The role of reformists in the emergence of the government of physicians
The significance of the role of reformists in the emergence of the government of physicians is not for today but for the future, to evaluate the role of political forces in shaping important social-political developments.
Based on this, the question is how much was the role of reformists in the victory of physicians in the elections. This note will address this issue.
A review of several important phenomena
Just a few weeks before the second round of presidential elections, parliamentary elections were held in Tehran with 8% public participation.
This is while in February 2024, during the first round of parliamentary elections, there was not high participation in major cities, and invalid votes were one of the surprises of these elections.
The vote share of the moderate forces list known as ‘Roozanehgoshi’ in Tehran was only 10,000 votes, and in major cities like Shiraz, Isfahan, and Mashhad, this list did not succeed.
Masoud Pezeshkian, who had succeeded in being elected to the parliament in the major city of Tabriz, had become second in this city after several consecutive elections where he used to be first.
The importance of analyzing the votes of major cities in parliamentary elections lies in the fact that in these areas, participation in elections is not driven by ethnic and local competitions, but by political competition and a form of political participation, which can be compared to presidential elections.
Participation in presidential elections is also a form of political participation, unaffected by ethnic and local competitions.
From this perspective, the 1403 presidential elections were held under completely different circumstances compared to previous elections. Unlike the elections in 92, 96, and 1400, these elections were not held simultaneously with city council elections. Therefore, a portion of election participation resulting from ethnic and local competitions did not materialize in these elections.
More precisely, the level of participation in these elections can be entirely interpreted as political participation.
This is while in these elections, there was no bipolarity like in the 88 elections or political competition like in the 84 elections. These factors made the recent presidential elections somewhat unique.
Therefore, the presidential election of 1403 was held under conditions where political participation in major cities had significantly decreased compared to previous elections. Some calculations indicate that if the 1400 elections were held without city council elections, participation would have been only 28 to 39 percent, showing the extent to which political participation had declined.
In a context where hope for effectiveness through the ballot box and the desire for political participation through elections had drastically diminished, the approval of Masoud Pezeshkian’s eligibility and the presence of reformists in the elections marked a new development in terms of participation that requires understanding the influential factors.
One cannot explain a political phenomenon solely with figures and numbers.
When discussing the factors influencing election results, it is natural for everyone to turn to the analysis of election statistics and polls.
There is a perception that numbers have an objective nature, and therefore individual biases are not considered in their analysis.
This perception is erroneous. Regardless of how impartial an interpreter tries to be, biases can still affect the interpretation of the results of a political phenomenon.
In addition, quantitative studies are insufficient in understanding political phenomena.
For over six decades, experts and scientists in social sciences have emphasized the importance of qualitative studies in understanding social and political phenomena and have criticized the inadequacy of quantitative research in comprehending these phenomena.
However, this does not mean disregarding quantitative findings in social sciences. As someone who constantly refers to numbers and quantitative findings in their studies, I believe that quantitative studies are necessary but not sufficient in understanding social and political phenomena. Therefore, I believe that mixed methods approaches in understanding these phenomena can be more effective and provide a higher level of scientific accuracy.
Based on this, I believe that understanding the phenomenon of elections in Iran and the influencing factors requires a mixed method approach. It is not possible to solely understand it with quantitative data, especially if the data is solely focused on election data and neglects other data that helps in better understanding people’s behavior, such as data that explains changes in people’s political attitudes or emotions towards social phenomena in absent analysis.
In addition, employing qualitative methods such as ethnographic observations and political discourse analysis is necessary to understand this phenomenon. Alongside that, understanding the collective behavior of people without relying solely on theory and only on electoral data is insufficient, and this theory-independent approach will not lead to a precise understanding.
How does the theory of collective action explain the role of reformists in the 1403 elections?
People’s participation in elections is a form of collective action, therefore, to better understand this participation, one should refer to theories of collective action.
According to this theory, which has its roots in rational choice theory, political actors are calculative and rational beings seeking to minimize costs and maximize benefits.
