Amin Howeidi* ponders the long-term impact of changes in Iran after elections While I would not claim to have any particular expertise in Iranian affairs I have been following developments in Iran since the elections and wish to share some of my thoughts. Since Tehran's former mayor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, defeated former President Hashemi Rafsanjani in the presidential race a great deal has been written and said. What matters, of course, is not the quantity of words but how we interpret this flood of information, linking developments in Iran to what is going on elsewhere. Few, I think, would question the extent of the changes currently taking place in Iran. Let me mention one seemingly inconsequential detail. The new president, unlike his predecessors, wears Western clothes. I am not making a sartorial point, of course, since what this detail signifies is that, for the first time since the Iranian revolution, someone from outside the clergy has become president through direct elections. In 2004 Ali Haddad Adel, also a non-cleric, became speaker of the Iranian parliament. The two officials came to office with the blessing of the country's spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, following decades during which the top posts were invariably held by clerics. Are we witnessing the beginning of the separation of religion and politics? Perhaps. After all, the first thing Ahmadinejad did after his election victory was to visit Khamenei in a show of loyalty. Or are we simply seeing a change in faces rather than a change in governance? We will have to wait and see. My hunch is that the Iranians are shifting from a stage in which revolutionary legitimacy was paramount to a stage in which it is the state that is the source of legitimacy. If so the new president, although a hard-line conservative, may exhibit enough flexibility to stay ahead of the global political game, a game in which there is little room for inflexible doctrine. Hardliners have a tendency to become increasingly moderate once in office. The main achievement of the Iranian elections is that they proved several credible candidates exist as far as the presidency is concerned. The country's spiritual guide, Khamenei, believes that a successful revolution is one that opens the way to its sons to move up. You don't create credible candidates for senior posts by pressing a button. They must emerge via the rough and tumble of political life, with or without parties. Something else is interesting. Former President Rafsanjani is a rich man, and in eight years in office he received no money from the state, not a penny. President-elect Ahmadinejad, a man with modest means, also received no money from the state during his term as Tehran mayor. During the Iranian elections the US was not allowed to interfere. Washington stood on the sidelines and made noises, but it was kept at arms' length. President Bush was not allowed to offer his advice. Condoleezza Rice was not invited in for an inspection tour. "We don't need America," the new president declared. The Americans said a lot, of course, but the Iranians didn't listen. America has its own system of government which Henry Kissinger, early in his career, admitted may not be good for others. Once Kissinger became national security adviser, then secretary of state, he proceeded to formulate policy that ran counter to everything he said in his civilian days, though I still agree with his earlier views. The high turnout was indicative of the interest normal Iranians have in the political process. Of the 59 per cent of the electorate who voted, 61 per cent favoured Ahmadinejad and 35 per cent Rafsanjani. It has been said that the poor were the constituency that voted in the greatest numbers for Ahmadinejad. If this is true, then the new president will have to deliver on his promises of greater social justice. Failure to do so will see him defeated in the next election. Elections are a serious matter in Iran, which is not a country where judges sit next to ballot boxes in closed rooms totally oblivious to irregularities taking place in the streets outside. Iran fielded multiple credible candidates and the nation voted for the ones it favoured. If the poor finally decided the result, then so be it. It means Iran's poor have no need to resort to anything other than the ballot box to air their grievances. And that, if you will allow me to state the obvious, is good for both the public and politicians. This is one lesson we need to learn before it is too late. What would happen if we were to open our doors to the winds of freedom and democracy blowing from Latin America? What would happen if we grabbed the extended hand of the Iranians? Yes, we have our differences, but this is no reason for estrangement. We have very serious differences with the US and Israel and yet we still have ties, even strategic ones. * The writer is former minister of defence and chief of general intelligence.
