Evolve Now

Who is the true judge of reform?

The run-off election in Iran is tomorrow and I’m sorting out what is going on. But this article from my favorite columnist in Asia Times did help explain it. The most striking thing is how it mirrors our 2004 presidential election. The less educated, more rural, more religious voters are going for the conservative candidate as a rejection of the elite intellectuals, loose morals, and engagement with the rest of the world. The more educated, urban, secular leaning voters are supporting a reform (if only by comparison) candidate who wants to open up more exchanges with the US and the West, and continue to move towards less restrictions on society—including the treatment of women. The really interesting thing: the conservative candidate, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, is quite young --late 40's, a former Revolutionary Guard commander and the former mayor of Tehran and is seen as the spokesman for the poor. The moderate candidate, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, is in his 70's, amassed a huge fortune following the 1979 revolution, and served as Iran’s president from 1989 to 1997—hardly the face of change and reform one would expect.

It is coming down to a choice similar to ours in 2004. The choice between increased conservatism, fundamentalism, isolation, militarism, building nuclear weapons and government controls (Bush/ Ahmadinejad) or the at least the hope of maintaining the status quo of freedom and role of religion in government, engaging the rest of the world, using diplomacy along with military might and decreasing nuclear proliferation (Kerry/ Rafsanjani). Is the US supporting the moderate candidate? Nope. Bush called the election a “sham” motivating throngs of conservatives to go to the polls to support Ahmadinejad who opposes any dialogue with the “Great Satan” and will likely resume Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Now, I’m not saying the election was without major flaws as discussed here and here. But I firmly believe the transitioning to democracy is a very difficult process. We should applaud all moves in the right direction, no matter how small or weak those steps may be. There is no way an election in Iran—even for a largely powerless position—is going to be free and fair to the same standard as an election in the US, or even as an election in Ukraine or Georgia. But it is a start. The US needs to temper its criticism and dismissal of these tenuous steps towards change. This New York Times editorial certainly isn’t helping by dismissing any hope of reform before the election is even over.

I know there are serious problems with corruption, oppression and human rights violations in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries; I know many leaders and political groups are guilty of acts of terrorism. But the region is on the precipice of change and the US should engage a wide variety of political leaders and groups in these countries to influence the outcome of this massive transition to a conclusion that includes productive relationships with the US and the West. What is the alternative? The US can continue to criticize and denounce political movements as terrorists and not engage, and someone else will step in to encourage change, support leaders and invest in countries ensuring the outcome favors their nation and their values. This has already begun. Read this about China and Russia spreading their influence and then consider today’s news of China’s bid to takeover US oil giant Unocal.

posted by Rissa Roo @ 12:12 PM