The Role of Reformists in the Emergence of the Pezhkian Government
The role of reformists in the emergence of the Pezhkian government is not just important for today but also for the future, to evaluate the role of political forces in shaping significant socio-political changes.
Based on this, the question is how much was the reformists’ share in Pezhkian’s victory in the elections? This is the subject that this note will address.
A Review of Several Important Phenomena
Just a few weeks before the presidential election, the second round of parliamentary elections in Tehran was held with an 8% voter turnout.
Meanwhile, in March 2024, during the first round of parliamentary elections, there was not a high turnout in major cities, and invalid votes became one of the surprises of this election.
The minimum votes for the moderate list, known as ‘Rozanegoshai’, in Tehran was only 10,000 votes, and in major cities like Shiraz, Isfahan, and Mashhad, this list did not succeed.
Masoud Pezhkian, who managed to enter the parliament from the major city of Tabriz, had come second in this city after several consecutive elections where he had come first.
The importance of analyzing the votes in major cities in parliamentary elections is because participation in these areas is not due to ethnic and local competitions but due to political competition and a form of political participation, making it comparable to presidential elections.
Participation in the presidential election is also a form of political participation, unaffected by ethnic and local competitions.
From this perspective, the 2024 presidential election was held in completely different conditions from previous elections. Unlike the elections of 2013, 2017, and 2021, it was not held simultaneously with city council elections, and therefore part of the electoral participation driven by ethnic and local competitions did not occur in this election.
In more precise terms, the level of participation in this election can be entirely interpreted as political participation.
Meanwhile, this election did not have a polarization like that of 2009 or a political competition like the 2005 elections, making the recent presidential election somewhat unique.
Therefore, the 2024 presidential election was held under conditions where political participation in major cities had significantly decreased in previous elections. According to some calculations, if the 2021 election had been held without the city council elections, participation would have been only 28 to 39 percent, numbers that show how much political participation had decreased.
In an atmosphere where hope for influence through the ballot box and the willingness for political participation through elections had sharply declined, the approval of Masoud Pezhkian’s candidacy and the presence of reformists in the election created a new event in terms of participation, the effective factors of which should be understood.
Why Numbers Alone Cannot Explain a Political Phenomenon
When discussing the factors affecting election results, everyone naturally turns to analyzing election statistics and surveys.
There is a perception that numbers and figures have an objective nature, and thus personal biases are not considered in their analysis.
This perception is mistaken. No matter how much an interpreter tries to be unbiased, they may still be biased in interpreting the results of a political phenomenon.
Moreover, quantitative studies are insufficient for understanding political phenomena.
For more than six decades, specialists and social scientists have emphasized the importance of qualitative studies in understanding social and political phenomena and have stressed the insufficiency of quantitative research for understanding these phenomena.
Of course, this does not mean ignoring quantitative findings in social sciences. As someone who constantly refers to numbers and quantitative findings in their studies, I believe quantitative studies are necessary for understanding social and political phenomena but not sufficient. Therefore, I believe that mixed-method approaches in understanding these phenomena can be more efficient and have higher scientific accuracy.
Based on this, I believe understanding the phenomenon of elections in Iran and the factors affecting it also requires a mixed-method approach and cannot be understood solely with quantitative data, especially if this data is only focused on electoral data and other data that help better understand people’s behavior, such as data explaining changes in people’s political attitudes or their feelings towards social phenomena, are absent in the analysis.
In addition, employing qualitative methods such as ethnographic observations and political discourse analysis is necessary to understand this phenomenon. Furthermore, understanding collective behavior without relying on theory and only relying on electoral data is also insufficient, and this approach without relying on theory will not be precise.
How the Collective Action Theory Explains the Role of Reformists in the 2024 Elections
People’s participation in elections is a form of collective action. Therefore, to better understand this participation, we should refer to collective action theories.
Based on this theory, which is rooted in rational choice theory, political actors are calculating and rational beings who seek to reduce costs and increase benefits.
