Iran International
Saeed Jalili and Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf are under mounting pressure to put their differences aside and decide who should run as the representative of ‘revolutionaries' against pro-reform Masoud Pezeshkian.
Four of the six hand-picked candidates in Friday's presidential elections -- Jalili, Ghalibaf, Amir-Hossein Ghazizadeh, and Alireza Zakani – claim they represent “the Revolutionary Front”. Ghazizadeh and Zakani pose very little danger to either Jalili or Ghalibaf and one or both may withdraw in the last minute in Jalili’s favor if he remains in the race.
Ghalibaf and Jalili, along with their respective supporters, have been engaged in a bitter battle on social media, especially in recent days, each trying to convince the other that one of them must withdraw to effectively compete against Pezeshkian and his reformist supporters.
Jalili and Ghalibaf appear to be the strongest contenders in around half a dozen election surveys conducted by institutions affiliated with the government. Pezeshkian is closely following or even overtaking them in these and most unofficial, online polls.
None of the three top candidates has the votes of over 25 percent of the voters who are voting or considering voting. The forecasts about turnout range from 25-55 percent.
Although Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has always insisted that a high turnout is proof of the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic, hardliners appear to be very worried about a turnout of over fifty percent paving the way for Pezeshkian’s presidency.
The legitimacy of every one of these polls is being contested by candidates’ supporters depending on who they support, and which candidate has the highest votes in them.
Hardliner Ali-Akbar Raefipour, leader of a recently established ultra-hardliner political “front” called Jebhe-ye Sobh-e Iran (Iran Morning Front) which supports Jalili, tweeted screenshot images of several polls but called them “opinion fabrications” meant to undermine rivals rather than opinion polls. These surveys indicated that Ghalibaf was ahead of Jalili or that Pezeshkian was more popular than both.
The percentage of eligible voters who say they will not vote is very high in almost all these surveys and around one third of those who say they will vote also said they were still undecided about candidates or refused to reveal who they would be voting for.
Pezeshkian’s supporters and some pundits contend that the “undecided” are more likely to vote for him, and to a lesser degree for Ghalibaf, than Jalili. The same argument is being used to convince Jalili and his supporters that his withdrawal is more in the interest of the ‘revolutionary front’ than Ghalibaf’s.
Those in favor of Ghalibaf as the representative of the ‘revolutionary front’ also argue that some who are thinking of voting for him may vote for Pezeshkian if he withdraws, but that all Jalili’s votes will go to Ghalibaf if he is chosen to represent the ‘revolutionary front’.
“In the past three days Pezeshkian has risen to the top [in the polls] and is increasing his distance [from the hardliners so the withdrawal [of Jalili or Ghalibaf] has become a serious issue but for several reasons it will not make a difference,” reformist commentator Abbas Abdi tweeted Sunday.
What makes the matter worse in the eyes of the people, Abdi argued, is that Jalili follows Pezeshkian in the extant polls is the one who will be driven out of the race to make competition with Pezeshkian easier. “They will continue fighting after defeat, too,” he wrote.
“You must surrender to a coalition,” the ultra-hardliner chief editor of Kayhan newspaper, Hossein Shariatmadari, wrote Monday. He contended that forming such a coalition is vital to keep the presidency within the so-called revolutionary front.
“Leaders of sedition” is a clear reference to former President Mohammad Khatami and Parliament Speaker Mehdi Karroubi both of whom have supported the independent Pezeshkian’s candidacy.
“Reason, Sharia, and logic dictate vigilance and caution about the probability, of even weak probability [of the success of the pro-reform candidate],” Shariatmadari warned.
A recent poll by Gamaan reveals that only 22% of respondents intend to vote, while 65% plan to abstain, and 12% remain undecided. This significant potential drop in voter participation underscores a growing recognition among Iranians that elections under the Islamic Republic are neither free nor fair.
Since establishing the Islamic Republic in 1979, the Guardian Council has exercised significant control over who can run for office. This body, comprising clerics and jurists loyal to the Supreme Leader, routinely disqualifies candidates deemed insufficiently loyal to the regime.
Notably, even former presidents like Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hassan Rouhani, and prominent figures such as former parliament speaker Ali Larijani have been disqualified.
This pattern illustrates the Council's stringent criteria that exclude not only dissidents but also high-ranking insiders who fall out of favor. Moreover, the Council's exclusion extends to women and non-Shi'a men, who are categorically barred from running for president. These practices ensure that only those who unequivocally support the regime's ideological and political goals can compete, transforming elections into formalities designed to maintain the status quo rather than reflect the people's will.
Over the years, voter turnout in Iran has steadily declined. The 2021 presidential election saw the lowest turnout in the country's history, officially with only 48.8% of eligible voters participating. This trend was seen as a clear indicator of public disillusionment with the electoral process, as many Iranians increasingly view elections as futile exercises in legitimizing authoritarian rule.
William J. Dobson, in his book, “The Dictator’s Learning Curve: Inside the Global Battle for Democracy,” argues that modern dictators have learned to adapt and refine their methods of control and repression, using less overtly violent methods. Instead, they employ tactics like censorship, legal manipulation, co-optation of opposition, and economic control. While the 20th-century dictators imprisoned, tortured, and executed their opponents, the 21st-century dictators prefer the voting system and the ballot box to achieve their goals.
A common tactic the regime uses is creating a strawman candidate to manipulate public perception. Candidate Saeed Jalili, a hardliner close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is presented as the Supreme Leader's favorite. Figures like Mohammad Javad Zarif, former foreign minister, then speak against Jalili, warning the public of the dangers of his potential win and urging them to vote for Masoud Pezeshkian, who is portrayed as a moderate alternative. However, this facade hides the reality that all significant decisions are made by Khamenei, and the president holds no real power. Pezeshkian does not identify as a reformist and repeatedly affirms his loyalty to Khamenei. This strategy aims to convince disgruntled voters that there is an acceptable alternative (Pezeshkian) to the imminent danger (Jalili).
Javad Zarif has worked in the Islamic Republic's foreign ministry since 1981 and has been a key architect of the failed JCPOA. Throughout his career, he has consistently justified and covered up the regime's atrocities on the world stage through lies, deception, and fallacy. Zarif attacked women's rights activist Masih Alinejad, calling her a traitor, and has shown no respect for women's rights, akin to the Taliban but dressed in suits. He uses "cultural relativism" to justify crushing dissent and human rights violations by the gender-apartheid Islamic regime. The bloodiest crackdown in Iran took place under so-called “reformist” President Hassan Rouhani and his chief propagandist Javad Zarif when 1,500 civilians were killed in just a few days in November 2019. Zarif's role in dismissing and ridiculing the slaughter of innocent Iranians highlights his complicity in the regime's crimes.
Additionally, candidate Mostafa Pour Mohammadi, a member of the “death commission” involved in the massacre of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, exemplifies the regime's brutal history. On August 28, 2016, referring to media reports about the mass prisoner killings and his involvement in them, Mostafa Pour Mohammadi said: “We are proud to have carried out God’s commandment concerning the [MEK]… I am at peace and have not lost any sleep all these years because I acted in accordance with law and Islam.”
Conversely, opposition groups, including secular democracy advocates, human rights activists, and political pundits, argue that meaningful change can only come through the complete overhaul of the current system. The regime's brutal crackdown on dissent, exemplified by the November 2019 protests where 1,500 civilians were killed, and the 2022 uprising of Woman-Life-Freedom has only strengthened this resolve (The Times of Israel).
The opposition's fight is not just against the regime's repressive tactics but also against the narrative that participating in the elections can bring about change. This perspective is echoed by many Iranians who have taken to the streets in protest, demanding an end to the Islamic Republic. The regime's oppressive actions, such as the imprisonment and torture of political dissidents, suppression of women's rights, and extensive censorship, have further alienated the populace.
Iranian citizens are increasingly aware that their participation in elections is being used to legitimize a system that oppresses them. The declining voter turnout reflects a broader disillusionment with the regime's promises of reform. As one protester aptly put it, voting is ignoring others' suffering and pain. This sentiment captures the frustration and anger of a populace that feels betrayed by a government that uses elections to perpetuate its rule rather than to reflect the people's will.
Drawing from Dobson’s insights, the international community must listen to the voices of the Iranian people and support their struggle for true democracy and human rights. The importance of international solidarity and support for democratic movements cannot be overstated. Like before, the upcoming election is neither free nor fair. Instead, it serves as a reminder of Iran's ongoing fight for justice and freedom.
The opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily the views of Iran International.