I don't have grand insights to share about the recent elections in Lebanon and in Iran. But I do have a few remarks and questions, which I hope might make you reconsider your own insights.
First, on Lebanon:
Lebanon is one of the few 'democracies' in the region (and surely the sexiest, too).
The Lebanese elections weathered away from our media coverage because 'the good guys' won - or rather because Hezbollah lost, and all's well that ends well. Fine.
Two things I find unsettling about the Lebanese elections:
a. The breakdown of parliamentary seats - by law, 64 are for Christians, and 64 for Muslims (Sunnis + Shias) is simply unrepresentative of the reality of Lebanon. Which everyone over there knows - and which is why no census has been undertaken in Lebanon since the 1970s.
The problem is that attempting to renegotiate this settlement can be very problematic - and as we recall from the past couple of years, when Hezbollah attempted to stretch its muscles over Lebanon - things can very rapidly get nasty, with confrontations on the streets and what not.
So, these were "democratic" elections - with quotations marks firmly embedded.
b. The camp of Saad Hariri, the accidental politician - whom I dislike, partly because of his stupid facial hair but also because he's cruising on his last name to take positions he wouldn't qualify for if he had IQ-tripling surgery - was the one that 'the West' was rooting for. Fair enough, we all pick our horses.
Saad Hariri, trying to assert his independence, declares that
"We are keen on doing what the Lebanese want and not what the U.S., Europe or Israel want".
Alright, grand.
But for him to stand at a press conference, side by side with US secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, and give his 'the people of Lebanon is the real winner of this election' spiel and then turns to LaHood, switches to English, and says that "we're looking forward to do what is best for the interest of Lebanon, and of the United States" -- does no one find this aberrant??
Imagine it was Hezbollah that had won the elections, and Nasrallah would've stood with an Iranian minister, and said, in Farsi, "we will do what is best for the interests of Lebanon and of Iran" -- wouldn't we all be shouting 'treason'?
I'm sorry, I cannot be fully excited about the Lebanese elections. Not until I see the government working for the interests of its own people -- all of it.
Second, on Iran:
Now I'm rooting for Mir-Hossein Mousavi, and not just because he follows me on Twitter. (yes, he does). But for his stances on personal liberties in Iran, and more importantly because the madman in charge is driving Iran on full-collision course, which needs to be stopped asap.
(and also because my Iran affairs experts Mali said she would vote for him).
So officially - Ahmedinejad supposedly won reelection, with 70%+ of the votes. Mousavi supporters are taking the streets. Internet, text messaging is suspended. Facebook is down. Information trickling informs us of mayhem in the street of Tehran, apparently. Mousavi under house arrest. Mousavi formally challenges election results. Marshal law in Tabriz. Protests in front of embassies abroad.
Etc.
(I'm checking this appparently US-based website, which I know little about but regularly updates its info).
By now we all know where we stand, and the row is still ongoing.
But consider this. Mousavi's electorate is, well, Obama-esque: young, urban, educated. Ahmedinejad seems to have large support in rural areas and lower socio-economic groups.
Add to this the reports that demos in support of Ahmedinejad are apparently no less big that Mousavi's (with the caveat that you won't go to jail for rooting AN but might if you're pro-Mousavi, which alters the numbers).
My point is: the information we get about Iran today is heavily selective. We need to remember that, and perhaps consider alternative sources as well.. and hope for the best. Right now, a recount - allegations of serious fraud (10 million ballots which have no national ID numbers (hence seemingly fake), according to Mousavi's newspaper) need to be answered. And let's hope for as little violence as possible...
"We write Mousavi, they read Ahmedinejad"
First, on Lebanon:
Lebanon is one of the few 'democracies' in the region (and surely the sexiest, too).
The Lebanese elections weathered away from our media coverage because 'the good guys' won - or rather because Hezbollah lost, and all's well that ends well. Fine.
Two things I find unsettling about the Lebanese elections:
a. The breakdown of parliamentary seats - by law, 64 are for Christians, and 64 for Muslims (Sunnis + Shias) is simply unrepresentative of the reality of Lebanon. Which everyone over there knows - and which is why no census has been undertaken in Lebanon since the 1970s.
The problem is that attempting to renegotiate this settlement can be very problematic - and as we recall from the past couple of years, when Hezbollah attempted to stretch its muscles over Lebanon - things can very rapidly get nasty, with confrontations on the streets and what not.
So, these were "democratic" elections - with quotations marks firmly embedded.
b. The camp of Saad Hariri, the accidental politician - whom I dislike, partly because of his stupid facial hair but also because he's cruising on his last name to take positions he wouldn't qualify for if he had IQ-tripling surgery - was the one that 'the West' was rooting for. Fair enough, we all pick our horses.
Saad Hariri, trying to assert his independence, declares that
"We are keen on doing what the Lebanese want and not what the U.S., Europe or Israel want".
Alright, grand.
But for him to stand at a press conference, side by side with US secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, and give his 'the people of Lebanon is the real winner of this election' spiel and then turns to LaHood, switches to English, and says that "we're looking forward to do what is best for the interest of Lebanon, and of the United States" -- does no one find this aberrant??
Imagine it was Hezbollah that had won the elections, and Nasrallah would've stood with an Iranian minister, and said, in Farsi, "we will do what is best for the interests of Lebanon and of Iran" -- wouldn't we all be shouting 'treason'?
I'm sorry, I cannot be fully excited about the Lebanese elections. Not until I see the government working for the interests of its own people -- all of it.
