions.

       Besides political tensions, the unorthodox religious views of men close to Ahmadinejad have alienated the clerical community that is dominated by conservatives. The power accumulated by presidential chief of staff Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie, and the Rasputin like influence he reportedly exercises over the president, has also alarmed conservatives. Ahmadinejad's falling-out with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in April brought these long-simmering resentments against the president into the open.

        In the conservative lexicon, Ahmadinejad and his inner circle have joined the reformists as a lethal threat to conservative values.

        In their drive for unity, almost all the conservative politicians now label themselves usulgara, or "principlists." Prodded by leading conservatives, such as Assembly of Experts President Mohammad-Reza Mahdavi-Kani, principlists from several conservative organizations have created a council of 15--also known as the council of the 7 plus 8--to draw up a common platform and list of candidates for parliament.

       In a letter to Mahdavi-Kani in August, over 190 members of parliament urged unity and common purpose rather than an election scramble for seats among the principlists. Conservative newspapers like Kayhan have not only pushed the unity message but warned that the coming elections will be fateful for the triumph of conservative cause against the "enemies" of the Islamic revolution.

       The council of 15 has two committees. The primary committee of seven is composed of two representatives from each of the country’s two politically most important clerical organizations:

  • The Association of the Combatant Clerics of Tehran (Jame'eh-ye Ruhaniyyat-e Mobarez) is headed by Mahdavi-Kani.
  • The Association of the Seminary Teachers of Qom (Jame'eh-ye Modarresin-e Howzeh-ye Elmi-ye Qum) is headed by Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi.


        The committee of seven includes three top conservatives close to Iran's supreme leader.

  • Ali Velayati is Khamenei's advisor on foreign affairs.
  • Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel, a former speaker of parliament, is related to Khamenei by marriage.
  • Habibollah Asghar-Owladi is head of a political party with strong ties to bazaar merchants.


       The second committee of eight consists of:

  • Six representatives of the principal conservative parties and movements in the Majles
  • The current speaker of parliament Ali Larijani
  • And the former Revolutionary Guards commander and Tehran Mayor Baqer Qalibaf.

       The latter two are close to Khamenei. In fact, the Leader appears to have initiated the push for conservative unity. The "eight" will serve as the executive arm of the council, drawing up the common platform and party list. The "seven" will supervise and direct the operation and have final say on the decisions of the eight. 

        A declaration issued last year by the Association of Combatant Clerics and the Association of the Seminary Teachers of Qom serves as the principlist "manifesto." But this document has little to say on bread-and-butter issues such as job creation, economic development or even foreign policy. It focuses instead on broad conservative principles: loyalty to Islam and the revolution, obedience to the supreme leader and devotion to the principle of velayat-e faqih, or rule by an Islamic jurist.

       This set of principles implicitly endorses the status quo and the current power structure. It is also a response to the reformist parties' emphasis on change: free elections, freedom of the press and assembly and individual rights, and, implicitly, curbs on the almost unlimited power of the supreme leader, and limits on the authority of the Guardian Council to disqualify candidates for elective office.

       The conservatives seem driven principally by one aim: to consolidate their hold on power and control of state institutions. Increasingly, they treat their political rivals as if they were no longer legitimate political players. Almost invariably, they speak of the reformist parties as the "seditious current," a reference to the widespread protests after Ahmadinejad's contested reelection in 2009. They also speak of Ahmadinejad's circle as the "deviationist current," a reference to the supposedly unorthodox political and religious views of the president's inner circle.

       Both terms resonate with rich, negative connotations in Islamic history. Kayhan has taken to referring the Green Movement reformists as foreign agents working for the United States and Israel. It often lumps the Ahmadinejad "deviationists" with the reformist "seditionists."  Hardline conservatives count on the Guardian Council to disqualify candidates of these movements, or most of them, to run for Majles seats.