In other words, individuals engage in political action and participation when the calculations of their costs and benefits ultimately favor them or incur lesser costs.
When do people feel that their political participation is beneficial? One of the factors that Nobel laureate economist Schelling has addressed is the perception of others’ participation. He says that people’s expectations of others’ participation also influence their own participation. In elections, when you imagine that others will also vote for your choice, you will likely find more motivation to participate.
Schelling has illustrated his calculations based on the level of participation in a graph, showing that the higher the expectation of participation, the greater the number of people who will ultimately participate.
Sociologist Mark Granovetter also believes that each individual has thresholds for participating in a collective action.
This means that in order to join a collective action, such as participating in elections, there must be a minimum number of people already involved.
Charles Tilly also, based on the theory of collective action, believes that as mobilization and organization increase, the likelihood of collective action also increases. This is because as the power behind collective action grows, the resources it costs decrease, and ultimately the benefits obtained increase.
Based on these opinions, the role of reformists in increasing participation and the victory of the physicians can be well explained.
The reformists, led by Seyyed Mohammad Khatami, sent a message to everyone by supporting Masoud Pezeshkian early on and forming election headquarters for him nationwide, indicating that with the organization of reformist physicians, there is a chance of victory.
Due to the organization and structures they have throughout the country, they were able to help the formation of physicians’ headquarters nationwide in a short period of time. As Charles Tilly explained, this organizational display led to an increased likelihood of collective action, meaning participation in elections among the people.
Furthermore, the active presence of reformists in the elections, alongside the support of figures like Mohammad Javad Zarif from the very beginning, led to a high level of participation from the early days. This created an expectation in many people that the public will participate in the elections to the extent that before the first phase, some thought participation would exceed 50%.
This perception, which was the stimulus for participation in the elections based on collective action theories, had its roots in the active and early presence of reformists in the elections.
Therefore, the early support of the Reformist Front and Seyyed Mohammad Khatami for Masoud Pezeshkian created a political situation that led to 3 important events: first, the threshold of individuals was filled; second, expectations for high public participation increased; and third, organizational visibility, which according to the theories of Schelling, Tilly, and Granovetter, led to collective action and increased electoral participation.
The formation of support headquarters for Pezeshkian by the Reformist Front nationwide had other consequences. In a situation where many people were not willing to participate in the elections and actions such as the statement of ‘Rooznegar’ in the parliamentary elections could not break this atmosphere, the active presence of reformists across the country changed the political atmosphere in the country. The election boycott atmosphere and the spiral of silence surrounding it were broken, and many civil and political activists found the courage to engage in electoral action.
This support led many silent figures who were influential at the national and local levels to come to the forefront.
The support of figures like Keyvan Samimi and Alireza Rajaei in the second round of the elections without breaking this space and the support of the reformist front for Masoud Pezeshkian may not have been possible. I will explain the impact of these types of support in the second round later.
What do the numbers say about the role of reformists in the elections?
But alongside collective action opinions, poll numbers also reveal the role of reformists in the elections.
According to an ISPA poll conducted a day before the announcement of candidacies, only 27% of those intending to participate in the elections would vote for Masoud Pezeshkian, and the total votes for moderate and reformist candidates were 65%.
With the announcement of candidacy approvals and a poll conducted by ISPA three days later, Pezeshkian’s popularity had increased from 27% to 137%. But what happened in these three days that led to a 11% increase in Pezeshkian’s votes? The first event was that Masoud Pezeshkian was the only approved candidate, so those who intended to vote for figures like Jahangiri, Larijani, or Hemmati in the elections had now decided to vote for him, likely leading to his popularity growing from 27% to 65%.
But how did this gap fill up to 137%?
The only other event that happened during these three days was the support of the Reformist Front and Seyyed Mohammad Khatami for Masoud Pezeshkian during this period.
Of course, this front had announced in advance that they would support Masoud Pezeshkian if he participates in the elections before confirming their endorsements.
