Participation or Non-participation
Participation or non-participation in the twelfth parliamentary elections should be considered based on the backgrounds and contexts in which they took place.
The eleventh parliamentary elections in 1398 were the first elections held after the protests of Dey 1396, Aban 1398, and the Ukrainian plane incident. We witnessed a significant decrease in voter turnout and a noticeable increase in calls for non-participation, which had a visible impact on these elections.
On the other hand, the twelfth parliamentary elections serve as a prelude to the 1404 presidential elections, and a proper analysis and understanding of them can be useful in comprehending and predicting those elections as well.
Apart from the above, the recent parliamentary elections, contrary to expectations, turned into one of the significant elections that require extensive discussion, dialogue, analysis, and interpretation. Above all, the primary issue in these elections was whether to participate or not, and indeed, the level of participation became a crucial and important matter.
Campaigns were formed around increasing or decreasing participation in the elections. On one hand, the government tried to encourage more people to vote in the elections, while on the other hand, some individuals and groups acted as election boycotters, although not all of them used this title.
The second issue was the discussion of the presence or type of presence of reformists in the elections. A large part of them did not participate, and even the head of the reformist government did not cast his vote. On the other hand, some others, under the title of ‘openers of the way’, declared their existence and entered the electoral field, forming coalitions with some moderates and even fundamentalists, and presented a list.
The third issue that occurred in the recent elections was that when the majority of reformists refrained from participating, it was predictable that their social body would not be present in the elections. Therefore, this movement could not play a significant role or have much influence on the outcome of these elections.
Therefore, we witnessed that in the absence of formal representation, reformists presented multiple lists among the conservative movement. In fact, the importance and necessity of consensus, unity, and presenting a unified list for conservatives diminished. As a result, alongside the campaigns of sanctioners and reformists, among themselves, conservatives and supporters of the establishment also produced lists and, consequently, various campaigns emerged. One of the most important ones was Shana and Jabhat Sobh Iran.
In this series of writings, we will analyze and examine these campaigns, as well as topics such as the second round of the twelfth parliament elections, the fate of the twelfth parliament’s presiding board elections – especially examining the situation of Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and the impact of the twelfth parliament elections on the 1404 presidential elections.
First and foremost, it should be noted that when we talk about the campaigns of sanctioners and election participants, it does not mean that we are facing campaigns that have had predefined programs and structures, and have entered the election battlefield with clear objectives and specific messages by utilizing campaign designers and media operatives, especially the coalition of sanctioners, which had a broad spectrum, faced restrictions, and did not have a coherent program and organization.
However, based on the messages and news being issued, the reactions being taken, and the changes and amendments being made to the communicated messages, it can be concluded that both the sanctioning campaign and the participation campaign were active.
The first point to note is that unlike the sanctioning campaign, which faced various restrictions, the authorities and officials expected a cohesive campaign with a strong plan to increase public participation in the election arena. This has never happened, and the election results confirm this.
The next point is that in any campaign, after setting the campaign’s goal, the target audience and the campaign’s scope must also be identified.
When some groups are trying to sanction the elections and others are aiming to increase participation, their goals are clear. However, taking another step is necessary, and that step is the selection and choice of those voters who can behave in line with our goal with appropriate programs and messages.
Therefore, a sufficient and comprehensive understanding of the various segments of society and the rights holders is essential.
In a general classification, three main groups of citizens can be considered as follows: 1) a group that usually participates in elections for any reason, 2) a group that usually does not vote for any reason, and 3) a group that is uncertain and undecided, and their opinion changes based on a specific event, message, or policy.
Evidence shows that a significant portion of ordinary people fall into the third category and do not have a certainty about their presence or absence in elections. Therefore, it is very important to plan for this group and produce appropriate content and messages.
It seems that in the campaign, although efforts have been made to encourage the participation of the hesitant group in the parliamentary elections, proper analysis of their concerns and expectations has not been done. The produced messages lacked sufficient accuracy, resulting not only in not gaining much persuasive power but sometimes having a reverse effect.
One of these messages that was sometimes heard was that participating in elections meant voting for the Islamic Republic, and in contrast, those who do not participate in the elections are not only against the Islamic Republic system but also non-believers and against the religion.
Other messages were as follows: Not participating in elections leads to increased sanctions. Not voting results in the formation of a weak parliament. Absence in elections gives others the opportunity to decide on our situation. Those imposing sanctions are related to the opposition abroad and foreign governments. Non-participation in elections can lead to increased international pressure against the country, resulting in escalating tensions domestically and causing chaos and unrest. Another issue that was indirectly mentioned is that not attending elections will have consequences for individuals, including problems in job opportunities, social services, and so on.
Overall, it can be concluded that the campaign for participation in elections in justifying attendance and convincing hesitant voters was unsuccessful.
Some messages, such as threats to increase international pressures, raise tensions internally, disrupt economic conditions and living standards, and cause trouble for those who do not vote, could have been influential to some extent. However, other messages of the participation campaign not only lacked the necessary impact to persuade the undecided but even had the opposite effect.
Despite the fact that the sanctioners did not have much possibility for cooperation, communication, and organization for various reasons, it seems that they were able to produce and disseminate more cohesive and effective content and messages.
In a way, the sanctioners’ campaign depicted a bipolar space for the people, where on one side there was a government that benefited from people’s participation to legitimize its policies and existence. Therefore, the campaign message of participating in elections, based on the idea that every vote cast is a vote for the Islamic Republic, clearly served the interests of the sanctioners’ campaign.
Furthermore, the sanctioners’ campaign considered participation in elections as undermining the rights of those who were somehow affected during the protests in 1401.
Other claims presented to the audience were as follows: participating in elections means surrendering and legitimizing the supervisory authority of the Guardian Council, eliminating numerous critical and independent groups in the parliament has no impact on the country’s major policies and strategies, so it doesn’t matter which group wins the vote. Overall, this campaign aimed to convey that voting not only does not bring about change but also strengthens and perpetuates existing problems and trends.
Another point is that each campaign’s reaction to the opposing campaign’s performance seems to indicate that the sanction campaign was more successful in this regard.
In a way, they provided better responses to the issues raised by their opponents and made good use of the mistakes they made. For example, when the opposing campaign linked non-participation to an increase in sanctions, they reminded that these are not due to sanctions but are a result of mismanagement and negligence of officials. Or when they portrayed sanctions on elections as opposition to Islam, they accused them of using religion as a tool and highlighted the separation of religion from politics.
In addition, in the practical actions of the participation campaign, efforts were made to increase participation by approving a wide range of candidates to boost competition. Although these efforts were ineffective, the sanction campaign created more precise messages showing that an increase in the number of candidates did not mean an increase in diverse perspectives and did not raise the level of competition. In fact, these actions were merely quantitative and overlooked qualitative aspects and competitiveness.
It seems that the participation campaign could have acted much better than this, as it had the potential to conduct more accurate evaluations and surveys to understand the spectrum of supporters and undecided individuals. It could have produced more effective content and messages based on its capabilities and resources.
In response to these elections, the group of sanctions advocates turned to arenas for coercion and showcasing their capabilities. It seems that they had a high level of content production, messaging, media guidance, and influencing in preparation, especially for the upcoming presidential elections. In fact, these elections served as a very good practice ground for the sanctions advocates’ campaign to become stronger and more effective in the next elections. Considering that the presidential elections are very different in many aspects and do not involve national, tribal, or regional competitions, the work for the sanctions advocates’ campaign will be much easier and smoother.
Therefore, if participation in elections is important for governance, more effort and better understanding of people’s concerns must be made to bring about changes in approaches, produce more appropriate messages, and organize elections and competition in a different way. It is observed that having a well-planned campaign with clear goals, along with knowledge, content, and appropriate messages, has a significant impact on the election results.
Persian
مشاهده این مقاله به زبان فارسی