The project of removing Qalibaf has begun.
The project of removing Qalibaf has started. Now it’s Rouhani’s turn, although Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, the current representative and speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, has also made it to the next parliament. However, in the analyses and interpretations, he is depicted as a loser. This is while neither his work has progressed to the second stage nor has he secured a prominent position like Hashemi Rafsanjani in the sixth parliament elections, thanks to the nullification of 700,000 votes. He is actually in fourth place.
This interpretation has four reasons. Firstly, it is true that he is on the list, but his proposed lists have practically handed over the game to the Principlist Front. Secondly, three people above him, especially Hamid Reza Rezaei and Amir Hossein Taebi, consider him a serious critic. The third reason is the significant decrease in his votes compared to the previous parliament and the February 2020 elections, facing a noticeable drop of 817,382 votes. The fourth reason is that his presidency over the future parliament will not be easy.
He may sit on the presidency chair with some compromises from outside, but this chair will be shaky, and renewing it every year will be difficult. He would have to change his allies, even though his political material is fluid and he can handle this task, it tarnishes his credibility and undermines the continuity of his policies.
The story of Mr. Qalibaf can also be examined beyond political interpretations, from the perspective of a famous Persian proverb, which means if you give from one hand, you will receive back from the same hand. To understand which hand gave, we need to go back 10 years and 10 months to see what Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani had said in Ordibehesht 1392 after announcing his candidacy for the presidency that year.
My question to Mr. Rafsanjani is that you were in power for 16 years with complete authority and coordination, without facing any tension or opposition, holding power for eight years as the head of the executive branch and another eight years as the head of the parliament. From my perspective, everything was in his hands because the war was in his hands, and the Imam supported him.
The government at that time had both a parliament and a prime minister, and it determined the council of ministers and the cabinet. Mr. Hashemi was also present at the head of the parliament. Eight years later, he was also the president, and the leadership fully supported him, to the extent that the support of the leadership for Mr. Hashemi at that time is historical.
Go back and see the newspapers of that time to find out that the statements made by the leadership for Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani must have definitely not been said for Mr. Ahmadinejad. We all remember the sentence ‘No one becomes Mr. Hashemi for me.’ The social and cultural output of Mr. Hashemi’s era, but what was it, and what has changed now that they have re-entered the arena? Mr. Hashemi’s candidacy for the presidency means that at least for the next four years, the country will be plunged into polarizing and tough tensions.
Mr. Rafsanjani must answer in the debates what they have done to reform the current situation after this period. There is no need to go back 20 years. The greatest injustice to the people is to go back 20 years. Weekly text of 28 Ordibehesht 1392, page 88. Qalibaf never imagined that Hashemi’s qualifications would not be approved, and he could not create dualities like in ’88 with him. That’s why he opened his mouth and attacked someone who, by his own admission, was fully supported by Ayatollah Khomeini and the leader and was considered his senior commander in the war.
He wanted to imitate Ahmadinejad in the second round of the 2005 election and the controversial 1997 election, create a bipolar situation, defeat Hashemi, and if Mashaei’s eligibility was confirmed, challenge both. But later, he faced Rouhani and lost to him, as Rouhani expressed his determination to resolve the nuclear issue, while Qalibaf said he would not meddle in matters that did not concern him.
In 2017, after his defeat in the election, Reisi described himself as a reformist in a message and wrote that the movement towards reformism should start as soon as possible. He initially challenged Hashemi and then wanted to transition from reformism to a new form of governance, although he stated that reformism itself should initiate the transition to a new form of governance, and now he sees.
Some want to label his claim of being a reformist as new and surely they are new reformists, and a higher representative than him, Ami Hossein Sabeti, a former executive of the Horizon TV network, explicitly states that we must move past false fame, just as Hashemi Rafsanjani had become outdated for him and wanted to renew politics. Now he himself is outdated for Sabeti and Rasaei.
With so many branches, neither does it have any flaws nor do others criticize it, however, it has political, moral, and principled etiquettes. The gentlemen themselves set up this game in this way, and now they should not be surprised if their literature against others is used by others against themselves. If in ’84, instead of forming a military regime and wearing the political clothes of a party, they had allowed real parties like Turkey, Pakistan, and India to compete with each other, and laws would not have been passed under his presidency in the parliament that would discourage the motivation of independent candidates, or throw them into an erosive process to be forced to pass through the Seven Thrones of Rostam. And if they had waited a little longer in ’92, or had guessed that his rival would not be Hashemi, and did not utter those words out of fear in both senses of fear, now they would not be facing the phenomenon of the new principles of neo-conservatism.
Just like in Turkey, Pakistan, and India, real parties should compete with each other, and laws should not be passed under his presidency in the parliament that would discourage the motivation of independent candidates, or throw them into an erosive process to be forced to pass through the Seven Thrones of Rostam. And if they had waited a little longer in ’92, or had guessed that his rival would not be Hashemi, and did not utter those words out of fear in both senses of fear, now they would not be facing the phenomenon of the new principles of neo-conservatism.
You cannot dislike what you like for yourself and not like it for others. If Baqer Qalibaf is legally allowed to run for candidacy and even potentially become one of the founders of the Islamic Republic and a former senior commander, it would be considered an injustice to the nation. Ten years later, Amir Hossein proves that his fame is false and plans to pass him by because you receive back from the same hand you give to, and now Mr. Qalibaf is in the process of taking back.
Persian
مشاهده این مقاله به زبان فارسی
