[Beren]

Iran's President Rouhani wins 2nd term by a wide margin

ADAM SCHRECK and NASSER KARIMI

Associated Press May 20, 2017

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's President Hassan Rouhani won re-election by a wide margin Saturday, giving the moderate cleric a second four-year term to see out his agenda pushing for greater freedoms and outreach to the wider world.

The 68-year-old incumbent secured a commanding lead of 57 percent in a race that drew more than seven out of every 10 voters to the polls. His nearest rival in the four-man race, hard-liner Ebrahim Raisi, secured 38 percent of the vote.

As Rouhani appeared close to victory, some female drivers held out the V for victory sign and flashed their car lights on highways in Tehran's affluent north.

"We made the victory again. We sent back Raisi to Mashhad," his conservative hometown in northeastern Iran, said Narges, a 43 year-old beauty salon owner, who declined to give her full name. She said she spent more than three hours outside waiting to vote, "but it was worth it."

Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli announced the vote tallies in a televised news conference, based on a count of more than 99 percent of the ballots. He said Rouhani garnered 23.5 million votes out of 41.2 million ballots cast. Iran has 56.4 million eligible voters.

In 2013, Rouhani won the presidential election with nearly 51 percent of the vote. Turnout for that vote was 73 percent.

Iran's president is the second-most powerful figure within Iran's political system. He is subordinate to the supreme leader, who is chosen by a clerical panel and has the ultimate say over all matters of state.

Election officials repeatedly extended voting hours until midnight to accommodate long lines of voters, some of whom said they waited hours to cast their ballots. Analysts have said a higher turnout would likely benefit Rouhani.

Friday's vote was largely a referendum on Rouhani's more moderate political policies, which paved the way for the landmark 2015 nuclear deal that won Iran relief from some sanctions in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.

Rouhani has come to embody more liberal and reform-minded Iranians' hopes for greater freedoms and openness at home, and better relations with the outside world.

Raisi, his nearest challenger, is close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, who stopped short of endorsing anyone in the election. Raisi ran a populist campaign, vowing to fight corruption and fix the economy while boosting welfare payments to the poor.

Many of Raisi's critics pointed to his alleged role condemning inmates to death during Iran's 1988 mass execution of thousands of political prisoners, and feared a victory for the hard-liner could worsen human rights in Iran and put the country on a more confrontational path with the West.

The two other candidates left in the race, Mostafa Mirsalim, a former culture minister, and Mostafa Hashemitaba, a pro-reform figure who previously ran for president in 2001, respectively have 478,000 and 215,000 votes each.

Hashemitaba was among the first to predict an outright win for Rouhani as he offered his congratulations Saturday morning.

"Rouhani will apply his ever-increasing efforts for the dignity of Iran" in his next term, the reformist said.

The Tehran Stock Exchange rallied after the election results came out, extending a recent winning streak to close nearly 1 percent higher at its highest level in three months.

Although considered a moderate by Iranian standards, Rouhani was nonetheless the favorite pick for those seeking more liberal reforms in the conservative Islamic Republic.

He appeared to embrace a more reform-minded role during the campaign as he openly criticized hard-liners and Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard, a paramilitary force involved in the war in Syria and the fight against Islamic State militants in neighboring Iraq.

That gave hope to his supporters, who during recent campaign rallies called for the release of two reformist leaders of the 2009 Green Movement who remain under house arrest. The two figures, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi, both endorsed Raisi, as did Mohammad Khatami, another reformist who served as Iran's president from 1997 to 2005.

Iran has no credible political polling to serve as harder metrics for the street buzz around candidates, who need more than 50 percent of the vote to seal victory and avoid a runoff. But what scant data that was available before the vote showed Rouhani in the lead.

The position of president is a powerful post. He oversees a vast state bureaucracy employing more than 2 million people, is charged with naming Cabinet members and other officials to key posts, and plays a significant role in shaping both domestic and foreign policy.

All candidates for elected office must be vetted, a process that excludes anyone calling for radical change, along with most reformists. No woman has ever been approved to run for president.

Ahmadi said the Interior Ministry expects to announce final results later Saturday.

___

Associated Press writers Amir Vahdat in Tehran and Jon Gambrell contributed reporting from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Good news I guess, I wonder if the Trump-Kushner administration will screw this up.

So Ahmadinejad didn't run?

[anasawad]

Fuck hem. The bastard is selling out and Al-Khamenei is backing hem in attempt to stop the movement from taking full control of the government.

