Participation or Non-Participation
The participation or non-participation in the twelfth parliamentary elections should be considered with regard to the backgrounds and contexts in which they occurred.
The eleventh parliamentary elections in 2019 were the first elections held after the protests of December 2017 and November 2019, as well as the Ukrainian airplane incident. In these elections, we witnessed a significant decrease in the percentage of participants and a notable increase in calls for non-participation, which undoubtedly had an impact on these elections as well.
On the other hand, the twelfth parliamentary elections serve as a prelude to the 2025 presidential elections, and a correct analysis and understanding of them can also be useful in understanding and predicting those elections.
Aside from the above topic, the recent parliamentary elections, contrary to what might have been expected, turned into one of the significant elections with much room for discussion, analysis, and interpretation. The primary issue in these elections was that participation or non-participation, and indeed the level of participation, became a crucial and significant matter.
In other words, campaigns, even if unwritten, formed around increasing or decreasing election turnout, with the authorities trying to get more people to vote, while some individuals and groups boycotted the elections, even though they sometimes did not use that term.
The second issue was the presence or type of presence of reformists in the elections, where a large portion of them did not participate, and unprecedentedly, even the head of the reformist government refrained from voting. In contrast, others, under the title of ‘openers,’ declared their presence through a statement, entered the electoral field, and formed alliances with some moderates and even conservatives, presenting a list.
A third issue that occurred in the recent elections was that when most reformists refused to participate, it was predictable that their social base would not attend the elections, and thus this movement could not play a significant role or influence the outcome of these elections.
Therefore, we observed that in the official absence of reformists, numerous lists emerged within the conservative movement. In fact, the importance and necessity of consensus and presenting a unified list for conservatives lost its relevance. As a result, alongside the boycott campaigns and reformists, various lists and consequently different campaigns emerged among conservatives and government supporters, the most important of which were Shana and the Iran Dawn Front.
In this series of writings, we will analyze and examine these campaigns and topics such as the second round of the twelfth parliamentary elections, the fate of the presidium elections — particularly the situation of Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf — and the impact of the twelfth parliamentary elections on the 2025 presidential elections.
First of all, we must keep in mind that when we speak of boycott and participation campaigns in the elections, we do not mean campaigns that had a predefined program and structure, utilizing campaign designers and media handlers with clear goals and messages, especially the boycotters, who encompassed a wide range and faced limitations, lacking a cohesive program and organization.
Nevertheless, based on the messages and news that were issued and the reactions that were taken, as well as the changes and corrections applied to the transmitted messages, we can speak of the boycott and participation campaigns.
The first point is that, unlike the boycotters who faced various limitations, it was expected from the authorities and system handlers to provide a cohesive, well-planned, and powerful campaign to increase public participation in the elections, something that never happened, and the election results confirmed this.
The next point is that in any campaign, after setting the campaign’s goal, the target audience and community must also be specified.
When a group aims to boycott the elections, or conversely, another group seeks to increase participation in the elections, their goal is clear. Even so, taking another step is necessary, which is selecting and targeting that segment of voters who can act in line with our goal with appropriate programs and messages.
Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the different segments of society and eligible voters must be obtained.
In a general categorization, three main groups of citizens can be considered as follows: 1) those who, for any reason, usually participate in elections, 2) those who, for any reason, usually do not vote, and 3) those who are in a state of doubt and indecision, and their opinion may change depending on an event, message, or specific condition or policy.
Evidence shows that a broad section of ordinary people falls into the third category and do not have a predetermined certainty about participating or not participating in elections. Therefore, it is very important to plan for this group and produce appropriate content and messages.
It seems that in the participation campaign, although efforts were made to motivate this group of undecideds to participate in the parliamentary elections, a proper analysis of their concerns and expectations was not conducted, and the messages produced lacked sufficient precision. As a result, they not only failed to have a persuasive aspect but sometimes had the opposite effect.
One of the messages that was occasionally heard was that participating in the elections means voting for the Islamic Republic, and in contrast, those who do not participate in the elections are not only against the Islamic Republic but also disbelieving and opposed to religion.
Other messages were as follows: non-participation in elections leads to increased sanctions, not voting will result in a weak parliament, not attending elections allows others to decide our situation, boycotters are associated with exiled opposition and foreign governments, non-participation in elections could lead to increased international pressure against the country, and as a result of not voting, tensions within the country will rise, leading to chaos and disorder. Another point that was implicitly and subtly mentioned was that not attending elections would bring issues and complications for the individual, including problems in selection processes and deprivation from some job opportunities and social services, etc.
Overall, it can be concluded that the participation campaign in elections was unsuccessful in justifying participation and persuading undecided voters.
Some messages, including the threat of increased international pressure, heightened internal tensions, economic turmoil, and livelihood issues, and the trouble for those who do not vote, could have been somewhat effective. However, other messages from the participation campaign not only lacked the necessary impact to motivate the undecided but even had the opposite effect.
In contrast, although the boycotters, for various reasons, did not have much opportunity for cooperation, communication, and organization, it seems they were able to produce and disseminate more cohesive and effective content and messages.
The boycott campaign depicted a polarized atmosphere for the people, where on one side, there was a government that used the level of public participation to legitimize its approaches, policies, and existence. Therefore, the participation campaign’s message that every vote cast is a vote for the Islamic Republic clearly worked to the advantage of the boycott campaign.
Additionally, the boycott campaign considered participation in the elections as trampling on the rights of those who were somehow harmed during the 2021 protests.
Other claims presented to the audience were as follows: participating in elections means surrendering and legitimizing the Guardian Council’s supervisory role and the exclusion of numerous critical and independent groups. The parliament does not influence the country’s major policies and strategies, so which group wins is not important. Overall, this campaign sought to convey that voting not only does not change anything but also strengthens and entrenches existing problems and trends.
Another point is the reaction of each campaign to the performance of the opposing campaign. It seems that in this area, the boycott campaign was more successful.
They responded better to the issues raised by the rival and made good use of the mistakes they made. For example, when the opposing campaign linked non-participation to the risk of increased sanctions, they reminded that these problems are not due to sanctions but rather the mismanagement and incompetence of officials. Or when they presented election boycotts as opposition to Islam, they accused them of using religion as a tool and highlighted the thesis of separating religion from politics.
In terms of practical actions, the participation campaign sought to increase competition and participation by approving a large number of candidates. Although this effort was not without effect, the boycott campaign, in contrast, created more precise messages showing that increasing the number of candidates does not mean increasing different spectrums and does not elevate the level of competition. In reality, these actions are merely quantitative without considering qualitative aspects and competitiveness.
It seems that the participation campaign could have performed much better. Given its resources and capacities, it had the potential to conduct more accurate evaluations and surveys to understand the spectrum of boycotters and undecideds and produce more effective content and messages.
In contrast, these elections turned into an arena for the boycotters to showcase their capabilities, and it seems they had the upper hand in content and message production, as well as media guidance and creating trends. They gained suitable readiness and cohesion, especially for the upcoming presidential elections. In fact, these elections served as a very good training ground for the boycotters to act stronger and more effectively in the next elections. Considering that presidential elections differ in many ways and ethnic, tribal, and regional competitions do not play a role there, the task for the boycotters’ campaign will be much easier and smoother.
Therefore, if participation in elections is important for the authorities, more and better efforts should be made to understand people’s concerns, make changes in approaches, produce and disseminate more appropriate messages, and organize elections and competition differently. Thus, it is observed that having a well-planned and goal-oriented campaign with awareness, understanding, and appropriate content and messages is very influential in the election results.