Ahmedinejad Wins Surprise Landslide Victory in Iran

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has been re-elected with a crushing victory in Iran’s landmark presidential election. His moderate challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi warned of "tyranny" and protested that the result was rigged. "The result of such performance by some officials will jeopardise the pillars of the Islamic Republic and will establish tyranny," he added. But Mousavi later urged calm in his website statement. "The violations in the election are very serious and you are right to be deeply hurt," he said. "But I firmly call on you not to subject any individual or groups to hurt."

The interior minister, Sadeq Mahsouli, said that Ahmadinejad had won an overwhelming victory of 62.63% to Mousavi's 33.75%. The turnout was a record 85 percent of Iran's 46.2 million eligible voters. Two other candidates received only a fraction of the vote. In 2005 Ahmedinjed had won only in second the round. Allowed two terms only all presidents have won twice so far. There appear to be no reports with evidence of any widespread rigging so far.

Even Western media agreed that the President was very popular in the rural areas where people benefited from his policies. If Moussavi’s rally was attended by 100,000 Iranians in uptown Tehran aka South Delhi then Ahmadinjad’s rally attracted 600,000 people in down south Tehran aka Trilokpuri and Patpatganj where lives pauvre moi) like poor areas. But the latter was not covered by Western media.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who wields ultimate power, urged all Iranians "including yesterday's competitors" to support the re-elected president. He described the count as a "real celebration", praised the high turnout of 85% and called for calm. "Enemies may want to spoil the sweetness of this event... with some kind of ill-intentioned provocations," the ayatollah said.

Ali Khamenei, when President with Moussavi as Prime minister did not have much love lost between them and had tilted towards Ahmedinjed.

Wrote a western paper. �There were, of course, some important constituencies that took satisfaction from the outcome. Domestically, Mr. Ahmadinejad appealed to the fears of the more pious and poor who found change unsettling. This included those alarmed by the days of political street carnival preceding the election and those (not just men) put off by Mr. Moussavi’s attention to the traditional, second-class role of women in this paternalistic quasi-theocracy.

“They were joined by the civil servants, police officers and paramilitary troops, and the pensioners who all enjoyed the incumbent’s oil-financed generosity to his base, by those who relished his name-naming attack on corruption and by those who took some pride in his defiance of the West, however ham-handed.

“Outside Iran, the result was comforting to hawks in Israel and some Western capitals who feared that a more congenial president of Iran would cause the rest of the world to let down its guard against a country galloping toward nuclear weapons capability. (Mr. Moussavi, while promising a more conciliatory foreign policy, did not disavow the country’s nuclear-processing project, which Iran insists is for civilian ends alone.) { John Kerry , head of Senate foreign affairs committee and presidential loser in 2004 admitted that Iran had the right to enrich Uranium for power generation under NPT}

“Among downcast Iranian journalists and academics, the chatter focused on why the interlocking collective leadership of clerics, military officers and politicians, without whose acquiescence little important happens in Iran, decided to stick with Mr. Ahmadinejad. Did they panic at the unexpected passion for change that arose in the closing weeks of the Moussavi campaign? Did Mr. Moussavi go too far in his promises of women’s rights, civil freedom and a more conciliatory approach to the West? Or was the surge an illusion after all, the product of wishful thinking?

“The optimists in Iran and abroad have to ask themselves whether the joyful ruckus that filled the streets represented a new popular force, or just an opportunity to let off steam. While Iran is not quite the closed society many imagine — it is a nation of text-messagers, of Facebook pages, with access to Persian-language BBC broadcasts and other independent voices — it is still very much a controlled society. “

Soon after the 1979 revolution only 25% electorate turned up for parliamentary elections , so it is a great improvement better than USA and western nations and even India .Iran’s democracy may have constraints but among Muslim nations it is among the top along with Turkey and few others .As I have written earlier US democracy is for the rich of the rich and by the rich .2000 election was stolen by George Bush and even of 2008 according to Robert F.Kennedy Jr among others .

The reaction of rich and upper middle class Iranians, specially those who are abroad and their admirers in US, Israel etc is like BJP’s ‘Shining India’ group , who were shocked at their defeat in 2004 elections in India. Apart from maverick Uma Bharati , even sensible Shushma Swaraj threatened to cut off their hair if Sonia became PM , as if married to ‘power’; they had lost their husband .How funny and pathetic.

As I wrote recently in ‘Some glimpses of Indian democracy’

�Only the most deprived masses vote , in villages and villagers in city slums and in the middle classes ; committed voters do too. Neglected since centuries at least the rulers come to their slums once in five years .Some times they may get some money and other such inducements .NREG scheme was helpful and writing off of the farmers loans ( Denounced by the corporate talking heads on TV channels .Every few years that amount is owed by the private sector which becomes a bad asset and gets written off ). Political parties have done nothing spectacular. But Cong at least provides hope .Others are like DMK with their shameless shenanigans.

The elections provide a reality check otherwise the poor will be completely forgotten and forsaken with rich ruling dynasties, grown fat at public cost, working in league with corporate interests. It is called ‘Bhagidari’ sharing the loot among politicians and the rich. Acquisition of poor peoples land at throwaway prices is one example. India is trying hard to be a poor copy of USA.“

Ahmedinjed had highlighted the corruption under earlier President like Rafsanjani, who is really corrupt by all accounts. Ahmedinjed spent considerable oil revenues in making lives of the poor citizens better in villages and slums. He took many steps to ameliorate their lives including free distribution of 200,000 tons of potatoes among poor. It is like cheap rice for the poor or TV sets etc in India. Of course free power goes to politicians’ rich friends.

When I arrived in Ankara as ambassador in end 1992 after my post as first secretary two decades earlier, I called on political leaders, many I had known earlier. Those on the left then in opposition like Bulect Ecevit and Deniz Baykal looked depressed as if there was a big tragedy in the house, since western media after its triumph against communism had declared the end of history aka ever present rule of capitalism. I cheered them up some what by saying that most people in a democratic country being poor will vote for leftists parties. Ecevit became PM and Baykal is leader of opposition. Unless the corporates or military takes over, people will still vote for those with policies to help the poor. Unfortunately for the USA, it can not organize a ‘Franchised revolution‘ in Iran, as it did in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine.