{"id":12343,"date":"2024-03-06T08:58:26","date_gmt":"2024-03-06T05:58:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rasanah-iiis.org\/english\/?p=12343"},"modified":"2024-03-25T11:53:54","modified_gmt":"2024-03-25T08:53:54","slug":"irans-parliamentary-and-assembly-of-experts-elections-turnout-reaches-historic-new-low","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rasanah-iiis.org\/english\/position-estimate\/irans-parliamentary-and-assembly-of-experts-elections-turnout-reaches-historic-new-low\/","title":{"rendered":"Iran\u2019s Parliamentary and Assembly of Experts Elections: Turnout Reaches Historic New Low"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

On March 1, 2024, Iranian voters participated in elections to select a new Parliament and Assembly of Experts. These elections served as a crucial barometer of the Iranian political system\u2019s standing on the global stage. Against the backdrop of mounting economic challenges and social restrictions, coupled with concerns over civil liberties, the electoral process reflected the growing levels of tension and discontent among the populace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Iran\u2019s parliamentary elections unfolded across 1,218 electoral constituencies spanning 31 provinces in Iran. Approximately 59,000 polling stations facilitated the process, with around 15,200 candidates who competed for 290 parliamentary seats. Notably, Tehran, the largest electoral constituency, saw 30 seats contested. Additionally, 144 candidates contended for 88 positions in the Assembly of Experts, representing the clergy; each term lasts eight years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the lead-up to these elections, the Iranian government aimed to leverage a vast turnout to reinforce its legitimacy and bolster the hold of the \u201chardliners\u201d on power. Consequently, this position paper examines the domestic and international landscape preceding the elections. It analyzes the key political factions, outlining their electoral agendas and the primary aspects of candidates\u2019 campaigns to rally the people.  Ultimately, the paper concludes by scrutinizing the election outcomes, voter turnout figures, and their potential significations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Domestic and External Landscapes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 2024 electoral landscape in Iran resembled that of 2020, marked by instability and the government\u2019s emphasis on voter turnout to assert its legitimacy at home and abroad. However, the current instability is exacerbated by severe economic, financial, intellectual, political, social and security crises that persisted throughout the previous parliamentary session. This challenging environment has raised concerns among decision-makers, reminiscent of pre-revolution times nearly 45 years ago. The government\u2019s efforts to maintain uncontested dominance amid these conditions heighten apprehensions about its future trajectory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amidst soaring tensions between Iran\u2019s dominant \u201chardliners\u201d and the \u201creformists,\u201d the recent elections unfolded against the backdrop of efforts by the ruling system to solidify its grip on power by marginalizing opposing voices and ending  dualism in governance  \u2014a formula that has allowed the government to let the \u201chardliners\u201d and \u201creformists\u201d to rule alternately \u2014 albeit preference is always given to the \u201chardliners\u201d to dominate the military and security apparatuses. The Guardian Council\u2019s purported disqualification of former President Hassan Rouhani from seeking a new term in the Assembly of Experts underscored this preference,  highlighting the widening gap between the two factions, particularly on socioeconomic issues. Sanctions, internal security challenges and border tensions with neighboring countries like Pakistan and Iraq have compounded domestic crises. Furthermore, Iran\u2019s foreign policies, including regional initiatives, alliances and nuclear talks, have added complexity to the domestic situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The domestic landscape ahead of the 2024 elections was marred by sharp divisions. These divisions went beyond the traditional \u201chardliner-reformist\u201d binary, extending to divisions within the \u201chardliner\u201d movement. Calls and speeches urging all the \u201chardliner\u201d movement\u2019s wings and strands to close ranks and run in the election in a unified and harmonious fashion \u2014 encompassing traditional \u201chardliners\u201d and those deemed more extremist \u2014 were unsuccessful. Each \u201chardliner\u201d strand sought to present itself as the most important and influential in shaping the government\u2019s orientations and future. Also, each strand views itself as the most  \u201crepresentative\u201d of the \u201chardliner\u201d movement,  thereby creating multiple rifts and divisions within it.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The aforementioned divisions exposed the lack of cohesion in the \u201chardliner\u201d movement and demonstrated the fact that it is not a monolithic bloc as often portrayed. Conflicting trends emerged, undermining the movement\u2019s unity. Notably, discussions surrounding the emigration of the current Parliament speaker\u2019s son Ishaq Ghalibaf to Canada amid the election fervor, shed light on the internal divisions among the \u201chardliners.\u201d Accusations of benefiting from state resources due to his father\u2019s position fueled efforts to thwart Ghalibaf\u2019s prospects of assuming the parliamentary speakership once again. The elections took place amid widespread criticism directed at the Guardian Council for disqualifying numerous candidates without explaining their exclusion. While some disqualified candidates requested reasons for their disqualification, certain members of the Guardian Council asserted that there was no legal obligation to provide explanations.  