       One striking characteristic of the emerging conservative front is the prominent role of the clerical community, one of many indications that the ruling group is once again relying on religion to lend them legitimacy and provide the glue to hold society together. The principlist "manifesto" is the work of clerical organizations.

       Mahdavi-Kani, a key figure in the drive for conservative unity, is a cleric. Four of the 15 seats on the council have been assigned to representatives of two clerical parties. Other clerics--such as the ultra-conservative Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi and ultra-conservative Guardian Council chairman Ahmad Jannati--have endorsed the unity campaign and specific conservative political organizations.

       The impact is already spilling over into society. Thirty years after the revolution, there is renewed talk of separating men and women in university classrooms.

       But cracks are also already showing in the principlist camp. The principlists include dozens of small cliques and political organizations each centered around a limited number of politicians, activists, clerics and members of parliament and state institutions. If these groups do not agree on a common list and how to divide up parliamentary seats, they may have to compete with each other for votes.

       The conservatism of these groups varies too. They fall generally into four categories:

  • Traditional conservatives may stand firm on social issues, such as Islamic dress for women and bans on gender mixing. But they are more open to possible reconciliation with centrist reformers, albeit with many caveats.
  • Another group of new conservatives cares less about social issues, but they are closely aligned with the military-security nexus whose influence has grown markedly in recent years.
  • A third conservative wing is closely allied to the bazaar merchants, importers and shopkeepers.
  • A fourth branch, championed by former Ahmadinejad supporters, is populist in temperament and intent.


      Despite their call for unity, the number of principlist political alliances continues to proliferate. Two new conservative groups announced their formation in mid-August; each represents a clutch of politicians, clerics and smaller political associations.

      The Steadfast (or Paydari) Front is the more weighty of these two formations. It brings together influential principlists and enjoys the support of the ultra-conservative cleric, Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi. Negotiations to add representatives of this group to the Council of 15 remained stalled as of the end of August. The front considers itself the representative of "true" conservatism, rejects conservative moderates such as Larijani, and sees no reason why he should sit on the council and play a key role in principlist deliberations.

      There is a more serious scramble over allocation of places on the common electoral list. Each faction wants to maximize its share of seats in the coming election. The letter from the 190-plus members of parliament to Mahdavi-Kani calling for unity included an implicit denunciation of this rivalry over seats. In a recent opinion piece, hardline Kayhan editor Hossein Shariatmadari called on all members of the committee of 15 to forgo running for parliament-a suggestion promptly rejected by Velayati. This ostensible plea for selflessness on the part of committee members is also a neat way of excluding some individuals not to Shariatmadari's liking.

       Principlists also do not agree on how to deal with the reformist opposition and what is emerging for them as the "Ahmadinejad problem." Conservative politicians and analysts in Iran implicitly draw a distinction between the Green Movement reformists, led by Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, and the more moderate reformists represented by former President Mohammad Khatami. Mousavi and Karroubi, under house arrest and silenced for months, are regarded as having crossed a red line into out-and-out opposition, while some conservatives imply that the moderate reformers, like Khatami, might still redeem themselves.

      Hardline conservatives, like Kayhan's Shariatmadari, argue for excluding reformists of all stripes from the elections-not only the men directly associated with Musavi and Karrubi, but also those who expressed the slightest sympathy for the Green Movement or the mass protests in 2009. Such exclusion would apply to Khatami and even to former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is trying to make a political comeback as an elder statesman who can heal the nation's wounds and bring all political factions together. A conservative preacher has condemned any principlist attempt to reach out to Rafsanjani, describing such efforts as "seeking refuge in a sinking ship."

      Centrist conservatives would allow moderate reformists to run, but only if they pass a kind of loyalty test by distancing themselves from the Green Movement, apologizing for the past error of sympathizing with it, and making clear their devotion to Iran's present governing system and its supreme leader. The loyalty test ends up being exclusionary as well. Ali Motahari, a liberal conservative, has said that Mousavi and Karroubi aside, there is no reason why the Guardian Council should exclude any other reformists from the elections, and Majles Deputy Speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar has taken a similar line. But these are lone voices on the conservative side. More typical is the view expressed by Velayati, who sees no reason why anyone should be allowed to run who "lacks faith" in the Islamic Republic or has acted against it-shorthand  for the reformists and the "deviationists" of the Ahmadinejad camp.