The official and public endorsement of the reformists and Seyyed Mohammad Khatami for Masoud Pezeshkian, and the formation of their supporting headquarters across the country, was the second event that led to an increase in Pezeshkian’s votes and popularity in the polls. As a result, Pezeshkian’s votes increased from 27% to 137% in just 3 days.
This starting point contributed significantly to the surge of Pezeshkian in the subsequent election competition.
Let’s not overlook the role of the 10 to 15 percent who participated in the second round of elections.
What had a definite and final impact on Masoud Pezeshkian’s victory was the participation of 10 to 15 percent of the people who did not participate in the first round of elections but voted in the second round, mainly giving their votes to Pezeshkian. A significant portion of these voters did not choose Pezeshkian in the first round and did not accept the invitation of the reformists to participate in the elections.
Therefore, their vote in the election was influenced by two factors. The first and most important reason was not to vote for their medical rival, Saeed Jalili.
They participated in the election to prevent his victory.
But the second factor was the significant influence of many civil and academic activists such as Keyvan Samimi, Alireza Rajaei, and Mosi Ghaneinzad. Although they may not have a million-dollar impact, they are influential in their surroundings and affect tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people in their environment.
Many of these individuals are connected, directly or indirectly, to the leading forces of reform. Naturally, if the reformists were not in the election, they would not participate in the election through the first means, and this 10 to 15 percent growth in the election 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 taken into account.
This movement has a strong voice in society and can influence the public sphere, as it did in the second round of the election.
Therefore, their presence should be analyzed alongside the presence of reformists, with Seyyed Mohammad Khatami at the forefront.
A competent, attractive, and likable personality, the doctors.
What has been mentioned so far about the influential role of the reformists in Masoud Pezeshkian’s victory in the elections, but in the meantime, the role of Pezeshkian himself should not be overlooked.
He is a person with reformist beliefs and thinking who honestly and courageously speaks with the people and his words resonate with them.
The support of the reformist front for him reflects his reformist policy, but his personal characteristics also contributed to his victory in the elections.
He is down-to-earth and people-oriented, speaking in a straightforward manner, which is less seen among many politicians these days. His overall qualities undoubtedly played a significant role in his victory.
If the reformists supported someone lacking these qualities, their chances of success would have been very low.
Therefore, alongside the influential role of the reformists, the attitudes, characteristics, and abilities of Pezeshkian should not be disregarded on this path. These very qualities of his gradually made him more accepted and popular during the debates, which increased his acceptance among the general public.
The support of the reformists led to a shift in his position in the public opinion and paved the way for his victory. However, it was his own qualities as a physician that won him the election and enabled him to gain acceptance among the people.
The presidency of Masoud Pezeshkian is a great opportunity for Iran and all political groups. His emphasis on national unity can open up a new path for everyone, and this idea of unity was also effective in attracting votes from various groups.
Summary
When discussing the impact of various factors on Masoud Pezeshkian’s victory in the election, it cannot be definitively stated which factor had a greater influence.
Since it is not possible to study this political phenomenon in a laboratory setting, the weight of these factors cannot be measured.
Therefore, relying on limited quantitative data, mainly from election surveys, cannot solely explain the role of various factors, and taking a combined approach is necessary.
However, based on a review of past events, it appears that political participation in the recent elections was higher than in the parliamentary and presidential elections in 2021, ultimately leading to Pezeshkian’s victory in the election.
Alongside the personal characteristics and abilities of physicians, various factors such as the support of reformists alongside the support of Mohammad Javad Zarif have influenced his victory, and different political opinions explain this effect.
Ignoring these factors, whether we attach great importance to them or little, leads to deviation from reality and causes everyone to make mistakes in determining future strategies.
One of these mistakes is indifference towards supporters.
Reformists and physicians both crucially need each other, and any analysis that aims to create a gap between them or to imply a lack of need between them would be contrary to the government’s discourse policy, national interests, government interests, and reforms.
Persian
مشاهده این مقاله به زبان فارسی