Ahmadinejad was barred from running in the minute by order of Al-Khamenei.
Ghalibaf was forced to withdraw from the elections, leaving only Raisi whom already known to have no chance in winning.


The fucker called supreme leader is on his death bed, and all his dogs in the government including the sell-out Rouhani will go out with hem.



And who the fuck is this retard who wrote this article ?
Rouhani is a reformist ? He's a moderate republican, not part of any reformist party nor any reformist movement.
And outside the nuclear deal, all "his policies" are exactly those of the clerics led by Khamenei.
He changed nothing, he's been fighting the reformist faction every corner of the way during his presidency and even this election was between Rouhani which most clerics endorsed hem, against first Ghalibaf a reformer from the socialist party whom was forced to withdraw from the election. Then against Ahmadinejad who in this election was the unions candidate, barred from running. And Raisi who is one endorsed by all the reformists movement leaders and even the very founder of the movement and the philosophy its following.


And Rouhani is no where near a fucken liberal minded guy. He's a cleric. He's been fighting the reformist provincial government in Semnan province to re-enact public decensy laws as the clerics wants it both in Semnan and northern Khorasan , and to return the decriminalization of Weed and opium back to the Semnan province.

Where do these people get their information from ? out of their asses.

[Beren]

Maybe you should post another article from an alternative source @anasawad.

[Zionist Nationalist]

"Elections"

[Rugoz]

Wow anasawad, where did that come from, I thought you were a big fan of the clerics.

[anasawad]

@Beren
Its all over the news in all Iranian news papers and channels.

@Rugoz
I am no fan of the clerics, i support the reformist faction and been voting for it in both provincial elections in Semnan province (where i come from- registered) and in the parliament elections.
Rouhani is not a reformist, he's a cleric.
And even before the election everyone was talking about the clerics stealing the election as they don't want the reformists to take the presidency after they took both the parliament and the assembly.
Ghalibaf is a socialist, and Ahmadinejad had the vote of the unions. Rouhani had the vote of the conservatives.

In the previous post there was a little mistake. Rouhani was fighting the Semnan province local government to remove the decriminalization of weed and opium and return the public decency laws. Not return the decriminalization of drugs.
Was upset so wrote it in a rush.

In june, the parliament is supposed to have a vote on the legalization of weed and opium country wide for above a certain age in order to reduce prison population and make it an economic asset. In the same session there will be a vote to remove the current public decency laws from across the nation, instead being done by single provinces individually.

And Rouhani is against that following the supreme leader. And now he took the presidency he can strangle the vote since both the president and the supreme leader are against it. And we'll have to wait until late 2019 where the assembly will elect a new supreme leader.
In the next election for the supreme leader position, if we managed to put a leadership council, the clerics will be destroyed on the political field. Most authorities will go down to provincial governments and the reformists have most control there.

The bastards even made both provincial councils elections in the exact same time as the presidential elections so they can manipulate it.


Don't mistake me loving my home country with me loving the fuckers currently in charge.

[MadMonk]

http://www.politico.eu/article/irans-pr ... n-enabler/

Iran’s president isn’t a reformer. He’s an enabler
Don’t be fooled by Hassan Rouhani. He’s deeply complicit in an evil system.

Hassan Rouhani, the newly re-elected president of Iran, is a creature of the Islamic Republic’s establishment, an apparatchik with much guile and little imagination. And yet Rouhani’s subversive political campaign may do lasting damage to the Islamic Republic. In the process of reclaiming his office, he shed light on the regime’s dark past and made fantastic promises that he has neither the ability nor the intention of keeping. Rouhani’s campaign alienated the regime’s powerbrokers and his tenure will inevitably disillusion his constituents. The Rouhani presidency will once more remind the Iranian people that the theocratic state cannot reform itself.

In one of his rallies, Rouhani assailed his conservative rival Ibrahim Raisi by stressing that “the people will say no to those who over the course of 38 years only executed and jailed.” Here Rouhani was obliquely referring to one of the regime’s most contentious acts. In the summer of 1988, the aging founding leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in one last act of vengeance against his secular detractors, ordered the mass execution of political prisoners. The judiciary was to discharge its obligations and established a panel of judges soon knows as the “Death Commission” to carry out the killings. Raisi first came to national attention as member of that commission, which put to death thousands of prisoners in short order. Most of the executed were denied a proper burial and had their bodies dumped in mass and undisclosed graves. In the Islamic Republic’s cruel lexicon, these were called “cemeteries for the dammed.”