       The regime, particularly the supreme leader, attaches considerable importance to a high election turnout. But a competitive election that draws voters to the polls would require a reasonable number of reformists to be allowed to run. Some leaders of the conservative camp, including the supreme leader, may favor such a strategy. But Khamenei has also implicitly imposed his own 'loyalty test' on opposition leaders by calling on them to declare whether they support the system or not.

      The supreme leader's test has already met resistance from key quarters. Khatami said he will participate in the elections only if they are free and if political prisoners are freed. Musavi's spokesman has called for free elections, freedom of press and assembly, an end to the practice of disqualifying reformist candidates and release of Musavi and Karrubi from house arrest. These conditions are unlikely to be met. So reformist participation in the elections is in doubt due to reservations among both reformists and the principlists.

      The Ahmadinejad faction presents the conservatives with a different set of problems. Since Ahmadinejad (sort of) patched up his disagreement with the supreme leader, the focus of venomous criticism has shifted from the president to his lieutenants who are tied to the so-called "deviationist" current. But Ahmadinejad has not fallen into line.  He has specifically refused to abandon controversial chief-of-staff Mashaie.

       The president instead crafted his own strategy. In a recent public speech, he denounced illegal smuggling through the unofficial ports run by the Revolutionary Guards, reportedly a longstanding practice that had never been publicly aired. To deal with the housing shortage and high rents, he also proposed giving each family 1,000 square meters of government-owned land and a building permit for a three-story house-a totally impractical idea which, much to the discomfort of his opponents, resonated with the urban and rural poor.

       One of his former aides recently alleged in an article that black, the preferred color among conservatives for the full-body chador, or covering for women, came to Iran from Europe only in the late 19th century and was the color of choice among Europe's corrupt, high-living upper classes. The resulting uproar in the conservative camp was no doubt motivated in part by the belief that Ahmadinejad was using surrogates to appeal to women and the middle class, still chafing under the Islamic dress code and other social restrictions.

       Conservatives also fear that Ahmadinejad will use the powers of his office, government resources and the interior ministry's responsibility for administering the elections to swing the vote in the upcoming Majles elections to candidates of his own choosing. Conservative members of parliament and the conservative press speak darkly of extensive changes Ahmadinejad is making in interior ministry personnel and provincial administration on the eve of the elections and the use of funds at the government's disposal for electoral purposes. Ironically, it is now conservatives rather than the reformists who are warning against government interference in the elections. Ayatollah Jannati, once an ardent Ahmadnejad supporter, recently accused the "deviationist current" of wishing to seize control of the Majles through "misuse of office and official positions and access to vast funds secured through the illicit use of power."  

       The hostility felt towards the Ahmadinejad among conservatives has now reached the point that he was booed when he appeared before the Majles recently. (Khamenei subsequently took Majles leaders to task for allowing a sitting president to be publicly insulted). And his representatives are notably absent from the committee of 15 and other conservative organizations coming together for the parliamentary elections.

       Yet the Ahmadinejad party could split the conservative vote, should his supporters choose to contest the elections independent of the principlist bloc. The decision about who will be allowed to run in the forthcoming election, scheduled for March, will ultimately be made by the Guardian Council and in behind-the-scenes consultation with Khamenei and other powerful insiders. But the input of the broader principlist movement also matters. On this issue, as on how to split the electoral spoils, the conservatives remain divided.

Shaul Bakhash is the Clarence Robinson Professor of History at George Mason University.