This lack of transparency prompted many to question the elections\u2019 integrity, with many arguing that the candidate selection process had been engineered. The \u201creformist\u201d faction went as far as advocating for a complete boycott of the polls. Notably, the Guardian Council not only disqualified individuals labeled as \u201cenemies of the revolution\u201d or \u201cenemies of the Islamic government\u201d but also sidelined candidates perceived as potential threats to the ruling elite, thereby paving the way for government-affiliated contenders. This pattern was evident in former President Rouhani\u2019s disqualification from participating in the Assembly of Experts elections. Similarly, the Guardian Council barred the head of the Sunni bloc in the current  Parliament from running in the next session without providing any justification for its decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The controversy surrounding the Guardian Council\u2019s exclusion of numerous candidates, including former officials, led to accusations of bias and lack of independence. Some disqualified candidates even alleged external interference, with Russia being cited due to their past criticism of Moscow\u2019s<\/a> policies. While this claim may not reflect reality, it underscores the prevailing perception of the Guardian Council among large segments of the population. The failure of the Guardian Council to address the grievances of disqualified candidates and provide transparent explanations for their disqualification only fueled further speculation about the council\u2019s motivations, placing pressure on itself and the ruling elite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Iranian officials acknowledged the gravity of public criticisms directed at the Guardian Council, prompting warnings against their escalation. Some even threatened legal action if these criticisms were perceived to threaten the integrity of the elections or if they morphed into widespread questioning of the electoral process. This apprehension stemmed from the ruling elite\u2019s fear of these criticisms diminishing the credibility of the polls, prompting the government to take preventative measures. Consequently, the government mobilized various tools, particularly religious and media platforms, to encourage voter participation. Ayatollah Alamolhoda, the Friday prayer leader of Mashhad, underscored the importance of electoral participation, stating that the future of Islam hinged on it<\/a> rather than solely the fate of the Iranian revolution or the government. This campaign aimed to discourage any questioning of the election results and the decisions made by the Guardian Council, emphasizing the significance of a robust voter turnout. Simultaneously, the Guardian Council reversed its decision to disqualify several candidates upon their appeals, permitting some excluded individuals to contest the elections. This move sought to reinvigorate interest in the electoral process, counter calls for boycotts and dispel doubts regarding the elections\u2019 legitimacy (by those who said that the election results were a foregone conclusion or devoid of any significance).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 The parliamentary and Assembly of Experts elections were conducted against the backdrop of the government losing credibility and legitimacy, both domestically and internationally. Faced with growing widespread distrust in its ability to address internal and external challenges, the government saw the elections as an opportunity to bolster its legitimacy and widen its margin of maneuver. However, the government remains trapped in the aftermath of recent incidents fueling public tensions and discontent toward it. Following a wave of protests sparked by the mysterious poisoning of schoolgirls, reminiscent of earlier unrest triggered by the death of Kurdish activist Mahsa Amini, criticism of the government and its symbols intensified. These developments compelled the government to reinforce its authority to control the narrative. Unlike previous protest cycles, recent demonstrations breached longstanding taboos by targeting revered figures such as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian republic, and burning images and effigies of Qassem Soleimani across Iranian cities. Moreover, the desecration of religious symbols, including the religious turban, underscored the erosion of traditional boundaries and the deepening disillusionment among  segments of Iranian society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Iranian elections occurred against the backdrop of Iran\u2019s  international isolation, the continuation of  sanctions,  the failure of nuclear talks and the eruption of regional conflict, especially in the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.   Amid fears of a broader regional conflagration, armed groups aligned with Iran activated operations  across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. These developments reverberated during the Iranian elections,  with the  \u201chardliner\u201d movement leveraging these factors to bolster its electoral prospects across its support base.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Electoral Lists and Platforms  <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The recent parliamentary and Assembly of Experts elections in Iran marked a departure from the country\u2019s tradition of diversity in political representation since the establishment of the \u201cIslamic Republic.\u201d The authorities employed various state security and administrative apparatuses, including the Ministry of Interior and the Guardian Council, to meticulously vet candidates, excluding those associated with the \u201creformist\u201d movement. This stringent vetting process rejected all \u201creformist\u201d candidates, leaving only a handful of them  across Iran\u2019s provinces, as noted by the Reform Front spokesperson Javad Imam. Faced with limited options, the \u201creformists\u201d were divided between boycotting the elections, participating reluctantly, or maintaining silence \u2014 an approach that aligned with those that advocated for a total boycott of the elections.  