Notes from an Anarchist About the Iranian Election

Illustration by Rebel Handz

This note may  defeat its purpose, yet, at some point in history, a pragmatic defeat is better than an ideological success. By no means does this note promote voting as a legitimate political act, nor does it advocate for abstention. It is merely some reflections on the so called ‘political’ discourse around the issue of ‘voting’ in Iran and the fundamental dilemma of voting as an act for change.  Also, this note is not an analysis. Since I do not see enough background knowledge and education in myself and about anarchism and its relation to Iran’s political transformation. Therefore, this should be considered as a personal reflection about why an anarchist would vote and why that does not matter at all. 

There are a few arguments around the virtue of voting for Rouhani and many counter arguments, from the so called “opposition”, the “left” and also the “anarchists”. The argument to vote for Rouhani is just as problematic as the argument to boycott the election. Even Russell Brand knows that voting is an illusionary tool to cajole the participant into believing that they have an influence on socio-political life. Yes, we get it already: the act of voting itself achieves nothing. But voting can be used as a tactic in an arsenal of tactics, instead of being exalted as the only option for change. Voting does not endorse or legitimise a system. Especially if that system is already based on authoritarian theocratic ideology. An Islamic republic, by its nature does not require legitimisation or conformation. It is legitimised by God and Islam. Voting by itself does not bring common good to people either, since whoever is elected to be the head of the State, will shortly be detached from the ballot and quickly merge back into the bigger ideology of the system they serve. The responsibility and commitment of a divinely elected leader, to the votes of the people, is very short lived. One would be naïve to think that a vote will hold an elected representative accountable to the will of the people . Therefore, if I vote, I will not expect any good for the people in return, just because a specific person, here, let’s say Rouhani, is elected. 

The arguments to not vote are even more simplistic. The boycott scenarios assume that ‘voting legitimises the system’. According to this equation if we don’t vote, ‘we delegitimise the system’, which will eventually lead to the collapse of the state and its ideologies. This assumption is problematic on many levels. Again, a theocratic dictatorship is not and will not be dependent on legitimisation. It is legitimised by the holy forces, by God. Also, even if you do delegitimise the system by not voting, that does not mean the State will collapse or would result in emancipation or freedom of the people. And when there is a non-popular, conservative, oppressive force – the hard conservatives - in waiting as opposition, the case for boycotting  only solidifies their position and indeed ratifies their ascension into powerful rulers. 

This debate itself is trivial, and the lowest of any political discourse. It is a headfuck, and that is the nature of the discussion on whether ‘to vote or not to vote’. It is a mere illusion to think either of these choices make any tangible difference if they are not accompanied by strong conditions, demands and strategies. Socio-political change does not come with (not) voting. It comes with day to day publicising, exposing, politicizing and organising. It comes with constant conversations, resistance and civil disobedience. And that is why I will vote for Rouhani. 

Rouhani, and his team, (if one believes the official and unofficial analysis of his policies) are posited at the centre of the political spectrum. I can confidently say that they are politically indifferent engineers, in contrast to political ideologues on the other side of this shamble. Furthermore, this political indifference (even though they are apparently clerics, and  servants of Islam) is merely for sake of economy (and their economic ideology- call it neoliberalism or whatever) and that’s how they have been conceived of as pragmatics. That is not a matter of interest to me. However, the result of this political indifference and obsession with economy appears in three areas for the common good of people: first, the ‘accessibility’ of material goods.  Many Rouhani supporters have pointed out  the improvement  in ‘access’ to medicines for cancer patients (though they fail to talk about affordability). Second, increase in bargaining powers for civil rights movements, including women's rights movements. And lastly a relatively less confrontational foreign policy.  

I would vote for Rouhani for these three reasons, however I am aware that these factors are not entirely reflective of reality. The inflation rates are stabilised, yet that does not translate to equity or relative comfort for the under class of Iran. So let’s be real, unionise and organise, not just around election time, but always. And let’s remember, that neither Rouhani, nor any other head of the State, can save the lives of  miners, border control soldiers, construction workers without insurance, and so on. And It is unlikely that any of the above impoverished people have ever boarded any of the airplanes that are at the centre of many Rouhani’s supporters arguments. Iran’s population is 80 million, and many of those people are and will be in extreme pain and poverty regardless of our votes and endless arguments. 

There are multiple parallel and contradictory outlets of foreign policies in Iran. If all the outlets, including the presidential foreign policy team have to rely on an ideology which  propagate  ‘Persian / Shia’ supremacy,  or the war mongering ‘bring it on you murderous West’ type of arguments, then we need to seriously consider another devastating and continuous war. The position of Iranian presidential foreign policy, regarding the wars in Iraq and Syria is left to the conservative wings of the State, who are now competing for the presidential election. The antagonism between the president and the conservatives has been noticed many times, as the president and his team do not desire to put the economy at risk for the militaristic fantasies of their conservative fellow statesmen. Therefore, voting for Rouhani, or in better words, voting for his neoliberal and capitalist agenda, may provide a voice against the interventionists and confrontational behaviours of the conservative ideologues of Iranian state. Just like in the recent French elections, it is irresponsible to abstain from voting when faced with a choice between a predictably non-ideological technocratic candidate and a vociferously belligerent conservatism. Those at the receiving end of state violence do not have the luxury to hold their breath until bohemian intellectuals establish their global mutualist anarcho-syndicalist ecotopia.

Lastly, as an anarchist, I am voting for Rouhani, as he may be able to weaken the role of state in controlling and oppressing our society. As, it may lead to more openness for civil movements, social resistance and the conditions of the marginalised and the deprived. These vulnerable groups may have more room to demand a better life. Less State intervention within and outside the national borders, and securing the rights of Sunni minorities, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Baloch, Arab, Kurdish, Turkish, Lor, Afghan and Turkmen populations who have been striped of their dignity and livelihood in many instances. What actually matters the most however, is that regardless of Rouhani’s victory or otherwise, the voice of the people is heard. The energy, time and resources of the people need to be channelled into better forms of resistance, organisation, and transformation of the society and the country as whole through a bottom-up process. This energy does not need to be wasted on endless arguments for just for sake of arguing. The real revolution and political transformation is in changing the everyday life, not the president.