Why Ahmadinejad won
Yusuf Fernandez
June 30, 2009
In spite all the hysterical campaign in Western media against Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, there is strong evidence that he has won the recent presidential election. Actually, the victory of current Iranian president was not a surprise although the scale of his triumph was said to be unexpected especially by Mousavi, whose electoral campaign drew thousands of people into the streets of the capital, Teheran, and other Iranian cities. Although Mousavi and his “new friends” in the West are speaking about a fraud, the truth is that it is totally unbelievable that there had been a kind of huge conspiracy that involved dozens of thousands of professionals and civil servants that remained completely hidden and unexposed.
Actually, there is not a background of election fraud in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Elected MPs have often impeached ministers and little known candidates, such as Ahmadinejad himself, have defeated powerful Presidents, such as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was defeated in 2005 by Ahmadinejad. Former President Mohammad Khatami, considered one of the leaders of the reformist movement in Iran, was elected president, when the interior ministry was run by radical principlists (badly named “conservatives” by Western media). He won with over 70% of the vote, not once, but twice.
The victory of Ahmadinejad should not have been a surprise for the West. A known poll organized by a Western organization is by itself a good evidence that Iranian official results are correct. The poll, jointly commissioned by the BBC and ABC News and conducted some weeks before the election by an independent entity called the Center for Public Opinion, showed that Ahmadinejad had a nationwide advantage of two to one over Mousavi. The poll also predicted that the turnout would be massive, 89%, close to the real rate of 85%.
The Washington Post came to the same conclusion. “The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin - greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.
While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.
Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups. The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians.”
The Post also warned those who wanted to use the election issue to isolate Iran. “Allegations of fraud and electoral manipulation will serve to further isolate Iran and are likely to increase its belligerence and intransigence against the outside world. Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent, with the grave consequences such charges could bring, they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted.”
But, many in the West wonder, why so many Iranians love his President.
Ahmadinejad, the son of a blacksmith of the village of Aradan (located 100 km southeast Tehran), in Semnan Province, is seen as a genuine revolutionary by Iranian masses and followers of the movement initiated by Imam Khomeini after the 1979 Revolution. He joined the Revolutionary Guards and studied engineering. Later, he started to teach at the University and then became mayor of Tehran. Even his rivals have recognized his reputation as a honest and hardworking man.
Soon after becoming president, he revealed that he owned an old Peugeot car and had two bank accounts, one of which was empty and the other was used for his salary from his previous job as a university professor. He also ended the practice of receiving foreign dignitaries, such as heads of state, in the sumptuous palace of the former Shah in northern Tehran by welcoming them at the presidential office instead. With his example and policies, Ahmadineyad´s rule has produced a new generation of revolutionaries at a time when the revolutionary fervour had declined.
Although Mousavi is seen as a strong supporter of the Islamic Revolution (he was Prime Minister in the 1980s), he is seen by many Iranians as a weak negotiator, one who could make too many concessions to Western governments. Ahmadinejad enjoys a stronger position to develop Iran´s relations with the West. Actually, his firm stance about the development of the country´s civilian nuclear programme has fuelled genuine pride and patriotism among numerous Iranians. It is also noteworthy to point out that Ahmadinejad is member of an active political party that has already won several elections since 2003. For his part, Mousavi is an independent candidate who emerged on the political scene just three months ago after 20 years of being silent.
The economy appeared to be a weak point for Ahmadinejad before the elections. His critics insisted that he had misused the surge of petrodollars which the country won during the period of high oil prices. These allegations were accompanied of criticism about his alleged economic populism -the term that the Western media uses to designate any economic politicy favouring poor-. Ahmadinejad -as Chavez has done in Venezuela- has pledged to use oil wealth to increase revenues of every family in the country and promote local development projects. Critics claim, however, that these policies have fuelled inflationary pressure. For his part, Ahmadinejad blamed on the global rise of food and fuel prices for the inflation.
Ahmadinejad has also denounced the corruption of some political and economic elites and has pledged to unveil more corruption cases during his second term. “The fight against economic corruption and illegal enrichment is a general demand and conforms to the principles of the Islamic Revolution,” he said. He promised that if he was reelected he would not remain silent about what he said was the plundering of public property.
Another myth of the Western media is that Iranian cultural circles were suppoting Mousawi. Actually, as the rest of the Iranian population, culture workers and professionals were split in their political views. Many Iranian film makers and some sport stars, such as Reza Zadeh, a famous Iranian Olympic weightlifter, actively supported Ahmadinejad´s campaign although their remarks were mostly ignored by that same media.
