Iran's Rural Vote and Election Fraud
17 Jun 2009 14:2110 Comments
Photo/Nieman Foundation
By ERIC HOOGLUND
I just heard a CNN reporter in Tehran say that Ahmadinejad's support base was rural. Is it possible that rural Iran, where less than 35 percent of the country's population lives, provided Ahmadinejad the 63 percent of the vote he claims to have won? That would contradict my own research in Iran's villages over the past 30 years, including just recently. I do not carry out research in Iran's cities, as do foreign reporters who otherwise live in the metropolises of Europe and North America, and so I wonder how they can make such bold assertions about the allegedly extensive rural support for Ahmadinejad.
Take Bagh-e Iman, for example. It is a village of 850 households in the Zagros Mountains near the southwestern Iranian city of Shiraz. According to longtime, close friends who live there, the village is seething with moral outrage because at least two-thirds of all people over 18 years of age believe that the recent presidential election was stolen by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
When news spread on Saturday (June 13) morning that Ahmadinejad had won more than 60 percent of the vote cast the day before, the residents were in shock. The week before the vote had witnessed the most intense campaigning in the village's history, and it became evident that support for Mir-Hossein Mousavi's candidacy was overwhelming. Supporters of Ahmadinejad were even booed and mocked when they attempted rallies and had to endure scolding lectures from relatives at family gatherings. "No one would dare vote for that hypocrite," insisted Mrs. Ehsani, an elected member of the village council.
The president was very unpopular in Bagh-e Iman and in most of the other villages around Shiraz, primarily because of his failure to deliver on the reforms he promised in his successful 2005 presidential campaign. He did have some supporters. Village elders confided, "10 to 15 percent of village men, mostly [those who were] Basijis [militia members] and those who worked for government organizations, along with their families."
Carloads of villagers actually drove to Shiraz to participate in the massive pro-Mousavi rallies that were held on the three nights prior to the balloting. And election-day itself was like a party in Bagh-e Iman. Many people openly announced their intentions to vote for Mousavi as they cheerfully stood in line chatting with neighbors, and local election monitors estimated that at least 65 percent of them actually did so. "Although some probably really voted for [Ayatollah Mehdi] Karubi, who also is a man of the people," said election monitor Jalal.
Of course, the Basijis with their mothers, wives and sisters did come out in force but were quiet, apparently timid about revealing their voting intentions "because they probably voted for Ahmadinejad," continued Jalal. But he insisted that they did not count for more than 20 or 25 percent of the vote.
By Saturday evening, the shock and disbelief had given way to anger that slowly turned into palpable moral outrage over what came to be believed as the theft of their election. The proof was right in the village: "Interior Ministry officials came from Shiraz, sealed the ballot boxes, and took then away even before the end of voting at 9 pm," said Jalal. In all previous elections, a committee comprised of representative from each political faction had counted and certified the results right in the village. The unexpected change in procedures caught village monitors off guard, as it did everywhere else in the country.
By Saturday evening, small groups of demonstrators were roaming the main commercial streets of Shiraz, a city of 1.5 million residents, and protesting the announced results as a fraud. People refused to believe that Ahmadinejad could have been re-elected. Larger demonstrations took place on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, beginning in the late afternoon and continuing long after the sun had set. These attracted carloads of supporters from Bagh-e Iman and other villages, including several that were 60 kilometers from Shiraz.
Although the crowds shouted slogans such as "Death to Dictatorship," most protestors shouted "Allah-o-akbar," the popular chant of the 1978-79 Revolution. Indeed, in Shiraz, thousands climbed unto the roofs of their homes Sunday to shout 'Allah-o-akbar' for several hours.
Most villagers are supporters of the Islamic Republic, but they are ready for the reforms that they say are essential so that their children will have a secure economic future. They saw hope in Mousavi's promise to implement reforms, even though he is a part of the governing elite.
But that political elite is divided over how Iran should be governed: a transparent democracy where elected representatives enact laws to benefit the people or a 'guided democracy' in which a select few make all decisions because they do not trust the masses to make the right ones. This astute political insight is one that is prevalent in Iran but seems to have escaped the notice of the Western reporters who are trying to explain Iran's political crisis with resort to simplistic stereotypes.
Eric Hooglund is professor of politics at Bates College, Lewiston, Maine, and editor of the scholarly journal Middle East Critique. He is an expert on Iran, and his most recent publication is "Thirty Years of Islamic Revolution in Rural Iran" in Middle East Report, no. 250, spring 2009.
Copyright (c) 2009 Eric Hooglund - distributed by Agence Global
via RSS
10 Comments
Well damn!
Jim / June 17, 2009 11:14 AMThanks
Well it's true, the masses often make stupid decisions (Bush) but at least then they'll have no one to blame but themselves.
MNPundit / June 17, 2009 11:39 AMAn die Welt-Spiegel-Redaktion und die "Iran-Experten" der ARD,
die jeweils vollmundig erklaeren, der Wahlsieg Ahmadinejads sei wegen des grossen Einflusses der armen Landbevoelkerung auf die Wahlergebnisse sehr wahrscheinlich und mehr als 10 Millionen Stimmen koenne doch sowieso niemand faelschen, weshalb anzunehmen sei, dass das Wahlergebnis nur geringfuegig gefaelscht ist:
Bitte meine Damen und Herren,
lesen Sie die folgenden Berichtet - der eine von Eric Hooglund, einem Politik-Professor des Bates College, Lewiston, Maine,
http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/17/irans-rural-vote-and-election-fraud/
und der andere von Ihren Spiegel-Kollegen:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,630592,00.html
Es ist mehr als aergerlich und beschaemend, wenn Sie die Protestbewegung im Iran als "Fussballfans, die eine Niederlage nicht akzeptieren koennen" behandeln - nicht zuletzt, weil Sie damit wunderbar den Verniedlichungskurs Ahmadinejads unterstuetzen, von dem das Zitat stammt.
Auch Wendungen wie "der angebliche Wahlbetrug" und "der scheinbare Wahlbetrug" sprechen fuer Ihr angebliches und scheinbares Expertentum. Sie sehen schon, wie verletzend diese Adjektive sein koennen, da sie in ihrer Bedeutung bereits beinhalten, dass der Sachverhalt mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit nicht zutreffend ist.
Natuerlich muessen Sie als Medienberichterstatter neutral bleiben. Allerdings scheint mir, dass fast jede Wortwahl tendenziell die eine oder andere Richtung beguenstigt. Vielleicht ist es deshalb schlauer, eher solche Formulierungen zu waehlen, die nicht diejenigen unterstuezen, die brutal gegen jegliche Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit, Menschenrechte und demokratische Grundprinzipien verstossen.
Ich hoffe auf eine der Sachlage angemessenere Berichterstattung,
Ihr Zuschauer
Ingo Beyerlein
Ingo Beyerlein / June 17, 2009 11:41 AMFinally, someone hits back against the whole "rural Iranians are stupid country bumkins who will vote for racist because he's one of them" meme. Thank God.
Yekirani / June 17, 2009 11:51 AMWell, just don't lose your ability to think critically. Sometimes people behave strategically lying about who the voted for or what their beliefs are because they think the truth will make them unpopular with their interlocutors or the world at large.
Private citizens among the Japanese, for example, when talking to Westerners or Koreans or Chinese, are individually always quick to concede national guilt over matters such as Nanking, comfort women, human experimentation, revisionism, and Yasukuni shrine, but at the same time they consistently elect politicians who foster a much more aggressively nationalistic stance on those matters, and enjoy a great deal of popularity for doing so.
Martin / June 17, 2009 12:33 PMIt's possible that the two facts are not irreconcilable, but the far simpler solution is that many of them at least lie about feelings of national remorse. At a time when Iran's President is extremely unpopular abroad, even with other Muslim countries, it's possible that people lie to foreigners about their preferences and voting habits in an appeal for sympathy and status.
I think a lot of journalist (especially those from the US) project their values/ideas about their country onto Iran.
That whole rural meme was very popular during the U.S. election and it was basically the same (rural Americans won't vote for ___ bc they are racists). Of course this didn't explain states like Iowa or anything and of course most US Americans live in cities and suburbs, however, most journalist still live and propagate the myth that people are more rural, or that rural people are somehow more authentic. Moreover, they tend to ignore the youth in their own country (so of course they ignore youth in other countries).
On of the more talked about issues that the US journalist didn't really cover was about Iran.
Also US journalist are incredibly lazy. Most younger people get their info from the net anyways.
Lynn / June 17, 2009 12:41 PMBest of luck to y'all.
Loved the essay. Thanks!
Farzin / June 17, 2009 2:07 PMI started taking notice of the Iran elections when Mousavi was really beginning to be popular with the people. There was a definite desire for change in the air. To my annoyance, I find that the MSM journalists seem to be covering up the extent of the protest over the election result. However, this story is just more evidence that the filtered results that I have seen (that Dinnerjacket was 3rd and Mousavi had 19 million votes) is the most likely truth.
I think it is true to state that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei have in fact staged a coup. All of the signs are there for this to have happened, including the jamming of the SMS network, plus of course the fact that they imported Basiji from Lebanon and Syria. This was planned action if the Dinnerjacket did not win. Khamenei's insistence for breaking procedure by declaring the results as "divine" is actually further evidence that the result was rigged.
There are lots of anonymous complaints going around because of Twitter, including the complaint that one person's father had a truckload of ballots that were to be burned.
Because of the mobile polling stations there was ample opportunity at each location to stuff the ballot boxes with extra ballots for Dinnerjacket.
Aussiewoman / June 17, 2009 6:07 PMThanks for this post.
The recent plebiscite in Iran was a fraud...the declared winner was a sham.
shetty / June 18, 2009 4:36 AMa very nice and informative article and makes sense. People in rural areas are more traditional and religious but they are not less innformed than urban dwellers. The article makes SENSE to me. Thanks professor Hooglund. It seems there might be a light at the end of the tunnel and Iran free itself from the domination of armed gangas.
gijovige / June 19, 2009 5:23 PM