The approach of intellectuals towards elections
Why Iranian intellectuals do not have a significant presence in elections and do not express a negative or positive opinion about it
Perhaps first, it is necessary to agree on the definition of intellectuals and the various aspects of the intellectual spectrum. I published articles on this topic years ago in several issues of Etemad newspaper and Negah-e No magazine.
In those writings, I generally consider activities such as criticism, protest, and resistance against undemocratic governance as important elements of intellectualism in a non-democratic society with various forms of discrimination in the enjoyment of citizens’ fundamental rights.
Based on this, I have divided scholars of arts and literature and intellectual-ideological actors who are generally considered 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 fundamental critic of undemocratic governance and enforces various theoretical and practical discriminations in the arenas of freedom and justice.
In this brief conversation, perhaps this subject can be placed in parentheses and consider the intellectual in its usual sense in the public sphere as it exists in the common perception, as a semblance of it in the public view, and any intellectual or artistic work with little or much sensitivity to political issues can be called an intellectual.
With this perspective and regardless of categorizing genuine intellectuals, visible intellectuals, and anti-intellectuals, in the first section related to the discussion of determining the head of the executive branch of the country, which takes place through a process called elections, intellectuals are mainly divided into two groups that each have their own specific spectrum: intellectuals who are in favor or against participating in elections.
Supporters of participating in elections themselves consist of two main subgroups: Supporters 1, supporters of the power core, mainly forming the spectrum of supporters of principlism, steadfast front, revolutionary or right radicalism. Supporters 2, mostly moderates and some reformists who, after the absence or official boycott of several previous elections, now believe that they can change the political space by participating in elections and even send their desired candidate to the presidency. All intellectuals belonging to these two subgroups easily express their positive views orally or in writing.
Opponents of participation in elections also consist of two main subgroups. Opponent 1 encompasses a wide range of subgroups, from royalists to armed opponents of the government and political groups that do not accept any compromise with the current government in their analysis and see fundamental change in the political system with a completely different constitution as the only solution to Iran’s problems.
These individuals, mainly based outside the country, usually express negative opinions.
Opponent 2 is a subgroup that has participated in some elections before but now, based on their analysis, they find such severe political obstruction and system inefficiency that they consider it lacking in acceptability and legitimacy. They view elections as highly undemocratic or even as appointments disguised as elections or as a caricature of elections. They are tired or disheartened from participating in the game of choosing between bad and worse options and moving from one column to another in hopes of a tired or disheartened relief.
Intellectuals from this subgroup who are outside the country express their negative views, but most of those within the country do not express their negative views, and a few of them, by accepting the risk and paying the cost, express their negative opinions.
The reality is that a significant portion of intellectuals inside or outside the country who are responsible for literary and artistic creation and other public intellectual activities both within and outside the university belong to this subgroup.
Unfortunately, the public political space in the country is not as open for members of this subgroup to express their opinions publicly without consequences, and it is not such that intellectuals can freely express their opinions and criticisms or that others can logically engage in criticism of their beliefs.
Such mutual expression of opinions and criticisms undoubtedly benefits the country greatly, but the political structure and trusted agents prevent the creation of such a free public space.
This subgroup can also be divided into two sub-subgroups: those who oppose the 21 individuals who do not even participate in public discussions or elections or are not convinced to participate in such elections.
Opponents of the 22 Bahman group are willing to engage in conversations and express positive opinions if they see a relatively favorable public discourse environment and no threat of incurring costs, or if conditions arise that could lead to breaking away from the establishment or, according to some activists, pave the way for reformists or reform-minded individuals to bring hope. They are prepared to participate in discussions, be convinced to participate, and express positive opinions.
Can the silence of intellectuals be analyzed through concepts such as conforming to society or fear of audience reactions? Yes, individuals who belong to such intellectuals can be considered as part of the sub-group of opponents of the 22 Bahman, or through participation in oral discussions, intra-group discussions in virtual spaces, or personal studies and reflections, they conclude that they should participate in the elections and vote for one of the candidates. A significant portion of this sub-group is genuinely concerned about opposing society, friends, acquaintances, or audiences.
It must be acknowledged that due to the following reasons, society is largely skeptical or experiencing disillusionment, indifference, and depression towards participating in elections. Society has gone through something called elections for representation in the parliament, unfortunately, the necessary criteria for democratic elections have not been met, resulting in individuals with 4 to 10 percent of possible votes in their electoral district gaining access to the parliament to make decisions for a country grappling with various political, economic, cultural, environmental, human, ethical, health, and educational crises.
By implementing specific oversight, it is evident that presidential candidates, representatives, or actual representatives do not represent all segments of the diverse spectrum of citizens with different political beliefs or preferences.
There is no clear horizon and minimal trust in not manipulating these elections for the candidacy of a specific individual. There is no full support from all institutions for him to carry out fundamental actions in resolving various crises.
A rational discourse space and assurance of guaranteeing freedom of speech and the necessary security for a free life of citizenship critics have not emerged in a dignified manner.
In these circumstances, intellectuals belonging to the subgroup opposing 22, who have the potential to participate in the elections, are either still unable to convince themselves and their close ones to participate,
or when they are convinced to participate in the elections, they are not willing to risk inciting others, as the outcome of the election may not meet their expectations, leading to their disappointment and disillusionment.
In the coming days, as the potential for hope in the future and the impact of participation become clearer, we may witness some of these subgroups joining the subgroup in favor of 2.
Persian
مشاهده این مقاله به زبان فارسی