This was Raisi’s justice, but the burden was not his alone. The prison genocide was overseen by two officials — the then-president of Iran, Ali Khamenei, and the speaker of the parliament, the late Hashemi Rafsanjani. As a member of parliament at that time, Rouhani was well aware of what was taking place in the prisons. He chose silence. For the past three decades, the regime has sought to whitewash its past by making it taboo to publicly discuss this episode. Still, rumors abound, and that demented summer is enshrined in the collective memory. By invoking that episode, Rouhani challenged the core legitimacy of a theocratic state that insists on its religious pedigree and its concern for dispensing justice. Khamenei and the ruling elite who are implicated in that massacre are unlikely to easily forgive their newly reelected president for his opportunism. Not only must Rouhani have been aware of that episode, but his political ally and current minister of justice, Mostafa Pourmohammadi, was one of the more aggressive judges on the Death Commission.

Throughout his campaign, Rouhani cleverly played to the crowds by criticizing the regime’s security organs and warning, “Those of you who cut out tongues and sewed mouths shut. Those of you who over the past years only issued the word bane, banned the pen and banned the pictures. Please don’t even breathe the word freedom for it shames freedom.” The president on occasion also warned the Revolutionary Guards not to interfere with the election process. This was an act of political genius — as an insider of more than 30 years, Rouhani suddenly appropriated the language of dissent and seemingly presented himself as a critic of the system. And now the system is ready to strike back. Unlike the United States, Iran really has a “deep state” — and it remains intact, as Khamenei still controls all the relevant institutions and the Guards hold sway over much of Iran’s economy. It is hard to see how even Rouhani’s most modest policy ambitions can be implemented.

Still, Rouhani holds some advantages for the regime. As a politician who spent decades as the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, he has been intimately involved with the regime’s terror apparatus. He built up much credit with the guardians of the state by remaining quiet in summer of 2009 as the Green Movement leaders were dispatched to prison on fantastic charges. And his presidency was devoted not to human rights and economic reform but beguiling the United States into an arms control agreement that put Iran on a steady and legal path to the bomb. These are not inconsiderable achievements, but in the vengeful politics of the Islamic Republic, they may not be sufficient to redeem him.

And then there are Rouhani’s pledges to the public. The president’s rallies, as indeed with most commemorative occasions in Iran, were transformed into protests against the state with the chanting of Green Movement slogans. Rouhani cleverly encouraged this, offered vague promises of restoring freedom and even hinted at the rehabilitation of those languishing in prison and exile. He was to stand against the forces of repression, despite the fact that he has a history of indifference to human rights. Rouhani was never part of the reform movement that exhilarated the Iranians in the 1990s with its claim to harmonize religion and pluralism, and he stood with the regime when the Green Movement shook the foundations of the state. The Islamic Republic cannot use its own constitutional provisions to broaden its parameters. Aggrieved Iranians will learn once more that they can gain no political relief from another Islamist president.

So it would be inaccurate to call Rouhani a reformist. He has always been part of a pragmatic cohort of Iranian leaders attracted to the so-called China model of offering citizens economic rewards in exchange for political passivity. During his campaign, he hinted at better times to come by claiming that he would succeed in lifting all the remaining sanctions on Iran. This is impossible, given Iran’s penchant toward terrorism, its human rights abuses and its imperial ravaging of the Middle East. The fact is that Iran has never been able to emulate China’s economic trajectory. A state drowning in corruption, with a history of mismanagement, Iran has always been plagued by the twin forces of inflation and unemployment. It is hard to see how the regime can meet the basic financial demands of its people as it insists on spending vast sums sustaining the Assad dynasty in Syria and menacing Sunni monarchy.

Rouhani has reclaimed the presidency with his usual mixture of cunning and cynicism. He will now confront Khamenei and other hardliners disturbed at his indictments of their regime and its history. All of Iran’s reelected presidents have limited room for maneuver given the imbalance of power between elected and non-elected institutions. But Rouhani even less so. Perhaps more problematic for the president and his republic is a disillusioned citizenry that will gain neither political freedom nor financial relief.

Iran is today what it has been since the outbreak of the Green Revolution in 2009, a regime marching steadily toward its demise. The bonds between state and society have long been severed and cannot be healed by another Rouhani presidency. Iran today resembles the Soviet Union of the 1970s, where appearances of strength concealed the reality of institutional decay and popular disenchantment. In one of the ironies of Iran, a president widely celebrated in the West has only further divided the elite and is bound to disappoint the public.