Some \u201creformists\u201d even formed committees to support moderate \u201chardliner\u201d candidates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Assembly of Experts, the religious affiliations of the candidates significantly limited their chances of participation, with clerics associated with the \u201creformist\u201d movement excluded. Consequently, the competition was confined to \u201chardliner\u201d candidates, both in the Assembly of Experts and the Parliament. With Tehran being of paramount importance, the focus of attention was directed to the competing lists there. Four main lists dominated the \u201chardliner\u201d factions in the electoral landscape. These included the \u201cSobh Iran\u201d list, prominently featuring figures like Mahmoud Nabavian and Hamid Rasaei, the \u201cDevotees\u201d list, the \u201cCouncil of Islamic Revolution Forces\u201d list led by Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Morteza Aghatehrani, and finally, the \u201cUnity Council\u201d list,  headed by Manouchehr Mottaki, a former foreign minister under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. On the opposing side, \u201cmoderate\u201d and \u201creformist\u201d forces gathered under a unified list called  \u201cVoice of the Nation\u201d in the parliamentary elections in Tehran. This coalition, led by Ali Motahhari, garnered support from some \u201creformist\u201d parties, including the Moderation and Development Party, closely aligned with former President Rouhani.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the lead-up to the Iranian parliamentary elections, candidates vying for the 290 seats unveiled their official campaign platforms, outlining detailed electoral programs and visions. These programs encompassed a range of ideas and proposals to address the state\u2019s challenges. While there was consensus among candidates regarding the assessment of internal and external pressures, variations emerged in their approaches to overcoming these challenges and their proposed plans for addressing them post-election. These platforms  were undoubtedly designed to sway Iranian citizens\u2019 electoral decisions and shape their political affiliations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the period preceding the official commencement of the voting process, the predominant movement in Iranian politics, the \u201chardliner\u201d movement<\/a>, showcased a plethora of slogans and programs  to win the highest share of parliamentary seats. Central to their agenda was  to direct the state\u2019s  trajectory post-election  such as  prioritizing national security interests,  upholding the authority of the Guardianship of the Jurist, perpetuating the struggle against perceived global hegemony, maintaining a level of political engagement through dialogue and negotiations with the West, and continuing the country\u2019s foreign policy pivot toward the East.  Additionally, their agenda emphasized enhancing Iran\u2019s economic indicators, diversifying economic cooperation with regional nations, and mitigating the impact of international sanctions on the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the declared agendas of the \u201cmoderate\u201d and \u201creformist\u201d parties<\/a> and movements showed slight variations, they notably diverged in their approach to the  country\u2019s foreign policy. Emphasizing a narrative of reducing international tensions, these factions aimed to recalibrate Iran\u2019s relations with the world. Economically, the Reformist Front underscored enhancing the country\u2019s macroeconomic metrics. This involved proposed revisions to existing economic legislation, including removing military sectors and semi-governmental institutions from the economy. Furthermore, there was a push to enact laws supporting the green economy and renewable energy development to address energy disparities. Socially, \u201creformist\u201d and \u201cmoderate\u201d candidates advocated for introducing new legislation catering to diverse societal segments, advancing freedoms and social rights for women, and opposing legislation that would exacerbate domestic polarization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While addressing economic imperatives such as enhancing living standards, tackling unemployment, ensuring justice and improving the education system, particularly in the capital Tehran and several major cities,  electoral campaigns in provinces outside Tehran<\/a> and several provincial regions<\/a> were notably centered more on local issues.  These issues primarily pertained to urban development challenges. In provinces like Isfahan, Tabriz and East Azerbaijan, candidates prioritized programs addressing labor rights and worker welfare alongside initiatives concerning water management, environmental conservation, healthcare, sports and culturally enriching local communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Social media reflected a diminishing level of confidence among Iranian voters in candidates fulfilling their pledges once elected. This skepticism is based on past experiences, where previous parliamentary elections in Iran failed to yield tangible solutions or address  real issues. Instead, these elections  appeared to be mere electoral theatrics, with promises  from various political factions  unfulfilled once their candidates assumed office. Consequently, rather than witnessing improvements, the government\u2019s international isolation exacerbated the populace\u2019s economic, social, and political pressures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another factor that contributed to Iranian skepticism toward the electoral platforms and slogans was internal conflicts and the lack  of unity among political factions.   This discord extended to a failure to present a unified candidate list and an inability to reach a consensus on which pressing national issues to raise in Parliament. Moreover, the economic slogans put forth by each political party failed to present a novel economic discourse distinct from previous election cycles. This absence of innovative solutions to the country\u2019s current economic challenges fueled internal discontent and further undermined  public confidence in  the electoral process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Election Results,  Voter Turnout and  Significations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n