TEHRAN POWER GRAB
By AMIR TAHERI
NYPost.com
January 15, 2004
TOGETHER they form the largest bloc in the parliament, where, with their allies, they command a two-thirds majority. So why are 80 members of the 290-member Islamic Consultative Assembly, the Iranian parliament, behaving like an opposition and holding a sit-in amid threats of mass resignation?
The reason is that the next general election, to be held on Feb. 20, could end the parliamentary career of many of them, not because of rejection by voters, but because they won't even be allowed to stand for election.
A couple of months ago Richard Armitage, No. 2 at the State Department, described the Islamic Republic of Iran as "a sort of democracy." Well, he was sort of right, if by democracy he meant the holding of regular elections without bothering about their quality and purpose.
In a normal democracy, anyone who does not have a criminal record and meets basic qualifications such as citizenship is allowed to stand for office. But this is not the "sort of democracy" that Iran has had since 1979.
In Iran, all candidates must be pre-approved by the Council of the Guardians of the Constitution - a 12-man, mullah-dominated organ appointed by the "Supreme Guide" and answerable to him. These "guardian angels," as they are known not without irony, can decide who is a good Muslim and who is not. Good Muslims are allowed to stand for elections, and bad Muslims are pushed aside.
A man regarded as a good Muslim and allowed to be a candidate may be reclassified suddenly as a bad Muslim after the election. In that case "the guardian angels" have the power to cancel the election, kick the now bad Muslim out of the parliament and even send him to jail.
Even a parliament composed entirely of good Muslims cannot legislate as it deems fit. The "guardian angels" have the power to annul any piece of legislation they do not like.
The current crisis started when the Guardian Council rejected the applications of 2,004 men and women, among them scores of incumbents, who wished to stand in next month's general election. By doing so, the "guardian angels" have already determined the shape of the next parliament, making sure that it would be dominated by a new majority. And that has outraged the present majority.
But what are the key points of difference between the two sides? The short answer is: not much.
For purposes of simplification, the Western media refer to the two sides in Iran as "reformists," supposedly led by President Muhammad Khatami, and "conservatives," whose leader is identified as another mullah, Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Republic's "Supreme Guide."
The terms "reformist" and "conservative," however, mean little, if anything, in the current context of Iranian politics.
The supposedly "reformist" bloc has controlled the presidency for the past six years and the parliament for the past four years. And, yet, it has implemented absolutely no reforms of any significance. Nor has it even proposed such reform.
The "conservative" faction bases its ideology not on the need to conserve, but on the necessity of exporting the Khomeinist revolution, first to other Muslim countries and then to the entire world.
The so-called "conservatives" have a coherent discourse that one may like or dislike: Islam is the only true faith, all other religions have either been abrogated by God or were man-made concoctions from the start. Today, the only country in the world that has a truly Islamic system is Iran. It is, therefore, Iran's duty to help replace all other regimes in the Muslim world with truly Islamic ones.
Once that has happened, a powerful Islamic bloc should be formed, led by the Iranian "Supreme Guide," to convert the whole of mankind to the Khomeinist version of Islam, if necessary, by war.
In the meantime, no deviation from the established rules should be tolerated inside Iran. Women should cover their heads, and men should grow beards. The "polluting" culture of the West should be kept out. Such ideas as pluralism, democracy and human rights, all inventions of the Jews and the Crusaders, must be kept out of the Dar al-Islam (The House of Islam). Elections should still be held, but only as a periodical reconfirmation of the people's devotion to the system.
The discourse of the so-called "reformists" lacks similar clarity. Khatami, for example, has become a master in the art of ambiguity and double-talk. When addressing the Europeans, he talks of reason and science and cites Aristotle and Hegel. But when talking in Iran he claims that women should cover their head because their hair emanates a dangerous ray that drives men wild.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, the "conservative" faction is not suicidal. It knows that it cannot take on the "Zionist-Crusader" bloc, led by the United States. It admits that it can never develop friendly ties with that bloc, and is prepared to accept a period of peaceful coexistence in the name of détente.
The so-called "reformist" faction, however, is bedeviled by its contradictions. It knows that women's hair does not emanate deadly rays. But, at the same time, it opposes the repeal of the law imposing the hated headgear.
What is happening in Iran today is a power struggle between two factions within the same Khomeinist establishment. The so-called "reformist" faction is not objecting to the principle of vetoing candidacies by the "guardian angels." It is objecting to the fact that its own members are vetoed.
The "reformist" faction is not calling for a constitutional amendment either to abolish the Council of Guardians or to lift its veto over candidacies. What it really wants is to gain control of the council for itself and use it as a means of preventing its rivals from standing for election.
What is astonishing is that many in the democratic world still fail to understand the reality of the Iranian situation.
The European Union, for example, has just appealed to the "guardian angels" not to veto so many candidacies. The EU is only asking for a reduction in the dose of the poison, and not and end to the poisoning of a nation's political life.
Even if the Council of Guardians allow all the so-called "reformists" to stand as candidates, the forthcoming election would still be far from democratic. The reason is that no one who is not a Khomeinist of one sort or another is allowed to stand for election to anything.
E-mail:
Amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/15745.htm 
