14 - 20 June 2001
Issue No.538
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 14 - 20 June 2001 Issue No.538 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Compare and contrast
The recent elections in Iran and Egypt (to the presidency and the Shura Council respectively) are far from similar. Both process may reflect parliamentary democratic experience in Middle Eastern societies that have been exposed recently to democracy, and popular participation in the election of their representatives. Egypt, indeed, precedes Iran in this respect, since it has a century of regular democratic practice and parliamentary representation behind it. The main difference, however, lies in the two countries' commitment to democracy, its principles and implementation.
Although population figures in Egypt and Iran are very close, there are 42 million registered voters in Iran. In Egypt, the number is far lower.
Voter turnout in Iran exceeded 80 per cent, in contrast to the 10 per cent that voted in our Shura Council elections. Tens of polling stations in this country closed down because no one bothered to go and vote. This is the reality of popular participation in Egypt, and the gauge of the voters' faith in the electoral process. Such low turnout, however, is not surprising when certain candidates are prevented from running, or the voters are prevented from voting in certain districts -- the security measures so familiar from elections to the People's Assembly, which led to judicial rulings the authorities never implemented.
We can say all we like about the rigidity of Islamic hard-liners, the Mullahs' rule and dominion of the vilayet-i faqih, but the fact remains that 10 candidates (reformists, conservatives, moderates and hard-liners) ran in the presidential elections. Mohamed Khatami had nine competitors, including the defence minister, supported by the armed forces, former ministers and university professors backed by the supreme religious authorities. Yet there was no stuffing of ballot boxes or rabble- rousing during the campaign, which focused on real issues and programmes related to freedom, economic and political reform and the rule of law.
What is especially interesting in Iran's case is the high degree of popular awareness and the growing belief in democracy, among enthusiastic voters and political and religious leaders alike. No wonder Khatami felt the weight of his responsibility: the Iranian people expect much as they struggle to emerge from the aftermath of the Islamic Revolution and the many contradictions it has bred.
This intense vitality, I believe, is the true reason for the changes Iran is undergoing on the road to democracy. Most observers anticipate that the conflict between reformists and hard-liners backed by religious authority will be far from easy, as conservatives control the judiciary, the armed forces and state institutions, but overwhelming popular support for Khatami will certainly allow reformist efforts to bear fruit. At any rate, moving is better than stagnating, and brings people together as they work for progress and resist reactionism.
For all these reasons, Iran in all its complexity is a fascinating and unpredictable country to watch. It is a unique experience in the Arab and Islamic world, where so many experiments have failed or proved futile. Khatami and the reformists have learned many lessons, and are more capable of confronting their opponents than they were four years ago. Clearly, comparing experiences of democracy -- especially where evaluation is concerned -- is not in our best interest.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page