Online news media are welcome to republish original blog postings from this website in full, with a citation and link back to The Iran Primer website (www.iranprimer.com) as the original source. Any edits must be authorized by the author. Permission to reprint excerpts from The Iran Primer book should be directed to permissions@usip.org

Iran’s Growing State of Civil Disobedience

Alireza Nader

       The Iranian regime faces a threat even more daunting than the 2009 Green Movement protests: a disparate yet potentially powerful civil disobedience movement motivated not just by politics, but by environmental, economic, and social issues. From demonstrations over the drying up of Lake Orumieh in northwestern Iran to organized youth water fights in Tehran, the resilience and spontaneity of protests in Iran have recently been on full display. But these protests differ from the 2009 protests. They are not necessarily motivated by Iran’s contentious factional politics, and they are not wedded to the agenda of Iran’s Islamist reform movement. Rather, they are the outpouring of popular frustration with daily life in Iran.
 
       Lake Orumieh, one of the world’s largest saltwater lakes, is in danger of disappearing in the next few years. Environmental activists and even members of Iran’s parliament have blamed the government’s policies and its overall lack of interest for the lake’s dismal condition. The drying up of the lake could have serious environmental and economic repercussions for the region’s inhabitants. It is no surprise that the region’s Turkish-speaking population went into the streets in protest last week; Lake Orumieh is a symbol of Iranian Azerbaijan’s historical and cultural heritage. The drying up of the lake was also a convenient reason for Iran’s Azeris to express their discontent with the regime in Tehran. The Iranian government, fearing ethnic strife and separatism, responded with brute force and massive arrests, in typical fashion.
 
       Civil disobedience, however, is not restricted to Iran’s ethnic minorities. Iranian youth have engaged in water fights – using plastic guns and balloons – in Tehran’s parks. These water fights, organized through social media sites such as Facebook, are meant to alleviate boredom but also to counter the Islamic Republic’s stifling social regulations. Iran’s Prosecutor-General, Gholam Hossein Mohsen Ejei, has called the water fights “a campaign orchestrated from abroad.” Identified “conspirators” have been duly detained, along with their toy guns.
 
       The Islamic Republic has good reason to fear Iranians protecting a dying lake or trying to have fun on a hot summer day. The 2009 protests shook the regime to its very core; any gathering of a large group of people is suspected as a prelude to revolt. Iran is also surrounded by the dying embers of neighboring authoritarian regimes, from Libya to its close ally, Syria. The Iranian regime may have been successful in crushing the Green Movement that emerged in 2009, but recent acts of civil disobedience could be much harder to control. They are spontaneous and leaderless and not tied to the reform movement led by Mir Hussein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, who still profess loyalty to the same Islamic Republic that they helped create. More importantly, recent acts of civil disobedience are motivated by multiple factors, and not just a result of dissatisfaction with a particular election or opposition to a specific figure such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
 
        A typical Iranian has many reasons to disobey the government, whether he or she is young, an ethnic minority, a poor teacher or laborer, or a struggling student. The Azeri demonstrators are not merely motivated by a dying lake or ethnic aspirations. They are driven by the anger, frustration, and indignity felt by Iranians regardless of race, religion, or gender. The Islamic Republic has left many Iranians with no choice but to disobey. And they no longer have to await Mousavi and Karroubi’s orders to go into the streets.
 
Alireza Nader is an international policy analyst at the RAND Corporation and the author of "The Next Supreme Leader: Succession in the Islamic Republic of Iran" (RAND, 2011).
 
Online news media are welcome to republish original blog postings from this website in full, with a citation and link back to The Iran Primer website (www.iranprimer.com) as the original source. Any edits must be authorized by the author. Permission to reprint excerpts from The Iran Primer book should be directed to permissions@usip.org

 

Factoids on Parliamentary Election

Semira N. Nikou

         This is the third in a series on parliamentary elections due in March 2012:

  • Iran’s first parliament was formed after the Constitutional Revolution in 1906. Its current parliament was created by a new constitution written after the 1979 revolution ousted the monarchy and established an Islamic republic. The first revolutionary parliament was elected in 1980. Iran has elected eight parliaments since then.
  • Average voter turnout for the eight parliamentary elections has been 63 percent nationally. But in the past 15 years, the average for Tehran province—which includes the capital city—has been 44 percent, the lowest in the country.*
  • Parliament originally had 270 seats but increased to 290 members in 2000. There may be another 20 seat increase for the 2012 elections.
  • Citizens are not confined to voting for candidates from their own district and can cast their votes in any district (or province).
  • Five seats are reserved for religious minorities—one seat each for Jews, Zoroastrians, and Assyrian-Chaldean Christians, and two seats for Armenian Christians.
  • In 2008, a combination of conservatives and hardliners won more than 67 percent of seats, while reformists won around 18 percent. The rest ran as independents. 
  • Clerics now represent 14 percent of parliamentarians, a significant decline since they held half of the seats in the first parliament.*
  • Eight women serve as deputies in the current parliament. The highest number of female MPS (14) and the highest proportion of female representatives (5 percent) were in 1996, when the total number of deputies was 270.*
  • Ali Larijani is the current Speaker of Parliament. He is Iran’s former nuclear negotiator (2005-7). His brother, Sadegh Larijani, has been the judiciary chief since 2009. The Larijani family now controls two of the three branches of government.
  • Only Iranian citizens living in Iran can vote in parliamentary elections—unlike presidential elections in which members of the diaspora can also vote.

 * Source: Duality by Design: The Iranian Electoral System published by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems.

Online news media are welcome to republish original blog postings from this website in full, with a citation and link back to The Iran Primer website (www.iranprimer.com) as the original source. Any edits must be authorized by the author. Permission to reprint excerpts from The Iran Primer book should be directed to permissions@usip.org
 

History of Iran’s Parliaments

      This is the second in a series on parliamentary elections due in March 2012:

  • First parliament (1980-1984)
Speaker: Yadollah Sahabi (for one month in mid-1980); Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (1980 to 1984)
 
Political trends: The first parliament was the most eclectic. It included deputies from the liberal Freedom Movement.
 
  • Second parliament (1984-1988)
Speaker: Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani ((1984-1988)
 
Political trends: The second parliament was almost completely taken over by the cleric-dominated Islamic Republican Party (IRP). But divisions within the IRP created a raucous and feisty atmosphere.
 
  • Third parliament (1988-1992)
Speaker: Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (April 1988 to August 1989); Mehdi Karroubi (August 1989 to May 1992)
 
Political trends: The third parliament was elected after a split among clerical groups and the 1986 disbanding of the IRP, so the new members mostly came from groups on the left of the political spectrum.
 
  • Fourth parliament (1992-1996)
Speaker: Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri (1992-1996)
 
Political trends: Candidates for the fourth parliament were heavily vetted by the Guardian Council, which paved the way for a takeover by conservative forces. 
 
  • Fifth parliament (1996-2000)
Speaker: Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri (1996-2000)
 
Political trends: The highly contentious election for the fifth parliament created a Majles with relative balance between conservatives and a new political centrist organization called the Servants of Construction.
 
  • Sixth parliament (2000-2004)
Speaker: Mehdi Karroubi (2000-2004)
 
Political trends: Reformist President Mohammad Khatami was elected in 1997, which contributed to a decisive victory for reformists in the sixth parliament.
 
  • Seventh parliament (2004-2008) 
Speaker: Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel (2004-2008) 
 
Political trends: The Guardian Council’s wholesale disqualification of reformist candidates set the stage for the return of conservatives to power in the seventh parliament.
 
  • Eighth parliament (2008- )
Speaker: Ali Larijani (2008- )
 
Political trends The conservative dominance continued in the eighth parliament, again through aggressive vetting of reformist candidates by the Guardian Council.