In other words, individuals engage in political action and participation when the results of their calculations of the costs and benefits of political participation ultimately favor them or incur less cost.
But when do individuals feel that their political participation has benefits? One of these factors, addressed by Nobel laureate economist Schelling, is the perception of the level of participation by others. He says that people’s expectations of others’ participation levels also affect their participation. In elections, when you think others will also vote for your preferred candidate, you are likely to be more motivated to participate.
Schelling has shown his calculations on participation levels in a chart, which indicates that the higher the expectation of participation, the more people will eventually participate.
Sociologist Mark Granovetter also believes that each individual has a threshold for participating in a collective action.
That is, to join a collective action, such as participating in elections, a minimum number of people must have joined.
Charles Tilly, based on collective action theory, also believes that the more mobilization and organization increase, the more likely collective action becomes, as the power behind that collective action increases, the resources it spends decrease, and ultimately the benefits gained increase.
Based on these theories, the role of reformists in increasing participation and Pezhkian’s victory can be well explained.
The reformist group, led by Seyed Mohammad Khatami, sent a message to everyone by early support for Masoud Pezhkian and forming electoral committees for him across the country, indicating that with the organization of reformists, Pezhkian has a chance of victory.
Due to the organization and structure they have across the country, they were able to help establish Pezhkian’s committees nationwide in a short time. As Charles Tilly explained, this demonstration of organization led to an increased likelihood of collective action, meaning participation in elections among the people.
Moreover, the active presence of reformists in the elections, along with the support of figures like Mohammad Javad Zarif from the very first days, filled the threshold for many individuals regarding participation levels, creating the expectation among many that people would participate in the elections, to the extent that before the first round, some believed participation would exceed 50%.
This perception, based on collective action theories, itself motivated participation in the elections, rooted in the active and early presence of reformists in the elections.
Therefore, the early support of the Reformist Front and Seyed Mohammad Khatami for Masoud Pezhkian created a political situation that led to three significant events: first, individuals’ thresholds were filled; second, expectations of high public participation increased; and third, the display of organization, which according to Schelling, Tilly, and Granovetter’s theories, led to collective action and increased electoral participation.
The formation of support committees for Pezhkian by the Reformist Front across the country also had other consequences. In a situation where many people were unwilling to participate in the elections, and actions like the Rozanegoshai statement in the parliamentary elections could not break this atmosphere, the active presence of the reformist organization nationwide led to a change in the political atmosphere in the country, breaking the election boycott atmosphere and the spiral of silence around it, and giving many civil and political activists the courage and audacity for electoral action.
This support led many silent figures who were influential nationally and locally to come forward.
Support from figures like Keyvan Samimi and Alireza Rajaei in the second round for Pezhkian would not have been possible without breaking this atmosphere and the Reformist Front’s support for Masoud Pezhkian. I will explain the impact of this type of support in the second round further.
What Numbers Say About the Reformists’ Role in the Elections
However, alongside collective action theories, survey numbers also reveal the reformists’ role in the elections.
According to an ISPA survey, one day before the announcement of qualifications, only 27% of those intending to participate in the elections planned to vote for Masoud Pezhkian, and the total votes for moderate and reformist candidates were 65%.
With the announcement of the qualification results and in a survey conducted by ISPA three days later, Pezhkian’s popularity rose from 27% to 137%. But what happened in this three-day interval that Pezhkian’s vote increased by 11%? The first event was that Masoud Pezhkian was the only qualified candidate, so those who intended to vote for figures like Jahangiri, Larijani, or Hemmati now decided to vote for him, likely leading to his popularity growing from 27% to 65%.
But how was this gap to 137% filled?
The only other event that occurred in this three-day period was the Reformist Front and Seyed Mohammad Khatami’s support for Masoud Pezhkian.
Of course, this front had already announced before the qualification announcements that they would support Masoud Pezhkian if he participated in the elections.
