• English Site
• > Fishwrap

The World from Berlin

Thumbs Down for Iran's Hardliners

Iranians seem to have been left cold by the hard-line rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In elections last Friday, moderate candidates did well. But will that change the direction of Tehran's foreign policy?

The hardliners in Iran have suffered a major setback at the hands of the Iranian electorate. A combination of a high turnout and close cooperation between the reformists and moderate conservatives succeeded in giving President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a bit of a bloody nose at the ballot box. Partial results from last Friday's elections for local governments and the powerful Assembly of Experts indicate that the president's supporters have been widely rejected by the voters.

The Assembly of Experts is a body of 86 clerics who monitor Iran's supreme leader and chooses his successor, and as such it has great influence in the theocratic state. Former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, a relative moderate, polled the most votes of any Tehran candidate to secure a seat on the assembly. In contrast, the hard-line cleric, Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, who is regarded as President Ahmadinejad's spiritual mentor, only came in sixth in the poll.

In the local elections the president's allies failed to win control of any of the councils. And not a single candidate supported by Ahmadinejad won a council seat in the big cities of Shiraz, Bandar Abbas or Rasht. In Tehran candidates supporting the moderate conservative mayor, Mohammed Bahger Qalibaf, look set to win seven of the 15 council seats.

The largest reformist party, the Islamic Iran Participation Front, welcomed the results. "Ahmadinejad's list has suffered a decisive defeat nationwide," it announced. "It is a big no to the government's authoritarian and inefficient practices."

However, the election results do not directly affect the Iranian government, and while it is likely that the poor showing by his allies will weaken the president, it is uncertain if this will provoke any change in policy or rhetoric.

The German press welcomes the rejection of the hardliners and ponders what this means for Iran's relations with the West.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung argues that "it was sufficient for reformers and traditionalists to work together -- shocked by the political capers and economic mistakes of the president -- to break the spell. A silent but effective coalition was at work.... Iranians should above all learn the lesson that there are alternatives, and that they have a say.

"Foreign policy played a completely secondary role in the elections. But most voters realized when making their decision that pragmatics like Rafsanjani and reformers like Khatami consider Iran's self-imposed isolation and the confrontation with the West to be damaging. If they are in the ascent then, in the long-term, that won't be without consequences."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes that "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has failed to get his ideological followers elected. They had no chance against the broad coalition of opponents, led by the president's two predecessors.

"A change of direction in foreign policy is not to be expected. But the world can take some hope: The election results remind us that a certain amount of internal change is possible in the Islamic republic. Even if one cannot speak of freedom, pluralism and true democracy in the theocracy, the system allows for changes in personnel and shifts of emphasis.

"It would be naïve to believe that Ahmadinejad's rivals would fundamentally change the current nuclear policy or strive for liberal reforms in domestic politics. Iran's nuclear program would also be pursued under a President Rafsanjani. But his wing is characterized by enterprising pragmatists and realists. Ahmadinejad's hysterical apocalyptic visions are alien to them. When it comes to nuclear arms, this difference is anything but trivial."

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes that "more than 60 percent of the electorate voted. In the past the turnout for local elections was around 20 percent. Many who had failed to participate then, now believe that it makes a difference whether extreme-right wingers like Ahmadinejad or more moderate forces are in power.

"Just as in other countries, in Iran the most important question when deciding who to vote for is: which group does one trust to improve one's own living situation. Eighteen months ago Ahmadinejad was able to win the trust of the majority with his show of being close to the people. However, he has honored very few of his promises. The results do not represent a clear rejection of the president but that trust is rapidly evaporating."

According to left-wing daily Die Tageszeitung, "elections in the Islamic theocracy of Iran are a farce. The people can only vote for those candidates that have been deemed suitable by the supervisory council or the interior ministry. Nevertheless, a number of conclusions about the political mood in the country can be drawn from the elections. The high turnout for last Friday's elections was surprising … 63 percent. That indicates that the voters still hope for a change in the situation -- despite all the repression by President Ahmadinejad and the oppressive political atmosphere.

"Ultimately, one can conclude from the elections that Ahmadinejad's populism is losing its impact. For a long time he has tried to use his attacks on the US and Israel to distract people from the country's urgent problems. However, more and more Iranians, particularly the poor, now realize that the proclamations of social justice were nothing more than hollow slogans."

-- Siobhán Dowling, 2 p.m. CET