 
 
Online news media are welcome to republish original blog postings from this website in full, with a citation and link back to The Iran Primer website (www.iranprimer.com) as the original source. Any edits must be authorized by the author. Permission to reprint excerpts from The Iran Primer book should be directed to permissions@usip.org

 

Iran’s Pivotal Election

      The Iran Primer today begins a series on parliamentary elections now scheduled for March 2012. The following is an excerpt from the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) report on the Iranian electoral system—its origins, framework, and elected bodies:

       The Islamic Republic of Iran's hybrid political system…encompasses both elements of democracy and theocracy. The constitution blends the liberal notion of popular sovereignty with the principle of velayat-e faqih, or rule of the jurisconsult. It establishes appointed institutions dominated by the clergy, such as the office of the Leader and the Guardian Council, while stipulating four tiers of popularly elected institutions: president, parliament, local councils, and the Assembly of Experts.
 
      The Islamic Republic has held 29 elections since its inception in 1979. Legislative, presidential, Assembly of Experts, local council elections and referendums have provided the electorate with a platform to exercise political participation. The degree to which this platform is perceived to be democratic, free and fair is intensely debated—particularly in the aftermath of the June 2009 presidential election.
 
       Yet, it is impossible to evaluate the nature and the outcome of any particular election in Iran without accurate knowledge and proper understanding of the country’s electoral system. For example, the century old precedent of a “litmus test” for candidates in Iran’s electoral system, which in the absence of a full-fledged party system served to filter out unqualified nominees, has become an instrument for political exclusion under the Islamic Republic. Vague candidate eligibility criteria set out in the law for presidential, parliamentary and local council elections coupled with a multi-layered vetting process have led to the rejection of thousands of candidates and contributed to limited political pluralism.
 
       The Iranian electoral system, in parallel to the numerous transmutations of the Islamic Republic, has undergone tremendous change over the past three decades. Estimates suggest that over 40 amendments and modifications have changed the rules of the electoral game in Iran’s post-Revolution era. In the aftermath of the June 2009 presidential election, Iran faced its most significant crisis since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. In 2012, Iranians will go to the polls for the first time since the 2009 disputed elections to elect the members of the 9th Majlis. The upcoming elections will be a litmus test which will determine the future of electoral politics in Iran. 
 
Parliamentary Elections
       Elections for the Majlis [parliament] are held every four years and decided by a two-round voting system. The electoral system is based on a modified block vote system, as voters in multi-member districts have as many votes to cast as there are seats to fill. Candidates able to secure at least one fourth of the votes cast in the first round are elected to the Majlis. Run-off elections are held in districts where one or more seats are left uncontested. The number of candidates who may run in the second round of elections is restricted to twice the number of seats to be filled in a single-member district (i.e. two) and one and a half times the number of seats to be filled in a multimember district. In run-off elections, candidates with the most votes win the contested seats.
 
       The Electoral District Law, adopted in 1985, allocates parliamentary seats among Iran’s 207 electoral districts. Many of the country’s 368 counties are retained as an electoral district, while some are the result of a merger between two, three or four counties.
 
       The districts vary in geographic size; however, seat allocations are based on a formula, which entitles every 150,000 voters the right to elect one representative to the Majlis. Increases to the number of seats are permitted under the constitution, and Article 64 establishes the conditions for an increase stating “The number of parliamentary seats can increase by no more than twenty seats for each ten-year period, and the decision to do so must be based on population growth, political and geographic factors.”
 
       Currently the province of Tehran elects the highest number of Majlis deputies with 38 representatives, while the provinces of Ilam, South Khorasan, Qom and Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad elect the least number of representatives, namely three deputies each.
 

Read full report

Tags: Reports

The Islamists Are Coming

The Islamists Are Coming, edited by Robin Wright, surveys the rise of Islamist groups in the wake of the Arab Spring. Often lumped together, the more than 50 Islamist parties with millions of followers now constitute a whole new spectrum—separate from either militants or secular parties. They will shape the new order in the world’s most volatile region more than any other political bloc. Yet they have diverse goals and different constituencies. Sometimes they are even rivals.

Connect With Us

Our Partners

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Logo