The BBC is reporting that Iran's Guardian Council has announced that a "re-count" of Friday's votes will take place, following incredible protests and an official challenge to the results by Mousavi and Karroubi.
Commentators have rightly questioned whether a recount would provide any actual relief to the Iranian electoral process. Indeed, Mousavi and his supporters have demanded that Friday's balloting be invalidated, and a new vote held. The question is, under what circumstances would each option provide a better gauge of the Iranian public's actual will? It depends on the type of irregularities that actually occured:
1. Intimidation and electoral violence: Reports of activities of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and paramilitary forces have been widely discussed. If Nate's hunch is correct, perhaps 15% or more of the population was willing to abstain from voting.
Recourse: New round of voting
2. Deliberate misreporting of vote totals: The blogosphere has been buzzing with reports of Mousavi's camp receiving word from the electoral commission that he had won the upwards of 60% of the vote, which was then retracted. If this was simply manipulation of the totals by loyalists in Tehran, and the political winds have shifted, the real total could possibly emerge.
Recourse: Recount
3. "Lost" ballots": Allegations have also abounded that a significant number of votes were disposed of from areas of strength for Mousavi and Karroubi (probably Rezai as well, but few reports).
Recourse: New round of voting
4. Khameni decided ahead of time: There are commentators, expert and not, that have suggested that the whole electoral process in Iran is a sham, with the results dictated long in advance by the Supreme Leader. Similar allegations were leveled in 2005, when then-unknown Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won a surprising second place in the first round.
Recourse: Rioting in the street; move to London
Of course, we suspect that one, two, or perhaps all occurred during the course of the campaign, to varying degrees. The key question is really whether the top leadership has in fact decided to pull back from their support of Ahmandinejad for fear of more serious civil unrest, or if the recount offer is simply a measure to save face before recertifying Mr. Ahmadinejad.
UPDATE: Iranian authorities have instituted new measures to "clamp down" on foreign media correspondants in the country. The BBC reports that the promised recount is looking more like "just a political ruse to try and wrong-foot the opposition." Nonetheless, a huge opposition rally in Tehran has begun again today, against Mousavi's pleas to avoid an encounter between rival groups.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com
6.16.2009
Recount in Iran?
@ 6:00 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments
FIRST COMMENT!
2nd time for June!!!
Follow persiankiwi at twitter. Looks like we could get real violence soon as Basij rally at 3 at same place Massoui supporters rally at 5.
Lets hope for no deaths. 100's of students from Tehran U still missing.
So much for religion...
Obama needs to stand up for the people of Iran-- tell them we're with you!
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/06/call-to-obama-stand-up-for-iran.html
What the hell do you want the president to do? His statement yesterday is quite adequate. This is _not_ an American struggle, and the U.S. has to butt out!
"Of course, we well know that one, two, or perhaps all occurred during the course of the campaign, with various impacts." What's your source?
.
I guess it's all up to Scalia now.
Here's a picture of democracy in action. And the response. It really takes lots more b*lls than Americans have these days.
.
That was hell of a job man.
I think Iran is fighting for real Democracy (not for the first time) The question is which is really more important? All those ever claimed human right and democracy ideals or financial benefits. I wouldnt say that the Obama or Europe are sure about the answere but what is appreant to me is Iranian people are trapped in a f* hell and it is just not fair to let the situatiun stay like this just becusse of temporary benefits. I am sure a good movement for a better world and more peacefull midle east can be started from now in Iran. Needless to mention that a dctator goverment is way likely to do crazy nuclear stuff rather than a democratic one. So I am with you and Obama should support Iranian movements. Also I wish he do so as I am iranian my self ;)
One thing is clear: Ahmadi-nejad is no dictator. At least not THE dictator. No dictator worth his salt would go off to Moscow while his fate is being decided by the Street or the Guardian Council. Clearly he is (mostly) a frontman for the ruling clique and the Iranians know that. The idea that the Grand Ayatollah might let A-n go really won't satisfy the Street. For their own protection and survival, the ruling clique has to be maximalist in their response to the street demos. They well remember 78-79 when the Shah lost his will. They won't.
@Matthew Available:
Do you remember what happened in Venezuela after the anti-Chavez coup in 2002? The U. S. administration lauded the result and endorsed it, which was followed by a counter-coup restoring Chavez to power. Chavez was then able to portray the coup which felled him (temporarily) as U. S.-inspired. This did not aid the cause of anti-Chavez forces in Venezuela. After that series of events, the only way Chavez would have been deposed in Venezuela was for the U. S. to have intervened directly, something the administration was unwilling to do.
