URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/28/opinion/28Derakhshan.html
The New York Times
January 28, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Democracy's Double Standard
By HOSSEIN DERAKHSHAN
THE day before Iran's ninth presidential elections last June,
President Bush sent a discouraging message to potential voters. Iran's
electoral process "ignores the basic requirements of democracy," Mr.
Bush declared, and these elections would be "sadly consistent" with
the country's "oppressive record." For Iranians, there was no
mistaking the American president's point: he was tacitly sanctioning
the call that some Iranian exiles and activists had issued for an
election boycott, based on exactly this logic.
An American administration that had called on other Middle Eastern
populaces to vote in flawed elections greeted the Iranian electoral
process with nothing but open disdain. It is worth revisiting this odd
judgment call at a time when Hamas's victory in the Palestinian
elections has raised even more questions about Washington's confused
strategy of democracy promotion.
In Iran last June, the call for a boycott resonated with frustrated
and apathetic voters. Many, if not most, moderates and reform
advocates stayed home from the polls. And we all know what followed:
the philosophy-loving moderate, Mohammad Khatami, was replaced as
president by a radical militant, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a former military
commander who presides over one of the most extreme governments
post-revolutionary Iran has yet had.
That's right: with what appeared to be the endorsement of President
Bush and dozens of American-backed satellite television channels that
broadcast in Farsi, the disillusioned young people of Iran effectively
took one of the world's most closely watched nuclear programs out of
the hands of a reformer and placed it into the hands of a hard-line
reactionary.
Can anyone now doubt that Iranian elections, however flawed, really do
matter? When Mr. Khatami came to power, his declared goals were to
establish the rule of law, demand equal rights for all citizens and
reconcile Iran with the world. He may not have succeeded in all of
those endeavors, but Mr. Ahmadinejad has entered government with
manifestly opposite priorities.
The new president's allies in Parliament recently concluded that
nearly 80 percent of the books published under President Khatami
violated revolutionary values and should be placed under restrictions.
Films that promote feminism, secularism and liberalism are to be
banned. And while President Khatami built his international reputation
on his call for a "dialogue among civilizations," President
Ahmadinejad has reached out to racists and anti-Semites instead.
It's true that Iranian elections are not quite democratic, because the
unelected Guardian Council reserves the right to bar candidates. But
the real problem here is that boycotting semi-democratic elections
ultimately will not make such a system more democratic.
The rise of Mr. Ahmadinejad, and the threat he poses to the stability
of a volatile region, demonstrates that promoting apathy in a
semi-democratic system can only strengthen the radical anti-democracy
forces. And it raises a question as to whether that is what hawks in
Washington actually wanted.
Contrast the "don't vote" message that President Bush sent to Iranians
to the one delivered to Iraqis through a major media campaign and
other costly means: "Your destiny is in your own hands. Disappoint the
anti-democracy radicals and go out and vote."
If the United States is serious about promoting democratic change in
Iran, it needs to try the same approach that brought Iraqis to the
polls despite mortal danger. Mr. Bush and his supporters should
encourage the people of Iran to participate in the next election. And
they should urge Iranians to vote for someone who will make their
country more open and democratic, rather than more threatening, as
Iran under President Ahmadinejad has become.
Hossein Derakhshan writes the Farsi-English blog "Editor: Myself."
* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company