Maturation of democracy at stake for Islam in Tehran

Brian Till

Saturday, June 20, 2009 | 2 a.m.

Washington — This is not a new clash; what the world is watching in Tehran is yet another chapter of Islam grappling with modernity, democracy and lucrative financial cronyism.

Iran has always occupied a unique place in the minds of Muslim world observers. Alongside angst about nuclear ambitions and frustration over the regime’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah is often a subtle respect for the Islamic republic’s democratically leaning structure. I’m working on a book of interviews with former heads of state — such a figure in the Arab world, one quickly finds, doesn’t exist. Arab rulers die rather than leave power.

But Iran is a different case, and one that often draws cautious admiration. Presidential elections have dealt unexpected results in the past, and not only ones sympathetic to the regime’s views. Both the election of Mohammad Khatami, a reformer, in 1997, and the current Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who had never won a prior election — were surprising turns. Elections for the parliament, the Majlis, have also been recognized for their democratic legitimacy.

Cloaking the process, though, have always been two factors. First, that the president is not the most powerful figure; that post belongs to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. And second, that candidates must be vetted by the Council of Guardians before they seek office. The process is to ostensibly ensure that candidates aren’t hostile to the principles of the revolution.

Surprisingly, women also have a place in the order. Iran boasts a female vice president, and hundreds run for seats in the Majlis. And the opinions of women, a larger-than-50-percent voting bloc, represent a demographic critical to all candidates.

For all these reasons, one finds a level of intrigue — if not respect — regarding Tehran’s theocratic system in the minds of many political observers.

Iranians, too, had tremendous pride in the democratic tenets of the system. If Tehran didn’t have the answer for the best model of governance in the Islamic world, it seemed at least a window or doorway to the right direction.

But all that has now shattered.

The most revered assessments suggest that the military and the political right have usurped too much power, throwing off the balance within the system. Ali Khamenei, who came to power in 1989 with far less religious and political legitimacy than his predecessor, Ruhollah Khomeini, leaned on the military, particularly the Pasdaran, or the Revolutionary Guard. That political weight strongly favors Ahmadinejad and stands to lose a great deal if he’s ousted.

Close to half the country, it’s worth noting, likely voted for Ahmadinejad; the masses stirring in Tehran are not emblematic of a broad consensus like the velvet revolution and many of the other uprisings of the 20th century that pundits have put this moment alongside in recent days. The intensity of counter protests is illustrative of this.

Thus, more than anything we’ve witnessed in the streets, the end result of this conflict will be determined by the victor of the quarrel within the ruling constituency. As the line is drawn in the sand — Khamenei’s men and the nation’s religious authorities deciding whether to remain behind the Supreme Leader or to instead stand alongside Mousavi, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri and the hundreds of thousands of greens gathered in the streets — a new order might be built, but just as likely the old guard will hold firm.

This is a clash between a young, moderate and somewhat cosmopolitan population, infuriated by the failed economics and aggressive rhetoric of Ahmadinejad, and a more reserved section of the population. It’s between a generation that’s employed technology to mobilize and organize dissent — and has proved skilled enough to circumvent the regime’s siege of electronic means — and those content with the limited democracy brought to life by the 1979 revolution.

Even a complete recount of the vote — given the time that has passed and the level of trust the government has surrendered — will not satisfy Mousavi’s supporters. The assault on foreign press outfits — including al Arabiya — gives other governments further latitude to condemn the regime and support peaceful protests.

The Iranian state is at a distinct juncture: The government that emerges will either be a tenuous coalition, one of an indisputably authoritarian hue, or one of a distinctly revisionist tone. All but the last option will fuel Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s case for a military answer to the Iranian nuclear question, and all but the last will reinforce those who argue democracy will never succeed in the Muslim world.

We are witnessing a clash of generations, and a faith trying to find footing and an enduring model for the 21st century.

Brian Till, a research fellow for the New America Foundation, is a columnist for Creators Syndicate.