http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=123703&d=16&m=6&y=2009&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion
Tuesday 16 June 2009 (22 Jumada al-Thani 1430) This election should worry Iranians more than the West Adrian Hamilton I The Independent THIS is not a good moment for Iran. It is certainly not a good time for those within who hoped for the liberalization of Iranian society. And it is clearly not a good time for those who looked to a day when a more open-minded US president might encourage the country to come out of its isolation, stop its nuclear activities and embrace the world. But then this is no time either to impose on Iran the wishful thinking of an outside world that would have the election that they wanted it to be rather than the unpredictable, complex mix of openness and oppression that Iran's democracy actually consists of. Is the latest election part of a pattern in which the liberals are occasionally allowed their voice but never allowed to threaten the system? It's what the reformists, and Western observers, certainly believe after an election in which the results seemed far too of a kind to be believable and the consequent clampdown on demonstrations too pre-organized to be anything other than a deliberate act of anti-democratic suppression. If the efficacy of democracy lies in its ability to incorporate dissenting opinion by giving it a part in the process, then this election has clearly failed the test. Whether the counting was actually rigged or not - and one should remember that Ahmadinejad is not just some Soviet-style party hack put up for the job but a populist politician with a considerable following of his own among the poor and hard line - the fact that the reformists got such a small share of the vote leaves them and their supporters gravely disabused with the system. There was too much energy in the campaign, too much interest in the debates for Ayatollah Khamenei to say now that the reforming parties should quietly go away and accept the "verdict of the majority". Which is one reason why the forces against liberalization - the Revolutionary Guard, the pro-Ahmadinejad groupings and the theocratic state - may have reacted so strongly against the reformers. You don't need to believe in an anti-democratic coup by the hard-liners to recognize that the powers were unsettled by the pressures released in this campaign. Just as in China, there is nothing that the top rulers fear as much as direct clashes of views and interests. That does not mean that the world at large is facing a more hostile or a more implacable country than it did before. Ahmadinejad's continuance as president will certainly color the rhetoric of relations, while internal dissensions may delay external initiatives. But the policy toward nuclear development and the responses to Obama's proferred hand of friendship are not made by the president of Iran, but the ayatollah and his advisers. Mir Hossein Mousavi's election might have opened up new possibilities of international openness, but it would not have changed Iran's nuclear policy any more than the reverse is true of Ahmadinejad's re-election. It is within Iran itself that the presidential elections bodes ill. Ahmadinejad and his supporters are no friends to free speech and tolerance. A decade ago, the reformers thought they had ushered in a new dawn with Khatami only to become bitterly disillusioned and introverted. Iran is changing. Demographics, education, communication are seeing to that. It may prove different this time. The momentum for change, once released, may be unstoppable, as it was in Eastern Europe 20 years ago. But we should know it doesn't happen nearly as quickly or bloodlessly. So once again the West is caught between its principles and its interests. Its principles may demand it call foul in Iran. Its interests tell it to hold back and deal with whoever is in power. It would be wise to do so. All the hopes and expressions of support from the outside world did no good to the reformers on this occasion. Nor are they likely to in its aftermath.