Ahmadinejad´s governments have invested strongly in rural areas, who had been neglected for many years. Poor people in these areas have little to do with upper or higher middle-classes who favoured Mousavi in Tehran. Those social sectors helped him win the 2005 election and feel that he has worked to fulfill his promises. Before the election, Ahmadinejad visited all the Iranian provinces by making sixty campaign trips in less than twelve weeks, while Mousavi campaigned only in the major cities.
“Our government has from the very beginning shown that it does not see the whole of Iran as Tehran,” presidential adviser Ali Reza Zaker Isfahani said during a speech in the provincial town of Ardel, according to the semiofficial Fars news agency. “The policies were based on justice, and that is why they focus away from the metropolises. Ahmadinejad has tried to spend the budget for the weak all over Iran,” he said.
A fact is very significant. Mousavi has an Azeri background. But according to the CPO poll mentioned above, “only 16% of Azeri Iranians claimed that they would vote for Mousavi. By contrast, 31% of the Azeris said they would vote for Ahmadinejad.” According to the official data, Mousavid lost in the West Azerbaijan province to Ahmadinejad by a 45% to 52% margin. Some Western media have quoted as an “evidence” of fraud that Mousavi lost in his native province. If we were to always use that standard, then we could doubt if the US elections in which Richard Nixon and George W. Bush defeated their Democratic rivals in their native states were also “rigged”. This argument is simply ridiculous.
Above all, the election in Iran has exposed the hypocrisy and double standards of the Western media that never criticizes the authoritarian “moderate” Arab regimes which do not allow free elections or rudely manipulate them. There is no doubt that women or religious minorities in those countries would envy a situation like that of Iran, no matter how Western media spins it. The reality is that the West is supporting these regimes in order to protect their geostrategic and economic interests and does not care about the opinions of the population of those countries. On the other hand, most Western reports on last election in Iran show a serious ignorance about the reality of the Iranian political system and society. As reputed British journalist Robert Fisk said, “the Western media would do well to inform themselves on the real nature of Iranian politics and society instead of taking the viewpoint that what is best for Washington is best for Tehran.”
Yusuf Fernandez
June 30, 2009
In spite all the hysterical campaign in Western media against Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, there is strong evidence that he has won the recent presidential election. Actually, the victory of current Iranian president was not a surprise although the scale of his triumph was said to be unexpected especially by Mousavi, whose electoral campaign drew thousands of people into the streets of the capital, Teheran, and other Iranian cities. Although Mousavi and his “new friends” in the West are speaking about a fraud, the truth is that it is totally unbelievable that there had been a kind of huge conspiracy that involved dozens of thousands of professionals and civil servants that remained completely hidden and unexposed.
Actually, there is not a background of election fraud in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Elected MPs have often impeached ministers and little known candidates, such as Ahmadinejad himself, have defeated powerful Presidents, such as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was defeated in 2005 by Ahmadinejad. Former President Mohammad Khatami, considered one of the leaders of the reformist movement in Iran, was elected president, when the interior ministry was run by radical principlists (badly named “conservatives” by Western media). He won with over 70% of the vote, not once, but twice.
The victory of Ahmadinejad should not have been a surprise for the West. A known poll organized by a Western organization is by itself a good evidence that Iranian official results are correct. The poll, jointly commissioned by the BBC and ABC News and conducted some weeks before the election by an independent entity called the Center for Public Opinion, showed that Ahmadinejad had a nationwide advantage of two to one over Mousavi. The poll also predicted that the turnout would be massive, 89%, close to the real rate of 85%.
The Washington Post came to the same conclusion. “The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin - greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.
While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.
Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups. The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians.”
The Post also warned those who wanted to use the election issue to isolate Iran. “Allegations of fraud and electoral manipulation will serve to further isolate Iran and are likely to increase its belligerence and intransigence against the outside world. Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent, with the grave consequences such charges could bring, they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted.”
But, many in the West wonder, why so many Iranians love his President.
Ahmadinejad, the son of a blacksmith of the village of Aradan (located 100 km southeast Tehran), in Semnan Province, is seen as a genuine revolutionary by Iranian masses and followers of the movement initiated by Imam Khomeini after the 1979 Revolution. He joined the Revolutionary Guards and studied engineering. Later, he started to teach at the University and then became mayor of Tehran. Even his rivals have recognized his reputation as a honest and hardworking man.