Second, on Iran:
Now I'm rooting for Mir-Hossein Mousavi, and not just because he follows me on Twitter. (yes, he does). But for his stances on personal liberties in Iran, and more importantly because the madman in charge is driving Iran on full-collision course, which needs to be stopped asap.
(and also because my Iran affairs experts Mali said she would vote for him).
So officially - Ahmedinejad supposedly won reelection, with 70%+ of the votes. Mousavi supporters are taking the streets. Internet, text messaging is suspended. Facebook is down. Information trickling informs us of mayhem in the street of Tehran, apparently. Mousavi under house arrest. Mousavi formally challenges election results. Marshal law in Tabriz. Protests in front of embassies abroad.
Etc.
(I'm checking this appparently US-based website, which I know little about but regularly updates its info).
By now we all know where we stand, and the row is still ongoing.
But consider this. Mousavi's electorate is, well, Obama-esque: young, urban, educated. Ahmedinejad seems to have large support in rural areas and lower socio-economic groups.
Add to this the reports that demos in support of Ahmedinejad are apparently no less big that Mousavi's (with the caveat that you won't go to jail for rooting AN but might if you're pro-Mousavi, which alters the numbers).
My point is: the information we get about Iran today is heavily selective. We need to remember that, and perhaps consider alternative sources as well.. and hope for the best. Right now, a recount - allegations of serious fraud (10 million ballots which have no national ID numbers (hence seemingly fake), according to Mousavi's newspaper) need to be answered. And let's hope for as little violence as possible...
"We write Mousavi, they read Ahmedinejad"(all photos shamelessly stolen from Facebook).
4 comments:
My 2 cents worth on Iran:
- First Cent:
Everyone wants to see a bad omen in the reelection of Ahmedinejad. But since he's been first elected we've had intense diplomatic shuttling in the area, a Saudi Peace initiative for Palestine and Israel that might be gathering steam, Syria and Israeli meeting, a changed rhetoric on the part of the US diplomacy ( at least for the time being)... It seems to me that Ahmedinejad's antagonizing the region leaders might actually have the reverse effect of pushing them towards more cooperation and concessions for the sake of peace and stability. Don't you think?
- Second Cent:
It is my opinion that there is much more love in Iran than the media would like us to believe. My cousin who travels often on business (yes on Business) to Tehran tells me countless stories that comfort me in this opinion.
Just look at that 3rd picture on your post Mo-ha-med: the guys are more likely to kiss each other and make love than fight! or maybe fight then kiss!
Mohamaed, I believe you may be right on Iran. From what I've read, the demonstrations are mostly in urban areas, and also very close to hotels where the foreign media stays. Unfortunately, those who smell something dodgy might be rushing into things.
But then again, at the end of the day, it's Ahmedinajad we're talking about, right? :)
Bruno
I like the fight than kiss. But remember: there are no gays in Iran!
Interesting point re: Ahmedinejad pushing people towards concessions.
One thing is sure, he's created a new refrain among some people in the Arab world who now believe that Iran is the public enemy number 1 to the Arabs, not Israel - which is something they'd never have said under Khatami (or under a Mousavi, I may claim).
So it surely destabilises the balance of forces as we know it in the Missile East, but i'm not necessarily sure it's for the best...
Ami
I just received this on twitter - some Iran expert (whom I admit i don't know) believes that Ahmadinejad may indeed have won the elections, and that there's an "Extraordinary Amount of Wishful Thinking by the US" regarding those results.
I also think that we can handle a few more years of Mahmoud - after all, he's a big mouth but he's easily manageable, it seems to me.
But yes, as you say, it is Ahmedinejad at the end of the day. :)
Some more cents on Iran: (man that country is gonna end up costing me a lot!)
But first i have to point out Mo-ha-med's witty typo (it was a typo wasn't it? unless you're using an azerty keyboard) : Missle East!
-The balance of powers in my opinion started to shift when Hamas was elected and some countries had no other alternatives but give some leeway to Iran to finance it. No one is going to make me believe that Iran can smuggle arms, ammunitions and cash into Gaza w/o the other big powers in the region knowing and acquiescing, to a certain extent (the US included).
Is this shift for the best?
If it forces the main regional powers to seat down, "acknowledge in public what they say in private", to sign a comprehensive just peace: why not?
If it pushes Israel in a further rightist and antagonistic position which consequently leads to further distancing and freedom to US foreign policy in the region to help force peace upon all: why not?
I really don't see the risks of a new Ahmedinejad administration?
-As for the "Extraordinary Amount of Wishful Thinking by the US", one ought to never underestimate the power of self-deception in foreign policy. There is a truck load of books and scientific studies written by specialists about self-deception and cognitive dissonance . And foreign policy is not immune to the phenomenons. I have to admit that although Juan Cole makes some good points in his blog, i'm not totally convinced that they altogether amount to evidence or proof of foul play.
-Furthermore, i think that people tend to forget also the power of the peasantry in Iran. Elites alone are hardly ever enough to bring change.
-Also we, people in the west, tend to focus too readily and conveniently on buzz words like democracy or freedom, without realizing that in some countries corruption is the critical element in the way people evaluate candidates. It is indeed my view that for many countries the lack of fairness, transparency and rule of law is more detrimental to their well being than the lack of democracy.
PS: Mo-ha-med, the contrast in the way you write and that mean look in your eyes had already convinced me that you'd go for the more kinky wrestling version...lol
Post a Comment