The official and public support of the reformists and Seyed Mohammad Khatami for Masoud Pezhkian and the formation of their support committees across the country was the second event that led to the increase in Pezhkian’s votes and popularity in the surveys, and thus Pezhkian’s votes rose from 27% to 137% in just three days.
The starting point that greatly helped Pezhkian’s leap in the ongoing electoral competition.
Do Not Overlook the 10 to 15 Percent Who Participated in the Second Round
What had a definite and final impact on Masoud Pezhkian’s victory was the 10 to 15 percent of people who did not participate in the first round but did participate in the second round and mainly voted for Pezhkian. A significant portion of these voters in the first round neither chose Pezhkian nor accepted the reformists’ invitation to participate in the elections.
Therefore, their vote in the elections was influenced by two factors: the first and most important reason was a ‘no’ to Pezhkian’s rival, Saeed Jalili.
They participated in the elections to prevent his victory.
But the second factor was the activism of many civil, political, and academic figures like Keyvan Samimi, Alireza Rajaei, and Mousa Ghaninejad, who, although not influential on a million-scale, impact their surroundings and affect several thousand to several hundred thousand people around them.
Many of these individuals are directly or indirectly connected to the progressive reformist forces, and naturally, if the reformists were not present in the elections, they would not have participated either, and this 10 to 15 percent growth in the elections would not have occurred.
In analyzing the election results, the role of this 10 to 15 percent and their relationship with the reformist movement should be considered.
This movement has a loud voice in society and can affect the public atmosphere, as it did in the second round of elections.
Therefore, their presence should be analyzed as a continuation of the reformists’ presence, led by Seyed Mohammad Khatami.
Pezhkian’s Capable, Charismatic, and Likable Personality
What has been mentioned so far is about the effective role of reformists in Masoud Pezhkian’s victory in the elections, but we should not overlook Pezhkian’s own role.
He is a person with reformist beliefs and thoughts who speaks honestly and courageously with people, and his words resonate with them.
The support of the Reformist Front for him indicates his reformist approach, but his personal characteristics also helped him win the election.
He is down-to-earth and relatable, speaking in a way that everyone can understand. When he speaks, sincerity, which is rarely seen among many politicians these days, is evident in his words. His overall characteristics undoubtedly contributed to his victory.
If the reformists had supported someone lacking these characteristics, their chances of success would have been very low.
Therefore, alongside the reformists’ effective role, we should not overlook Pezhkian’s attitudes, characteristics, and abilities in this path. These very characteristics allowed him to gradually gain more acceptance and recognition during the debates, as he became more known to the general public.
The reformists’ support for him led to a leap in his position in public opinion and paved the way for his victory, but it was Pezhkian himself, with all his characteristics, who won the election and managed to gain the people’s acceptance.
Masoud Pezhkian’s presidency is a great opportunity for Iran and all political groups. Due to his emphasis on national unity, he can open a new path for everyone, and this idea of unity was also influential in attracting votes from various groups.
Summary
When discussing the impact of various factors on Masoud Pezhkian’s victory in the elections, it is impossible to definitively say which factor had the greatest impact.
Since it is not possible to study this political phenomenon in a laboratory environment, the weight of each of these factors cannot be measured.
For this reason, relying on quantitative data, especially limited to electoral surveys, cannot alone explain the role of various factors, and adopting a mixed-method approach is necessary.
However, based on a review of past events, it seems that political participation in the recent elections was more than in the parliamentary and 2021 presidential elections, which ultimately led to Pezhkian’s victory in the elections.
In addition to Pezhkian’s personal characteristics and abilities, several different factors, including the support of reformists alongside Mohammad Javad Zarif’s support, influenced his victory, and various political theories explain this effect.
Ignoring these factors, whether we attribute a lot of weight to them or a little, leads to a deviation from reality and causes errors in determining future strategies.
One of these errors is indifference to the supporters’ base.
Reformists and Pezhkian both have a critical need for each other, and any analysis that seeks to create a rift between the two or suggests that they do not need each other is contrary to the government’s discourse, national interests, and the interests of the government and the reformists.