So our real desire to voice support of the Iranian opposition must confront the reality of an anti-American backlash should the cheerleading become too pointed. It's a complicated world, something the current administration understands (and the previous one did not). Measured statements about respecting the will of the people are (unfortunately) the best we can do at present.
Unfortunately, given our commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan, our ability to affect internal affairs of other countries is rather limited. Theodore Roosevelt's saying, "Speak softly and carry a big stick," does not imply the reverse. We were unable to give actual support to the coup in Venezuela, and we cannot directly aid the opposition in Iran. That does not mean that we should speak even louder. In this case (as it was in Venezuela) it would be counterproductive.
We would need to draft (and equip) a rather large military to set things right in all corners of the world. There are situations in Zimbabwe and Burma where I wish it were possible to depose repressive regimes and promote democracy. Such democracy, imported from outside, would not be sustainable in any event. (We will see how that goes in Iraq and Afghanistan.)
@Matthew Avitable:
Sorry about the typo ("Matthew Available").
Problem with the western media is that you can't prove anything. I'm closer to believe that there were irregularities at the elections but what are your sources? You start your comments with: "The blogosphere has been buzzing with reports...", "Allegations have also abounded that..." or "There are commentators, expert and not, that have suggested that..." Those are not real sources. Where were the observers from EU or US? Now, your shouting for blood because that's cheaper than going to war with Iran to topple Ahmadinejad, just like you did in Eastern Europe. It is sad, establishing "democracies" with revolution :(
The Bush Administration's hostility toward the duly elected President of Venezuela was horrible and anti-democratic. The elections in Venezuela were much better-run and fairer than the 2000 election in the U.S., at least, if not (probably) also the 2004 election. Chavez has won repeated landslides in elections certified by international observers as fair.
Now, it does make a considerable amount of sense to accuse Chavez of arrogating so much Executive power as to be something of an elected dictator, but the Bush Administration wasn't exactly in the strongest position to complain about imperial Executives.
The upshot is that while I agree with your general points, I think your example is a poor one.
My previous post was in response to polls_apart.
As for Phoneranger's point that the Shah lost his will and the Ayatollahs won't: I don't think that's accurate. The Shah lost control of the army, which simply refused to fire at demonstrators. Therefore, we should watch and see how the Iranian Army and Revolutionary Guards behave in the coming weeks, because that will probably tell the tale.
I agree with Cosa Nostradamus (what is that, the prophetic mafia?). Real democracy takes balls, and we have certainly lost ours, content to sit on the couch while the only people on TV speaking the truth about politicians and our policies are, quite literally, comedians: Bill Mahr, Jon Stewart and Colbert. And maybe Rachel once a week.
The MM isn't in the bag for the right wing or left wing, it is in the bag for whoever has political power and controls the money. So we can grin while Obama orders burgers just like us, and ignore the fact that he has stripped us of our Constitutional rights and reversed field on every important Constitutional question of equality that has ever come before him.
Equality for gays? Just a campaign promise. Habeas corpus? Just a campaign promise. FISA? Transparency? The rule of law? Hey dude, Obama cannot be bound by the lies he had to tell in order to get elected! Get real!
Now isn't it going to be a truly pathetic sight if Iranians under a "Supreme Leader" force real democracy upon him, while Americans sit back and grin at our own monarch in chief? Good luck to them, I guess we couldn't expect to be the prime example of true democracy forever.
But hey, America was great while it lasted.
Two Cheers for Democracy – Obama’s Pallid Response to Repression
The leader of the free world has not shown any leadership whatsoever with regard to the electoral fraud that widely is believed to have been perpetrated in the Iranian people. Obama’s lukewarm statement of regret last night was weak and late in comparison to the reaction of the rest of the world, including our European allies. When you wind up following the French lead on something like this, you know something is amiss.
Obama has been boxed in by his own ideology with regard to Iran. He has famously asserted that he will deal with Iran’s leader without preconditions and it remains in Obama’s interest not to de-legitimize Ahmadinejad whom he has taken pains to prop up. So the Iranian people are left without the tangible support of the world’s first democracy. Our nation that throughout its history has shed it blood and spent its treasure to support the right of freedom is now hamstrung by Obama’s paralysis and the people of Iran are left to suffer.
Imagine, if you will, Obama as president back in the Reagan era, when RR was pre-occupied with bringing freedom to the Soviet bloc and defeating Soviet-style Communism. You can just hear Obama proclaiming how he can work with the Communist dictators and find common ground with them, all smug and self-satisfied that his magnetism allows him to get along with everybody.
