Playing with Participation
Playing with participation usually sees a surge of comments from government figures, candidates, and media known as the revolutionary current around each election, following the line of increasing participation and presence at the ballot boxes.
However, the 2024 elections seem different from previous rounds because currently, the call for participation is heard less.
1. During the past three elections, we faced the phenomenon of minimum votes, a phenomenon whose reasons we have repeatedly outlined. Maintaining the minimum votes is of interest to the conservatives because, over these three elections, their vote basket from the most fundamentalists to the traditionalists has been clearly identified.
Frankly, conservatives are in an absolute minority, which is why they have no interest in increasing participation. It’s sufficient just to meet the minimum legal requirement.
2. The effort to reduce participation can be seen as an attempt to guide the votes.
By reducing the votes to the ideological, duty-bound voting body and changing the nature of elections to a voting mechanism, one can easily be assured of the outcome as long as the desired candidates are on the list. This is not necessarily done by the government but by a faction that sees itself as the complete structure of the government. The tool for this is playing with the law.
3. Reviewing some media affiliated with institutions, especially their newspapers, shows that the arrangement of conservative candidates, the reformist consensus on Masoud Pezeshkian, and their internal competitions have worried them.
The sudden passing of Seyed Ebrahim Raisi took away the opportunity to resolve their differences.
The competitions over the parliament and the clashes between Chenar and Pajosh clashed with the early fourteenth elections. If there was supposed to be a vote for the second term of the late president of the thirteenth government, the discussion would have been different, and 2021 would likely have been repeated.
But now the presidential seat is empty, and besides a single reformist candidate, there are five conservative contenders, each currently claiming a part of the conservative votes unevenly. This division of votes among multiple candidates is a concern that occupies their minds.
That’s why the editor of Kayhan wrote in his note that these days, many revolutionary and committed forces have a common question that circulates and seeks an answer.
The question is which candidate from the revolutionary front should we vote for.
The writer’s answer is to vote for the candidate who will be identified after their coalition. They ask, what if they don’t form a coalition? The answer is that in that case, it doesn’t make much difference which one you vote for.
Because if they don’t form a coalition, each of them will attract a portion of the people’s votes, and it is obvious that in this case, the total votes of several people cannot easily compete with the total votes cast in a single basket.
Increasing participation disrupts the conservative game, perhaps that’s why the line of increasing participation is not pursued with the old enthusiasm.
It is unclear whether five years after the start of the purification process, playing with the public’s vote in this economic situation and accumulated discontent, alongside the reformist vote base, the gray votes will be activated or not. If activated, the course might change. Post-election and the effort to return the country’s trajectory to the right path, though difficult, should not be forgotten.
4. The line of ‘what can you do’ is pursued by these media instead of increasing participation.
The opposing side knows that if they lose, changes will occur in any case because the current pure team will be sidelined, and this situation and the policies that are favorable for its instigators might change. Therefore, high participation can ruin a multi-year plan.
5. An interesting point about this situation is that in this election, those who are attacked every few days or perhaps every day by some media are currently making more efforts to increase participation.
Another interesting point is the effort to eliminate the slight hope for change that has emerged. This effort is ongoing in both official and unofficial spaces. If anti-Iran political or quasi-political forces are pursuing this line, it is not surprising.
It is surprising to see the forces claiming revolution aligning with anti-revolutionary forces.