Via the BBC: Khatami ‘pulls out of Iran race’
Iran’s former president Mohammad Khatami is to withdraw his candidacy from the country’s June presidential election, the BBC understands.Mr Khatami was president of Iran from 1997-2005 and was succeeded by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a conservative.
[...]
Mr Khatami’s decision to withdraw leaves Mr Ahmadinejad in a stronger position, says the BBC’s Jon Leyne in Tehran.
This is interesting, as Khatami is more moderate than Ahmadinejad, and therefore there was some speculation (if not hope) that should he be able to win, that tensions between the US and Iran could be eased.
The race is now shaping up as follows:
Khatami is now expected to endorse former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi.In this 30th anniversary year of the revolution, June’s election will give Iranians a stark choice over the future of the Islamic Republic.
Of course, it is worth underscoring that the president of Iran is not the main power in the state, and is in many ways a figurehead/public spokesman. Still, the tone of the spokesman matters, as does the message sent by a) who is allowed to run, and b) who the voters select once the candidates have been selected. It is worth noting that the clerics have control over who runs, but that the elections themselves are legitimate.
Sphere: Related ContentThe views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:49 am
This is actually a good move. Khatami–while popular with the West–is not fondly remembered by Iranians. There was speculation that he couldn’t win, hence Mousavi jumped into the race.
Mousavi is viewed as a more effective leader–he is also more of a populist than the academic Khatami. Some suggest he can pull votes from Ahmedinejad.
We need to watch now what happens with Mehdi Karroubi–he is another reformist and a former rival of Khatami’s.
It is true that the reformist vote could split, giving Amadinejad a victory. But, there is still time for reformers to coalesce around either Mousavi or Karroubi.
Luckily–for people interested in change, at least–the Iranian economy is in shambles, making it difficult for an incumbent like Ahmadinejad.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:59 am
I think that that is a very good point–that whatever moderate opposition emerges that it cannot afford to split the vote.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:31 am
I think that that is a very good point–that whatever moderate opposition emerges that it cannot afford to split the vote.
Yeah, my sense from reading commentary from Iranians about Khatami is that he is kind of like Al Gore or John Kerry: i.e. he comes across as a bit pedantic to your average, Ahmed-the-Plumber voter.
That said–there are even a few more “reformists” other than the big two mentioned above (Karroubi & Moussavi).
One of those two has to throw his support to the other.
However, the economy is really bad in the country and Ahmedinejad hasn’t met his pie-in-the-sky promises, so even with multiple reform candidates, he may still fail to muster significant support to win.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Well, it is a 2-round system, so splitting the vote (in the first round) is not that big a deal–unless it means one of the blocs winds up with a surprise runoff participant. That’s what happened last time, when Ahmadi-nejad was not really taken all that seriously, but squeaked by into second place. Then the arch-conservatives rallied around him to stop the return of the more mildly arch-conservative Rafsanjani.
But I agree this is a good move, because those mildly arch-conservatives that would like to dump Ahmadi-nejad would never countenance the return of Khatami. But Mousavi might have a chance, and would be a vast improvement from almost any perspective.
(And, right, the presidency is maybe the third or fourth most powerful institution, but it still matters.)
March 16th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
(And, right, the presidency is maybe the third or fourth most powerful institution, but it still matters.)
Indeed. I tend to go out of my way to emphasize that the Iranian president isn’t some kind of all powerful dictator, which is how he tends to be discussed in the western press, especially in certain ideological corners.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
More than a figurehead, though. There is no prime minister anymore, so he is the day-to-day head of the government. But the major policy decisions–especially in foreign policy and military matters–are taken elsewhere.
But I would roughly rate the power of Iranian political institutions as Supreme Leader, Guardian Council, National Assembly, Presidency, Expediency Council, Assembly of Experts…
And that ignores “informal” institutions like the Republican Guard, which can knock heads and otherwise cause trouble when needed. It’s under the direct control of the Supreme Leader, and not of the president.
March 16th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
A poor word choice on my part. The point being, as you note, that he doesn’t make major policy decisions, a fact that seems lost on many who make statements about Iran.
March 16th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
The Iranian president doesn’t make major policy decisions, a fact that seems lost on many who make statements about Iran.
Exactly.
March 16th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
By the way, you might note my use of the spelling, Ahmadi-nejad.
As with all languages that have their own alphabet (or no alphabet, like Chinese), there are various ways of rendering Farsi in Latin script. I saw Ahmadi-nejad (actually, probably Ahmadi-Nejad) in a publication by an Iranian, and I quite like it. The name is a lot easier to spell and pronounce for us foreigners when it is broken down into its two component parts, Ahmadi and Nejad.
News readers almost always put the stress on the “di”, which is probably half right. But they tend to swallow the rest of the syllables. I think the last syllable in each subpart should have equal stress, greater than any of the others. Farasi speakers, anyone?
March 16th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
I did notice, but forgot to comment on it. Interesting.
March 17th, 2009 at 6:53 am
While the Shah was still in power I was stationed in Tehran where I met people who were very much pro-America and pro- western as far at their culture was concerned. Over the years since the revolution I’ve often wondered how they have fared under the new regime.