The Approach of Intellectuals to Elections
Why do Iranian intellectuals not have a meaningful presence in elections and do not express a negative or positive opinion about it?
Perhaps first we need to agree on the definition of an intellectual and the various segments of the intellectual spectrum. Years ago, I published articles on this topic in several issues of the Etemad newspaper and the Negah-e-No magazine.
In those writings, I generally consider critical actions, protests, and standing against undemocratic governance as important elements of intellectualism in a non-democratic society with various discriminations in citizens’ fundamental rights.
Based on this, I have categorized educated individuals involved in arts and literature and ideological thinkers of the public sphere, who are typically called intellectuals, into three main groups: true intellectuals, pseudo-intellectuals, and anti-intellectuals.
Therefore, I consider a true intellectual in such societies to be someone who is a principled critic of a regime that is undemocratic and imposes various theoretical and practical discriminations in the realms of freedom and justice.
In this brief discussion, perhaps we can set aside this topic and consider the intellectual in the usual sense in the public sphere as it appears in the mutual understanding among people, and call any intellectual or artistic practitioner with some sensitivity to political issues an intellectual.
With this perspective and without considering the spectrum of true intellectuals, pseudo-intellectuals, and anti-intellectuals, in the first categorization related to the discussion of determining the head of the executive branch of the country, which occurs through the so-called election process, I mainly see intellectuals as two groups, each with its own spectrum: those who are for or against participating in elections.
Proponents of participating in elections form two main subgroups. Proponents 1 are supporters of the core power, mainly forming the spectrum of principlists, the Stability Front, and neo-revolutionaries or radical right. Proponents 2 are mostly moderates and some reformists who, after not participating or officially boycotting several previous elections, now believe they can change the political atmosphere by participating in elections and even send their desired candidate to Pasteur. All intellectuals belonging to these two subgroups easily express their positive opinion verbally or in writing.
Opponents of participating in elections also form two main subgroups. Opponents 1 are a wide range of overthrow advocates from monarchists to armed opponents of the regime and political groups that, in their analysis, do not accept any compromise with the current regime and see the solution to Iran’s problems only in a fundamental change of the political system with a completely different constitution.
These individuals, who mostly reside outside the country, usually express negative opinions.
Opponents 2 are a subgroup that previously participated in some voting but now, based on their analysis, find the political deadlock and the regime’s inefficiency so severe that they consider it lacking legitimacy and elections as having many undemocratic flaws or even as appointments disguised as elections or a caricature of elections, and are tired or disillusioned with participating in the game of choosing between the lesser of two evils and moving from one column to another in hope of relief.
Intellectuals from this subgroup who are outside the country express their negative opinions, but most of those within the country do not express their negative opinions, and a few of them, accepting the risk of paying a price, express negative opinions.
The reality is that a significant portion of intellectuals inside or outside the country, who are involved in literary and artistic creation and other general intellectual activities inside and outside universities, belong to this subgroup.
Unfortunately, the public political space in the country is not open enough for the public expression of opinions by individuals in this subgroup to be without cost to them, and it is not such that intellectuals can have relative freedom to express opinions and criticisms and others can logically express opinions and criticisms of their beliefs.
Such mutual expression of opinions and criticism undoubtedly has great benefits for the country, but the political structure and its trusted agents have prevented the creation of such a public space of freedom.
This subgroup can also be divided into two sub-subgroups. Opponents 21 are those who, even with an open public space for dialogue, do not participate in elections or are not convinced to do so.
Opponents 22 are those who, if a relatively favorable public dialogue space emerges and they are not under the threat of paying a price, or if conditions arise that allow them to hope for a way out of the deadlock or, as some new reformist or reforming activists say, for opening new horizons, are ready to participate in dialogue and be convinced to participate and express positive opinions.
Can the silence of intellectuals be analyzed with categories like following society or fear of audience reactions? Yes, those who belong to sub-subgroup Opponents 22 or, through participation in oral dialogue or limited in-group dialogue in virtual spaces or personal studies and reflections, conclude that they should participate in elections and vote for one of the candidates can be considered such intellectuals. A large part of this sub-subgroup is genuinely concerned about societal opposition or the opposition of close and distant friends and acquaintances or audiences.
It must be acknowledged that for the following reasons, society is largely disbelieving or experiencing hopelessness, discouragement, and depression regarding the impact of participation in voting: 1. Society has gone through something called elections for parliamentary representation, where unfortunately the necessary criteria for democratic elections were not observed, resulting in individuals with 4 to 10 percent of the possible votes in their electoral district entering parliament to make decisions for a country entangled in various political, economic, cultural, environmental, human, ethical, health, and educational crises.
2. With the implementation of specific supervisory approval, presidential candidates do not truly represent all segments of the citizen spectrum with different beliefs or political tastes.
3. There is no clear horizon and minimal trust regarding a) the non-engineering of the same elections for appointing a specific candidate, b) the individual and group capabilities of the person emerging from the ballot box, c) the complete support of all institutions for them to take fundamental actions in solving various crises.
4. A space for logical dialogue and assurance of freedom of expression and the necessary types of security for a free critical citizen life has not been adequately created.
In these conditions, intellectuals belonging to sub-subgroup Opponents 22, who have the potential capability to participate in elections, a) either still cannot convince themselves and their close ones to participate,
b) or whenever convinced to participate in elections, they are not willing to take the risk of encouraging others, as the result of the voting might not be what they hope for, leading to them being pointed at and embarrassed.
In the coming days, with the potential clarification of a hopeful horizon regarding the future and the impact of participation, we might witness some of this sub-subgroup joining subgroup Proponents 2.