If Reagan were like Obama the USSR would exist today and 100s of millions would remain enslaved behind the Iron Curtain.
This is the folly of the Obama approach to foreign policy and the world.
petekent01 (on twitter)
@PeteKent:
Remind me to bring a push broom and a shovel should I ever feel impelled to follow you on Twitter.
@PeteKent:
How did Bush 43's policies keep democracy alive in Venezuela? He vocally supported the anti-Chavez coup which occurred, but that didn't turn out too well, did it?
I guess we should all cheer Ronald Reagan for for turning tail on Lebanon after we lost 240 soldiers there. Not the U. S.'s most shining moment, was it? I think we compensated by invading Grenada.
The fall of the U. S. S. R. was the result of a 40-yearlong period of patient containment, topped off by the crash of oil prices in the 1980's. I will concede that aggressive defense spending under Reagan contributed to beggaring the Soviet Union during this period. It is no accident that Russia under Putin and Medvedev has become more aggressive as the price of oil skyrocketed in the past several years.
I fail to see why talking to our adversaries is "propping them up". We talked to the Soviet Union; as you assert, we were not propping them up, under Reagan or under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon or Carter. I suppose superpowers should only talk to others of their size and heft. Talking to anyone else is beneath us.
Iranians and the Iranian elite especially are very, very sensitive to any whiff of foreign interference in internal political affairs. (With good reason see: Operation Countenance, Operation Ajax, etc.) If the US or Britain, especially, are seen to be intervening in any way, it will only make things worse.
The best course Obama can take is to simply restate what the US believes to be true: that power does and should ascend from the people to the elites, that elections should be fair with every vote counted and that basic freedoms should be respected. Of course, the US does not always live up to these ideals, but the ideals still have value. These ideals, btw, should be stated in general terms, to avoid charges of colonialism, not in terms specific to Iran.
On a practical level, we should reiterate our moral support for democracy, keep the election story in the news (BBC, CNN, al Jazeera, al Arabiya, as well as web based news) for as long as possible to allow the reformers to expose the regime's brutality and corruption, provide technical assistance in maintaining lines of communication among the opposition and with the outside world (via SMS, twitter, social networking sites and mobile phone networks), and prevent the interference of outside powers who may wish to see the opposition fail.
Meanwhile, realpolitik dictates that Ahmedinejad may have to be dealt with diplomatically in the future if the popular movement in the streets fails. If the US is seen to be inciting his own people against him, it will only increase support for his lunacy across the region.
We could, I suppose, indicate that if the opposition succeeds, we would be much more amenable to trade ties. This is a card we should play soon, in any case, since as the BRIC and N-11 economies expand, trade with the US becomes less crucial and so a less valuable bargaining chip for us.
Stating open support for a peaceful nuclear power program for the new regime (but not the current one) might help. Our opposition to that was seen as colonialist by the vast majority of Iranians. Now, I get all the geo-political reasons we don't want Iran to have access to nuclear technology, but they will achieve nuclear power eventually. That is a simple fact. The choice we face is whether they will see us, 50 years from now, as holding them back when India, China, Russia and France were willing to help or if they see us as the least meddlesome of foreign powers.
Other than those things what would those calling for Obama to do more suggest? UN sanctions? Military invasion? CIA operatives assassinating Ahmedinejad and the Supreme Leader? Waving a magic wand and making the whole problem go away? What is your actual suggestion other than stamping your feet and demanding he "do more"? And do any of those options seem like they would have a better outcome than calm, peaceful moral support?
Also, my hunch on the recount being offered? I think the Grand Council wants to do a recount so they can say, "Ooops! Technical error. No one reached 50%." They save face, and there's a new, two-way election, this time with outside monitors, maybe.
I think that options 2-4 are probably correct, and option 1 may be irrelevant if any of the other options took place. What would be the point of intimidating people against voting if you're only going to falsify the election results anyhow?
In any case, I think it's #2 that really is the key to the whole thing. If the Guardian Council is backing off enough to commit to doing a re-count, it may well be that they are recognizing the political reality of what they are doing by trying to rig the election in the first place, and that by trying to do so, they may well be causing the next Iranian revolution.
It may well be that they having Mousavi in office is a small price to pay for not having that revolution right now.
@Polls_Apart,
The problem with no-nothings like you is that you refuse to give credit where credit is due. Stop blathering about oil prices and show some respect for Reagan who had the courage to call out the Soviet Union for what it was, for demanding that Gorbachev tear down the Wall and not giving a quarter to our Communist enemy. His immediate predecessor, like Obama, was a weak appeaser and did more to set back our international relations than any Prez in history, his legacy being the very Mullahs in Iran who torment us today.