Soon after becoming president, he revealed that he owned an old Peugeot car and had two bank accounts, one of which was empty and the other was used for his salary from his previous job as a university professor. He also ended the practice of receiving foreign dignitaries, such as heads of state, in the sumptuous palace of the former Shah in northern Tehran by welcoming them at the presidential office instead. With his example and policies, Ahmadineyad´s rule has produced a new generation of revolutionaries at a time when the revolutionary fervour had declined.
Although Mousavi is seen as a strong supporter of the Islamic Revolution (he was Prime Minister in the 1980s), he is seen by many Iranians as a weak negotiator, one who could make too many concessions to Western governments. Ahmadinejad enjoys a stronger position to develop Iran´s relations with the West. Actually, his firm stance about the development of the country´s civilian nuclear programme has fuelled genuine pride and patriotism among numerous Iranians. It is also noteworthy to point out that Ahmadinejad is member of an active political party that has already won several elections since 2003. For his part, Mousavi is an independent candidate who emerged on the political scene just three months ago after 20 years of being silent.
The economy appeared to be a weak point for Ahmadinejad before the elections. His critics insisted that he had misused the surge of petrodollars which the country won during the period of high oil prices. These allegations were accompanied of criticism about his alleged economic populism -the term that the Western media uses to designate any economic politicy favouring poor-. Ahmadinejad -as Chavez has done in Venezuela- has pledged to use oil wealth to increase revenues of every family in the country and promote local development projects. Critics claim, however, that these policies have fuelled inflationary pressure. For his part, Ahmadinejad blamed on the global rise of food and fuel prices for the inflation.
Ahmadinejad has also denounced the corruption of some political and economic elites and has pledged to unveil more corruption cases during his second term. “The fight against economic corruption and illegal enrichment is a general demand and conforms to the principles of the Islamic Revolution,” he said. He promised that if he was reelected he would not remain silent about what he said was the plundering of public property.
Another myth of the Western media is that Iranian cultural circles were suppoting Mousawi. Actually, as the rest of the Iranian population, culture workers and professionals were split in their political views. Many Iranian film makers and some sport stars, such as Reza Zadeh, a famous Iranian Olympic weightlifter, actively supported Ahmadinejad´s campaign although their remarks were mostly ignored by that same media.
Ahmadinejad´s governments have invested strongly in rural areas, who had been neglected for many years. Poor people in these areas have little to do with upper or higher middle-classes who favoured Mousavi in Tehran. Those social sectors helped him win the 2005 election and feel that he has worked to fulfill his promises. Before the election, Ahmadinejad visited all the Iranian provinces by making sixty campaign trips in less than twelve weeks, while Mousavi campaigned only in the major cities.
“Our government has from the very beginning shown that it does not see the whole of Iran as Tehran,” presidential adviser Ali Reza Zaker Isfahani said during a speech in the provincial town of Ardel, according to the semiofficial Fars news agency. “The policies were based on justice, and that is why they focus away from the metropolises. Ahmadinejad has tried to spend the budget for the weak all over Iran,” he said.
A fact is very significant. Mousavi has an Azeri background. But according to the CPO poll mentioned above, “only 16% of Azeri Iranians claimed that they would vote for Mousavi. By contrast, 31% of the Azeris said they would vote for Ahmadinejad.” According to the official data, Mousavid lost in the West Azerbaijan province to Ahmadinejad by a 45% to 52% margin. Some Western media have quoted as an “evidence” of fraud that Mousavi lost in his native province. If we were to always use that standard, then we could doubt if the US elections in which Richard Nixon and George W. Bush defeated their Democratic rivals in their native states were also “rigged”. This argument is simply ridiculous.
Above all, the election in Iran has exposed the hypocrisy and double standards of the Western media that never criticizes the authoritarian “moderate” Arab regimes which do not allow free elections or rudely manipulate them. There is no doubt that women or religious minorities in those countries would envy a situation like that of Iran, no matter how Western media spins it. The reality is that the West is supporting these regimes in order to protect their geostrategic and economic interests and does not care about the opinions of the population of those countries. On the other hand, most Western reports on last election in Iran show a serious ignorance about the reality of the Iranian political system and society. As reputed British journalist Robert Fisk said, “the Western media would do well to inform themselves on the real nature of Iranian politics and society instead of taking the viewpoint that what is best for Washington is best for Tehran.”
No comments:
Post a Comment