During his speech in Saudi Arabia, President Donald Trump spoke of the need to confront and “isolate” Iran. But the Iran challenge confronting Trump is more intricate and perplexing than the one faced by his predecessors. This is no longer about imposing interim restraints on Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, but how to erode the unsteady foundations of the Islamic Republic. This will require disciplined application of both American power and rhetoric. The task at hand is to shrink Iran’s imperial frontiers while stressing its economy. The Trump team must reconstitute the shattered sanctions architecture while making human rights and the plight of dissidents one of its foremost priorities. In Riyadh, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson offered the first salvo in what needs to be a systematic campaign of delegitimizing the theocratic regime. America’s declarations have always mattered, none more so than in Iran, a country whose history has demonstrated an unusual degree of sensitivity to our words.

The Islamic Republic was an ideological experiment born in a century that witnessed so many attempts to bend human will to whims of vanguards of history. The revolution has now exhausted itself, and cannot meet either the material needs or the political aspirations of its constituents. The theocratic regime insists on marching toward the dustbin of history and the only question remains whether America can hasten that march.

I have two collegues who largely agree with this article, both of whose parents fled Iran in the 80's. Am I missing something or won't extra American pressure on the regime enable it to stay in power rather than the reverse?

[neopagan]

Iran is not a democracy. Elections in that country are a travesty. The voters get to choose which band of religious fanatics will be in power. Political or religious dissent is not allowed. This is a country were going to a party can get you publicly flogged, and where writing a novel can have a price put on your head by the government which will allow any member of the public to kill you. Iran is not different to ISIS, as is Saudi Arabia. Iranians kissing in France are breaking Iranian law.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-27547956

[stephen50right]

We all know that the ayatollah is the ruler of that country. The good people of Iran know that as well.

The Iranian "president" is nothing more than a figurehead who carries out administrative duties and marching orders of the ayatollah.

[Negotiator]

Well, duh. Iran indeed isnt a democracy. Its an "islamic republic". Which is a theocracy.

But IMHO there are other democracies which are defect to the degree of being out of order, too. Like that country in which you could vote either Trump or Clinton for president. How exactly is that a vote ? I mean it was basically the choice between pest and cholera.

[Deutschmania]

I agree with the views of these two political exiles from Iran https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IPIawa7dpaI 1:10 - 7:17 . The elections were not free and fair , and the people of Iran can not achieve democratic social change within the existing political system . I feel that only a revolution , be it non-violent if practicable or armed if necessary , will bring about the liberation which Iran needs .

[Patrickov]

I agree with the views of these two political exiles from Iran https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IPIawa7dpaI 1:10 - 7:17 . The elections were not free and fair , and the people of Iran can not achieve democratic social change within the existing political system . I feel that only a revolution , be it non-violent if practicable or armed if necessary , will bring about the liberation which Iran needs .

This is more or less true, but if you believe that Iranians in the country are making futile efforts then Trump, Saudis and the Israelite are probably your hope as they will love to wage war against Iran establishment no matter what.

[Oxymandias]

I don't care for Iranian elections for that reason. I don't bother to vote for any party I actually support since not only are all the parties I would support probably against the Iranian government (such as the Reformists) but because it isn't a true democracy, you can't really vote for anyone because who you vote doesn't do anything. Although I don't find democracy that appealing, I do think that if you're going to do a democracy, then at least do it right.

[anasawad]

@Oxymandias
The clerics are doing all they can to shut the reformists out.
In the Parliament and the Assembly we have a chance with the swing seats and independents to beat the clerics in full.
On local level, the only way is to promote and pursue provincial governments and councils.
As far as i see it, its the only guaranteed way to push social welfare reforms, decriminalization of a number of drugs, and gradually rolling back of public decency laws.

Considering international conditions, voting is the only way to fight currently. Revolution will set the nation in chaos currently and vulnerable to foreign attacks.

Note: the biggest fight currently is to get independents and swing seats in the Assembly of Experts to the reformists and moderates side. If successful they can put a leadership council or council of leaders whatever you want to call it.
If that happens a large portion of the authorities goes down to the president and the local governments.


EDIT:
BTW, You do realize that the reformists are already in control of significant portion of governor seats right ?
You should focus on voting for the local council in your province, if both the council and the governor are reformists you can change local laws. The only places i know of where Reformists are in full control are Semnan, Golestan, and North Khorasan.
We should work to take control over other provinces instead of just setting around whining how its unfair.

