Friday , 23 August 2019
Home > Orientalism > Presidential Elections in Iran, an Anti-Orientalist Perspective

Presidential Elections in Iran, an Anti-Orientalist Perspective

IRI Pic

As the media hype created around the presidential elections which took place in the Islamic Republic of Iran is dying down, our blog will attempt to deconstruct the event within an anti-orientalist framework.

Prior to analyzing the repercussions of the election results, we will begin by looking at a key inconsistency surrounding the narrative peddled by the corporate media when covering the recent presidential election in Iran held on May 19, 2017.

Months prior to the presidential election, the corporate media began pushing the usual narrative that there are no “real” elections in Iran.  However, because every election in Iran since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 always brought with it high socio-political mobilization, which is impossible to ignore, the corporate media in order to maintain a veneer of objectivity had to adopt a back-up narrative.

The back-up narrative consisted of the line that even though people in Iran vote for a certain candidate, the Islamic establishment in Iran does not allow the candidate to implement his polices. At the same time the corporate Western media produced daily discussions about the post-election policies of Iran depending on who will win the elections, thus involuntarily admitting that ballots cast by Iranians do in fact influence government polices of Iran.

However, most corporate media outlets choose to hold on to a blatant lie, at the cost of their image, was the misinformation that the office of the Guardian Jurist (current Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei) is an unelected one. May be hoping that people will be lazy enough not to look up that the Guardian Jurist is elected by the Assembly of {Islamic} Experts which itself is elected by the direct vote of the people.

Nevertheless, a turnout of about 73 percent (41,220,131) did clearly show that the citizens of the Islamic Republic clearly trust their electoral process. This reality of course will not affect the malicious anti-Islamic Republic propaganda.

As accurately pointed out in 2013 by two most serious Western Iran experts, Hillary Mann Leverett and Dr. Flynt Leverett, “Americans and most other Westerners have never been able to take the Islamic Republic seriously as a system — one reason successive U.S. administrations have, for three decades, bought into perennially mistaken, agenda-driven claims of the Islamic Republic’s vulnerability and impending collapse.”  Why? Most of the current ruling elites in NATO member countries have a severe white-man’s superiority complex.

The presidential election process in Iran was very lively, but within Islamic legal and philosophical boundaries to which most consumers of the corporate media cannot relate to. Every system, whether secular or Islamic, has sacred basis which are non-negotiable. The authority of the state to collect taxes, its monopoly on the use of force and even certain indigenous traits, like the unelected House of Lords in the UK are unalterable. For example, the electoral process in the US is and will remain within the capitalist-secular notions where money will be the primary tool in elections.

So, what are the in-depth repercussions of the latest elections in Iran?

Let’s start with the candidates themselves.

Both leading candidates, Seyyed Ebrahim Raeisi and Hassan Rouhani are Islamic legal experts. They are not Harvard educated ivory tower intellectuals who spent decades shuttling between New York and Paris, but are students of the Hawza whose mentors were not Western PhD holders, but scholars of the Islamic sacred knowledge from the seminaries in Qum. What does that tell us? It clearly shows that the Islamic Republic of Iran managed to craft indigenous cadre of Islamic public servants. A feat not so simple to achieve, taking into account the constant external sabotage of Iran since day one of the Islamic Revolution.

Second, the election showed that the Islamic Republic of Iran clearly accepts the electoral process as an administrative tool, not a value system. The constituency of neither candidate pushed for secularism, over 40 million people participated in an electoral system defined and organized within an Islamic legal and philosophical paradigm. This can be seen as a moral boost for authentic Islamic movements in the MENA region. It will further boost the Islamic model in Iran as the most successful contemporary model of Islamic governance.

Third, it will be harder for the Zionist lobby in Washington to sell Iran as a “bastion of instability.” European governments are at odds with the Donald Trump regime about opening up to Iran diplomatically and economically. If the Zionist lobby further pushes its lackeys in Washington to pressure the EU to abandon the international treaty with Iran, it will agitate the European political cast and the powerful pro-EU political establishment in the US. Thus further isolating Israel.

The MENA region and the wider world would witness greater stability if the self-declared bastions of democracy would engage with the Islamic system in Iran. They for sure will not agree on many issues, but there is far more in common than most assume.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*