To bring up Lebanon and Grenada shows how desperate your partisan attacks are. Perhaps Reagan should have ignited the Arab world by crushing Lebanon and he certainly was right not to tolerate a Soviet client state in the Caribbean. Although I am sure Obama would get along fine with its Commie leaders.
Give some credit to Bush 43 for forcing the UN to deal with the Syrians in Lebanon and making them get out. It was that action that set the stage for the moderate victory there in elections not Obama's silly speech in Cairo that like all his cotton candy addresses are forgotten in the wind and vanish leaving only a queasy stickiness behind.
As far as Venezuela goes, Obama giving bro hugs to Chavez is destined to further mire the people there in their peculiar misery and tyranny.
Talking to your enemies is fine, but leadership is needed to call them out and make them accountable.
Obama just seems to want to make nice. He is either weak or he likes these regimes and wants to make amends for all of our “past sins”.
Or perhaps these dictators are the ones who have the pics of him with men or copies of his various passports and birth certificates.
Whatever it is, Obama is not the sort of President America needs.
petekent01 (on twitter)
Amercians feel Obama not tuff enuf on N Korea and Iran
http://tinyurl.com/ntjzm3 Duh!
About two-thirds of voters believe that President Obama has not been tough enough with the two nations - North Korea and Iran - that have raised serious concerns about their nuclear ambitions, and those numbers include a majority of Democrats according to a poll conducted June 9-10.
Sixty-nine percent say Obama has not been tough enough on North Korea, including 65 percent of Democrats, and 66 percent say he has not been tough enough on Iran, including 57 percent of Democrats.
With Rassmussen showing his net approval rating down to barely nothing and the economy remaining in shambles, Obama is going down fast.
The only advantage he retains is an iron grip on his state-run media. He and his bro Chavez have a lot in common in this respect.
petekent01 (on twitter)
@PeteKent:
There was no need for you to repeat your response in this thread and the health care thread as well. Just shows you feel the need to hijack every thread.
Insofar as other countries getting ahead of us on statements regarding Iran: other countries don't have quite our reputation for behaving like a bull in the international china shop. I'm sure this is an argument that will cut no ice with you. You seem to believe that our pronouncements to other countries should be repeated with increasing volume until we lose patience and invade them.
Wow... just like the previous administration.
@PeteKent:
Regarding the Mullahs in Iran: they were the result of repressive rule by the Shah, who we brought back to power in a coup which deposed the democratically elected Mossadegh government in 1954. That appeared to work for about 20 years, but ultimately failed. Should we have sent troops to Iran to maintain the Shah in power?
Where Carter can legitimately be criticized is for his handling of the hostage crisis. That should have been downplayed, as the later hostage crisis in Lebanon in the 1980's was under Reagan. The latter crisis was easier to downplay because it involved fewer people than did the Iranian Embassy takeover. (Although Reagan succumbed to the temptation to deal with the Iranian government to free those hostages in what became the Iran-Contra scandal).
Regarding Reagan's retreat from Lebanon: I was not suggesting that Reagan crush Lebanon. You're putting words in my mouth, something you're quite good at. I suppose in your eyes there were only two possible courses: withdrawal or attack. Rather a limited range of choices, wouldn't you say?
Regarding Venezuela: In any future meeting with Chavez, I strongly believe there will be a much chillier atmosphere than the initial encounter. Obama realizes that not coming out with all guns blazing at the outset will pay dividends in hemispheric relations down the road. Our ability to seize the moral high ground in the past was predicated on patience. Strong, secure nations can afford to exercise patience and not respond to every petty insult.
@PeteKent:
In the spirit of the last post, I shall stop responding to your troll bait. As is often said, wrestling with a pig gets you dirty, and the pig enjoys it.
The U.S. government should keep a low profile during these events, to avoid making it into a nationalistic U.S. vs. Iran confrontation. That will turn them against us, especially the older generations who still resent the way our government interfered with their politics before the revolution. A loud U.S. government response will only help our pride, not the people of Iran.
The American people, on the other hand, should do all they can on their own initiative to help shine a light on the situation in Iran. I am happy to see this blog become part of that effort.
Now, getting back to the topic, since this is really a story about Iran, not the United States: I see this as a major crossroads for Iran's rulers. They should not expect their "recount", whether honest or not, to have much effect, since it will not be accepted as legitimate by the opposition. They've already lost that fight. Basically, they have two choices now: crack down or back down.
Someone posted a link to filtering software for 538 comment threads---to just hide posts from designated users. Has anyone actually used this software, and can someone repost the link, please?
