Elections

Of all the commentary and analysis of Iran's upcoming elections that I have read, this strikes me as definitively the worst. Titled "Iran's Potemkin elections" and penned by Con Coughlin, of London's Daily Telegraph, the piece ledes off (pun intended) with this bombshell: "Only candidates vetted by the ruling clerics have been allowed to stand." No! You mean that the Ayatollah had some say in determining who was allowed to run for election? I am shocked. Shocked.

Sarcasm aside, it is indeed puzzling why anyone would be surprised by the one part of Iran's power structure that seems relatively transparent. Twelve members of what is called the Guardian Council -- six picked directly by the Ayatollah, six more or less indirectly so -- are the ones to pre-approve candidates. This year, though more than 400 offered their name -- including women, who were allowed to do so for the first time -- only four survived the cut.

This is far from democratic; I don't know of anyone who argues that it is. But one of the odd aspects of the Iranian political system is that much of what follows is, in fact democratic. And partially due to the actual ability of Iranians to vote, partially because we don't know what un-democratic dynamics are operating behind the scenes, the foregone conclusion that Coughlin assumes, without evidence -- that Ahmadinejad is "widely expected to win re-election" -- is simply not substantiated.

While many Iran hawks spend the bulk of their time pointing to Ahmadinejad's hostile and ham-handed provocations, others contend that Iran is the plaything of the "mad mullahs." Neither of these oversimplifications is accurate. The Ayatollah and his clerics exercise a good deal of power, for certain. But, in a telling example, Khamenei did not, by all accounts, prefer Ahmadinejad to win the first time around -- nor was he at all expected to do so -- and it is not clear whether Ahmadinejad or Mir Hossein Moussavi (who is not, as Coughlin calls him, a "conservative hard-liner") will prevail this year. That all we can expect out of what has been a very interesting election campaign is "more of the same" is also very much not necessarily true.

And I know the phrase "Potemkin" has come to mean any sort of façade, but Coughlin definitely has his history backwards. The original Potemkin village was designed to deceive the Empress Catherine the Great; in this case, it's the Supreme Leader who knows more about what's going on than anyone else -- though not, most probably, who's going to win this election.

(image from flickr user Shahram Sharif under a Creative Commons license)

In other election-related news...

The reactions here in the United States to the Lebanese elections yesterday are generally of surprised relief. The Hezbollah-led alliance that many feared would come out on top had a disappointing showing, and the "March 14" coalition led by Saad Hariri, the former prime minister's son, had a very good day.

The Wall Street Journal and Huffington Post speculate that the Western-friendly results may owe something to Obama's big speech in Cairo last week. Blake Hounshell, Tim Fernholz, and Andrew Exum are skeptical, and I agree; while the U.S. is likely counting its lucky stars, it seems hubristic to assume that one speech by a foreign politician, a few days before the election, would sway Lebanese swing voters away from Hezbollah.

The elections were a matter of internal politics, and the most relevant dynamic was likely Lebanese dissatisfaction with Hezbollah. (Though, indeed, Hezbollah does seem more comfortable, and possibly more formidable, as an opposition party.) I don't think Obama's speech was directed toward Lebanese voters, and this is a good thing; with the Iranian elections in just a few days, the U.S. would do well to continue this policy of not meddling, even rhetorically, in elections they cannot control. Whatever happens, the results are likely to prove, if anything, just as unpredictable.

(image from flickr user Sana Tawileh under a Creative Commons license)

Europe took to the polls this weekend to elect over 700 Members of European Parliament (MEPs) from across European Union member states.  The big headlines here across the pond are that 1) the British Labour Party got absolutely trounced and 2) the right wing, anti-European party of Dutch Politician Geert Wilders made big inroads.  

But that is not all the story.  A sufficient  number of Dutch people (in their wisdom) decided to vote for the centrist, pro-European D-66 party to give D-66 three seats in Brussels.  This means that my friend, Marietje Schaake, will become an MEP. 

Marietje, 30, is one of Europe's brightest and most promising young leaders.  Her election is great news not only for Marietje and her supporters, but for those of us around the world who are firm believers in human rights and minority rights. 

She will also bring with her to Brussels impeccable transatlantic credentials.

Ed note: This article was published in Open Democracy under a creative commons license.  The author, Hugo Brady, offers a smart take on the elections for the European Parliament, which take place throughout the E.U. later this week.  Enjoy. 

Between June 4th and June 7th, Europeans will cast their votes to elect a new European Parliament (EP). Recent opinion polls indicate that they will do so without much enthusiasm. Indeed, there is every chance that the average turnout will be the lowest ever – it has fallen at every election since the first time that Europeans directly elected their MEPs in 1979, and sank to 45.6 per cent in 2004. But despite the prevailing apathy, this election matters. During its next five-year term, the EP will influence what the EU decides in areas as diverse as financial services, trade, climate change, energy security and immigration.