Countries at the Crossroads 2007

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s 1979 Islamic revolution depended on mass participation nationwide, but the clerics who took up the reins of power have since refused to submit to democratic accountability. The authority of the ruling Shiite ayatollahs, who claim to represent God’s will, is bolstered by the Islamic Republic’s constitutional system. The supreme leader, who is not directly elected by the Iranian populace, sits at the pinnacle of the system. He is supported by the unelected Council of Guardians, which blocks legislative attempts at reform and vets candidates for elected office.

Iran’s political system has been dominated since 1979 by conservative clerics and politicians. They have worked over the years to preserve the uprising’s Islamic and revolutionary values—and to keep themselves in power. The result is an authoritarian regime that demands public compliance with traditional Islamic laws, affecting people’s social interactions and private lives. It strongly resists many forms of modernity and the notion of an open society.

Substantial sectors of Iranian society are at a disadvantage under the Shiite and exclusively male-dominated regime. The officially imposed Islamic laws bar many women from playing significant economic or political roles. The political engagement of religious minorities, including Sunni Muslims, is very limited, and ethnic minorities such as Kurds, Arabs, and Baluchis—who make up nearly half the population—are granted little room for participation.

Advocates for political reform and an open civil society made significant progress in the late 1990s, but at present their efforts to boost civil liberties and democratic participation are stalled. The reform movement launched by then president Mohammad Khatami in 1997 was eclipsed after conservatives won a majority in the Majles (parliament) in 2004 and Mahmud Ahmadinejad won the presidency in 2005. A backlash against reform measures was perhaps inevitable, since conservatives saw gradual liberalization as a threat to regime longevity, just as it had been in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In addition, the reformists themselves admit that they lost voter support by concentrating too soon on political development rather than basic economic needs.

The reform movement is not dead, even if reformist politicians are currently out of power. Dissenters continue to voice criticism of government policies, though journalists, intellectuals, students, and proponents of human rights have become more wary, imposing a measure of self-restraint in order to avoid a crackdown by the authorities.

Developments in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan have increased the Iranian regime’s sense of insecurity and helped harden its exclusionary and repressive tendencies. Apprehensive that Washington seeks regime change in Tehran, the ruling clerics have tightened restrictions on freedom of expression and remain distrustful of broader political participation.

Nonetheless, politics in Iran remain dynamic. Voter turnout is impressively high, as most Iranians value what little democratic process is available to them, despite the entrenchment of the ruling clerics and the economic and political incompetence of successive elected administrations. Even within the narrow spectrum of regime-approved candidates, election outcomes can be unpredictable. An abundance of political parties, though often ephemeral and ineffective by Western standards, provide an important forum for political debate.

The constant ebb and flow of Iranian politics has caused some significant setbacks for Ahmadinejad and his hard-line allies. Increasingly blatant criticism in the press after his first year in office was followed by the crushing defeats of his political supporters in nationwide elections in December 2006.

View full report in Farsi