[Oxymandias]

@anasawad

Unfortunately I don't live in any of those places however I do have relatives in Semnan (cousins) and they seem pretty liberal and they also don't bother to voting either so I can alert them on this. I agree that (especially among the youth) Iranians are getting really cynical lately (well I got the last laugh because I was cynical before it was cool! /s) and there seems to be a widespread amount of defeatism amongst the country. Although I find it excusable due to the nature of the government and the often futility of voting however I will spread your idea and tell others to as well. If some provinces become liberal and reformist, that could potentially encourage Reformist politicians to take a more active role in the elections.

[anasawad]

@Oxymandias
Exactly, thats the thing that many don't seem to understand, when ever the turnout is high. Reformists and moderates always win.
The clerics keep framing reformists and opposition factions leaders to discourage people from pursuing electoral victory and spread this cynicism and defeatism. However this is wrong, by not voting you're giving them what they want.
This past elections in the parliament and the assembly have been huge victories as reformists and moderates have more seats than the clerics. But nevertheless, it remains useless unless we manage to get swing seats and independents on our side. And the only way to get them is by taking the local governments. Remember that the coalitions as much as they seem coordinated on the outside, once members are in the parliament its very hard to keep that unity as each will be under huge pressure from all sides. And most of the pressure comes from the local governments, that is city councils and provincial governors and governments.
If you get those, you get the upper hand in the parliament.
The provinicial governments are currently split between factions, and although reformists control large portion of the governors seats, republicans are competing hard with them.
(republicans are what some call the "moderate" clerics). If the youth start voting more in local elections, reformists will get most of the provincial governments and thus have the upper hand on the parliament as well as the upper hand on the economic governance. Which is exactly what the country and the people need. But people need to vote more.

As much as many would like to disagree with this, but the system is democratic. Its only showing as theocratic because barely anyone is standing up to the clerics, and those who do are not getting much public support and funding. And the reason the clerics are having so much powers is because many in Iran, unfortunately, think that we have the same political structure as the west. Which we don't. The presidential election is just a small part of the process. The most important seats a faction need to win to control the government are the local governments and the assembly of experts.
And we're almost there to control them but everyone needs to participate and push the change.

[Oxymandias]

@anasawad

But what I would like to know is exactly what political system, economic system, and administration that a new Iranian government would have. Obviously it would be democratic but there are lots of flavors of democracy out there. I'm actually interested in epistocracy which is detailed here:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ ... -democracy

I'm also very interested in technocracy and I like the "technocratic democracy" described in Parag Khanna's Technocracy in America: Rise of the info-state. There is a Washington Post article talking about it here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 1fc06f2868

The reason I find these political systems so appealing is that it makes it more probable for good political decisions to be made and it stops the rural and urban divide from endangering liberal democracy as we are seeing in America and Europe. So what I propose is a parliamentary technocratic epistocracy (a mouth-full isn't it?) with a little bit of the Swiss model sprinkled in. Of course there are other factors to a government's success as well but I think this would lead to a well governed and efficient nation.

I also think that the administrative style should use the Swiss Canton system however unlike the Swiss Cantons, the government will in fact allow the creation of new cantons if a community wants it. I'm also thinking of reviving a watered down version of the Millet system.

[anasawad]

Mostly what is being pushed is social liberalism, with some extra socialism in the mix.

[Oxymandias]

@anasawad

I find that disappointing. There are so many better possibilities out there and they're future proofed as well...

Iranians really need to consider more different possibilities for governance.

[Rugoz]

I'm actually interested in epistocracy which is detailed here:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ ... -democracy

I'm also very interested in technocracy and I like the "technocratic democracy" described in Parag Khanna's Technocracy in America: Rise of the info-state. There is a Washington Post article talking about it here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 1fc06f2868

Those articles ignore 2 fundamental aspects of democracy:
1. Legitimacy. One man one vote is a powerful message. What would the disenfranchised think of this new system? Would they consider it legitimate?
2. There are (almost) no "good" or "right" choices in politics. It's all a matter of preferences, and voting is a (crude) instrument to aggregate the preferences of the citizens.

I also think that the administrative style should use the Swiss Canton system

There's nothing special about Swiss cantons (to my knowledge). They're self-governing regions under a federal government just like the American states or the German Bundesländer (among many others).

There's only aspect of the Swiss system that every other country on this planet should have:

Art. 138: Popular initiative requesting the total revision of the Federal Constitution
1. Any 100,000 persons eligible to vote may within 18 months of the official publication of their initiative propose a total revision of the Federal Constitution.
2. This proposal must be submitted to a vote of the People.

Very simple, only 2 lines. How hard can it be .