Thanks.
The consequences of the crackdown route can be seen in China since '89. The ruling party has kept its power, but only because the continuing growth of the economy keeps people satisfied. There's a constant bubbling-up of dissent which the government struggles mightily to keep a lid on. Their rule will last as long as they can avoid any major national hardship—a recession or a big war would probably break them.
Since I expect Iran to take the crackdown route, this is the situation they are likely headed for. In the short run, it may embolden the hardliners, but in the long run it will hem them in.
@ mathrec
Make your life more pleasant by blocking trolls like PeteKent,:
From http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/43818
"538TrollRemover
By nicksuserscripts — Last update
Mar 8, 2009
Installed 127 times.
Script Summary:
Removes troll's comments fromfivethirtyeight.com.
Pre-populated with PeteKent and Jack-be-nimble.
This script works at the website http://www.fivethirtyeight.com and prevents the comments of trolls from appearing on your screen.
I do not mean for people to use this script to create their own echo-chamber on fivethiryeight.com, but as a stop-gap measure to remove the trolls from the comment section in order to increase the signal:noise ratio and improve the level of discourse.
That being said, it comes pre-populated with PeteKent and Jack-be-nimble - you'll never have to see their comments again!
To add trolls, from your firefox browser select 'Tools'->'Greasemonkey'->'Manage User Scripts'.
Select '538TrollRemover' and click 'Edit'. Add any new trolls to the trollList array near the beginning of the script.
Send comments/bugs/feature requests to nicksuserscripts+538TrollRemover@gmail.com
I am busy with other things, but I will attempt to fix bugs in a timely manner.
P.S.
This script works with Google Chrome (see http://mashable.com/2008/12/15/google-chrome-gr... for instructions on running Greasemonkey scripts on Chrome)
I'm working on getting this to work with one of the IE extensions."
@ mathrec: FYI, I am using Opus 132's troll-be-gone script, and it is excellent.
To many of you a troll is simply someone who makes you uncomfortable with your own mal-formed belief system.
You are so used to accolades the media heaps on Obama that you cannot stand to hear him criticized.
Like a vaccine that contains a bit of virus, i am only trying to soften the blow for you all when he comes crashing down.
I think for most of you, all you want is an "Amen" corner of your own so you can praise your Messiah amongst yourselves. Tony C @842 is one of the few who has finally stopped drinking the Kool-Aide.
You have no interest in debate and your only instinct (like your Prez) is to attack the person and use derision and mockery to achieve what you cannot by fully informed debate. It is debate that you most fear bc you know Obama's ideas simply cannot stand scrutiny and held up to the light of day his command and control takeover the economy (which for some peculiar reason you think you will benefit from) will not take root.
I love the comments threads here. The physical layout of this site is most conducive to posting and hence I come here and throw my brickbats into your works!
petekent01 (on twitter)
I have successfully removed PeteKent from my views on this site and I can say it is a great thing.
PeteKent isn't a troll. He actually believes the tripe he posts.
I know another way to block him permanently. It involves his favorite amendment.
I put my money on 2 and hope it comes out that way, but revotes and revolutions are aight.
'The ruling party has kept its power, but only because the continuing growth of the economy keeps people satisfied.'
It seems unlikely that a current-regime Iran could match China's growth rate without explicit economic cooperation from the EU and US of the kind China gets.
If you don't have economic, democratic or traditional sources of legitimacy, there is always one more alternative: start a war.
Then, to use an american idiom, those demonstrating crowds could be seen as 'dirty hippies', traitors to the country. The best way to deal with those under such sinister foreign influences will be seen as a swift blow to the head with an iron bar.
If the regime gets through the next few days primarily by using violence, then more or less by definition that will prove that model works for them. If they have enough people who believe strongly enough in an external enemy to shoot their own civilians, then they need nothing else.
War-fighting legitimacy works, as Orwell pointed out long ago and Burma and North Korea show to this day.
Apart from the effect on the locals, this will also not be much fun for the designated enemy.
Soru, the designated enemy can fend for itself. The main question is whether the Iranian people will suddenly kowtow the line. I don't think they will, unless Ahmadinejad can mount a convincing case that Iran's been attacked. Even Bibi Netanyahu isn't dumb enough to bomb Iran right now.
On the other hand, the comparison to North Korea and Burma is instructive. Neither country is at war. They maintain their power by total repression, rather than by outward aggression. In Burma's case, the regime is also aided by trade agreements with the rest of Southeast Asia - Singapore deserves special blame here for poo-poohing concerns about Burma's regime as Western impositions.
Update: 'correspondEnt'
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment