THE TRANSLATION OF PART 1
Following the Islamic regime’s recent electoral mockery and the election of Mohammed Khatami as the new president of the Islamic Republic; while claiming that 29 million people, i.e., 88 percent of those eligible to vote participated in the election, the regime’s propaganda machine tried to conclude the “popularity” of the ruling system, and portrayed this alleged massive participation as “the people’s vote of confidence to the regime, as well as to its leadership” (1), and also as evidence of “the general support for the country’s political establishment”(2). Meanwhile, in order to hide the anti‑democratic nature of the Islamic Republic, the regime’s propaganda machine describes the “election” of Khatami as the natural outcome of the will of 20 million votes, which were brought out of the ballet boxes as “the people’s votes”. Such a deceiving act provides the regime with the chance to falsely depict that, under the domination of the Islamic Republic, the exercise of the people’s will is possible, and delude people to the possibility of resolving their fundamental problems within the existing establishment. By misleading the oppressed masses and creating the illusion of moderation in the regime, as well as generating the delusion of a possibility for evolution and fundamental reforms within the very same establishment, these types of propaganda try to rise against the revolutionary morale of workers and toilers, and, thereby, prevent the explosion of the people’s fury.
Studying the recent election from different angles not only illustrates the disproof of the Islamic Republic’s claims, but also is a dynamic ground for comprehending the standpoints of the various trends within the opposition whom, while being toyed by the Islamic Regime’s deceitful propaganda, once again demonstrated their true nature through their deviating and opportunist analysis and assessments during the election, and thereby, blew wind onto the windmill of the regime’s propaganda machine.
It has been attempted, in this article, to exemplify the above reality by examining the recent election in a number of concrete areas.
Katami; The People’s Choice, Or The Islamic Regime’s?
One of the propagating pivots of the regime in relation to the seventh round of the presidential “election” is the emphasis on its being “free” and “true”. Since, the atmosphere governing the public opinion, prior to the “election”, perceived the victory of Naateg Noori evident and, the analysis and assessments of the majority of political organisations too, incorrectly, approving of such a perception, after the defeat of Naateg Noori and the election of Khatami, the regime found the opportunity to disseminate on a vast stage this deceitful claim: that apparently within a “free” and “true” election, a candidate who had the support of a large part of the establishment was defeated while people, with their own votes, elected someone else. Such propaganda adds to this figment as if within the Islamic Republic political establishment, people are given the right to implement their own votes by participating in elections.
Under the circumstances, however, where the most basic prerequisites for a free election in Iran do not exist and, where the Islamic Republic, by brutally repressing any form of freedom of thought, expression or association of the press, has established such an unleashed suppression within which political organisations and parties have no possibility for any above‑ground activities, let alone engage in an electoral campaign, speaking of free elections is but a shameless deception. In fact, especially under the rule of the imperialist dictatorship, or in the regime’s words, “the rule of the supreme clergy” in accordance with which, the vast majority of people are deprived of even having the right to present their candidates and which, those candidates believing in “Islam”, “the establishment”, “the Islamic Republic Constitution” and in “the rule of the supreme clergy” have, they themselves, yet to be approved by the Guardian Council, the claim of free elections and the exercise of the people’s will seems to be more of a tale than a serious argument.
Unfortunately, both during and following the recent “election” and the propaganda waged by the regime and by its foreign supporters in this relation, we witnessed and are still witnessing a diffusion of analysis and viewpoints within the ranks of the Islamic Republic’s opposition which suggest that, indeed, the above mentioned tale is being taken seriously.
Infamous traitorous forces such as “Aksaryat” (Majority), “Democratic People’s Party of Iran” and company are among those who have not only taken the regime’s tales seriously but they have also used this election as a means to dance to the ruling criminals’ tune. These forces shamelessly portrayed the recent election and Khatami’s victory as a manifestation of the “people’s will” (3), and claimed that: “90 percent of those eligible to vote participated in the election, employed their judgement upon a very important issue and, by electing their own intended nominee, established the rule of the nation”. (4)
That such forces try to portray Chatham’s victory in the election as the manifestation of the rule of people, claiming the participation of 90 percent of the voters (5) in an election which, too, in their opinion, is not a “staged” one (6), is of course not a result of their mere ignorance but rather an answer to the needs of their strategic lines (7); a strategy that has made them into a toy in the hands of the regime’s propaganda machine.
Under the circumstances, where the Islamic Republic proclaims itself as “the rule of God” in Iran, and the leading figures of the regime openly state that “the absolute rule of the supreme clergy” obtains its legitimacy not from the votes of people but rather from God, and, furthermore, where according to Jannati, one of the clergymen of the Guardian Council, “gaining the consent of the clergy precedes that of the voters”, then speaking of a free election wherein “the people’s will” is being demonstrated, would only be expected from those who recognize for themselves no task other than licking the boots of ruling powers. Talking about “the rule of the nation” under a naked dictatorship, where the authority of “the supreme clergy” is, according to the chief of its judiciary, both “unlimited” (8) and “fully‑expandable‑by‑him” (9), requires a unique hypocrisy in which infamous currents such as Aksaryat, Tudeh Party and its various branches have proven to be rich, nay, in fact, too rich. The protracted repression resulting from the Imperialist dictatorship, or what these currents call the rule of a clique of “mullahs”, together with their futile attempts to gain from the present rulers a chunk of affection and permission to play in the regime’s game, seems to have caused these currents political amnesia; forgetting that they speak of a country wherein “the supreme clergy” had once stated that: “Even if 35 million people say YES, I would say NO”. (10)
Aside from these forces, however, which even perceive the slogan of overthrowing the ruling criminal regime as an ultra‑leftist standpoint and which, under the pretext of the people’s “vast participation” in the latest election, advertise their own cheap commodity while lashing out at revolutionary forces, even within the ranks of those organisations believing in the necessity of overthrowing the regime, we can also witness misleading analysis and assessments that explicitly display these forces’ incapability of analysing the events within the country.
For instance, although having recognised the Islamic Republic’s election as “one of the most undemocratic elections in the world” (11) and, although stating that: “participation in this election is more of an acceptance and approval of the regime than a means to expose it” (12), in its analysis on the latest election, “the Organisation of Unity of the Iranian People’s Fadaiyan” demonstrates, however, that it is unable to sustain the continuity of the above statements, and is incapable of considering the practical conclusions of these statements in their analysis. This inconsistency leads the above current to reiterate the voice of the regime’s propagandists, to portray the event as if under the domination of the Islamic Republic, people enjoy the right to vote and elect and, hence, claiming that “for the first time, people were faced with an election that had two sides, where their votes were effective in the fate of one of the two factions.” This brilliant conclusion, after all the previous suppositions, shows very well that, in fact, they only generally believed in those suppositions, and were not concerned with the practical conclusions of these suppositions. But, if “the Organisation of Union of…Fadaiyan”, with its own inconsistency, recognises the people’s right to choose between the regime’s factions as the least peculiarity of this election, and claims that for “the first time” such a possibility has come into existence under the Islamic regime, the current known as “The Minority” that always presents itself as the pioneer in the fight against “the petit‑bourgeois inconsistencies”, completes the “inconsistency” of the latter current, due to its own unique “radicalism”, and, without using the term “for the first time”, firmly states: “The Islamic Republic has recognised the Iranian people’s right to choose between the bad and the worse. (13)
Very well, if people have the right, within the Islamic Republic, to choose from among the regime’s existing factions, or as these currents word it: “choose between the bad and the worse”, then we have to ask the Minority’s comrades, whether this is a unique characteristic of the Islamic Republic’s electoral system in particular, or rather, the nature of any electoral system under capitalism (or even more concrete; under imperialism) in general? Do these comrades know of any capitalist country where “the electoral system” offers but “choosing” between “the bad and the worse”? Even in the most democratic capitalist country, where there is no “Shoraye Negahban” (Guardian Council) to approve or disapprove of the candidacy of different factions’ candidates, the electoral system has been designed and orchestrated in a way so that except “the main factions” of the ruling class, the rest of the population and political organisations cannot play a significant role and, the result of the election bears practically no fruit for the workers and toilers other than choosing between “the bad and the worse”. (14) As a matter of fact, the experience of all elections within the capitalist system in the last hundred and fifty years remarkably concurs this view of Marx that, “every three or six years, it is decided once as to which one of the ruling class’s members should be the people’s representative or their oppressor in parliament.” (15)
The reality is that even in the most democratic elections within the capitalist system, still, the issue is as to who will suppress the people, or, as the comrades say, between “the bad and the worse”, who is going to play the above role. Therefore, if we are to proceed within the framework of these comrades’ analysis, then we must accept, of course incorrectly, that apparently under the Islamic Republic we are dealing with an electoral system in which people have the right to choose between different factions of the ruling class, and that actually in the recent election too, people took advantage of this right by their “unprecedented”, “encompassing” and “vast participation” in the election and, the regime complies with it as well. And finally, what comes out of all this bafflement is that Khatami is the “people’s choice”, although a choice between “the bad and the worse”! Though, if this is how the question of the recent election is being presented, therefore we must ask our comrades, why they then call the election in the Islamic Republic “electoral jugglery” or one of “the most undemocratic elections in the world”. And indeed, with such an analysis, how are they then supposed to draw a demarcation line (!) with “the social reformists” of “The Majority” who claim, “although being undemocratic, nonetheless, within the given boundary of the ruling forces, election in Iran is real and has an affect on the balance of power”! (16)
Then again, when a political current utters that, under the dictatorship ruling Iran, people are granted the right to choose between “the bad and the worse”, it has thus adopted that “the decisive factor” in the clashes amongst different factions of the regime of “Valayateh Motlageye Fagih” (the Absolute Rule of the Supreme Clergy) is “the people’s votes”. The adoption of such an obviously vain proposition, in itself, demonstrates to what extent the said current is alienated from the realities of Iranian society.
Has the experience of the bloody eighteen‑year rule of this criminal regime not proven the falseness of such propositions, and has it not rendered that under the ruling dictatorship wrapped in the disguise of religious ideology and presented as “the rule of God”, the votes of people hold no account, and that in order to resolve its problems and internal contradictions, this regime relies not on the people’s votes but rather resorts to the organising institutions and organs such as “Valayateh Fagih” (the Rule of the Supreme Clergy), “Majliseh Khobregan” (Experts’ Council), “Majmae Tashkhiseh Maslehat” (Assembly for Expediency Management), “Shoraye Negahban” (Guardian Council) etc.? The role played by the above political bodies has clearly proven, throughout all the years of the Islamic Regime’s reign, that the most significant and vital issues in society have been arrived at and decided upon without any consideration to the people’s votes and wishes and, in fact, precisely the opposite. Of course, whenever necessary, they have orchestrated these “electoral juggleries”, and put on show the people’s “millions of votes” through a deafening propaganda in order to decorate the undemocratic and suppressive face of the regime.
Now, let us ask those who see the people’s vote as the determining factor in the conflict between the ruling class’s factions and who speak of the people’s right to choose between “the bad and the worse”. If you claim that “the ruling faction” of the regime has been defeated in the recent election, then please explain the following: Was it not the regime itself, having an assessment of the society’s conditions, aware of the fact that its candidate would be defeated by its opponent’s candidate? If so, why then did this “ruling faction” gamble its fate whereby its loss was already certain? Whereas, being “the ruling faction”, it could choose either not enter such a battlefield or veto the nomination of Khatami by means of “the Guardian Council”, which is – as these comrades agree – under the domain of “the ruling faction”. Did not this very “Guardian Council” simply deny the competency of a great portion of the candidates of the opposing faction in the election for the Forth Assembly without facing any consequential pressure? Especially under the circumstances where that opposing faction was, then, considered a powerful force and had been the implementing source of the regime’s policies for years.
As we see, no matter from what angle we deal with the above analysis, they are proven to be nothing but wrong. In their analysis, these currents make only “one small mistake” and that is that they do not notice and realise the ruling capitalist system of Iran as a decayed and sullied one whose social basis is becoming more and more limited which, therefore, leaves it with no solution other than the resorting to dictatorship and suppression. In other words, the political structure of this regime has been nothing but a naked and repressive dictatorship and could never be otherwise. A dictatorship that provides the grounds for the expansion of capital’s domination by trampling the people’s right to vote and govern themselves. Here, one can neither speak of the people’s “right to choose”, nor is there any room for the preposterous gimmicks made by the bourgeoisie in Western democracies. Consequently, although the right to choose between “the bad and the worse” is, in itself, a violation of the workers’ and toilers’ real “right to choose” (17), under the existing conditions in Iran, even this right is not granted to people, and the settlement of the regime’s internal conflicts has not been in need of the people’s votes and viewpoints. The experience of the eighteen‑year rule of the ostracised regime of The Islamic Republic, itself, demonstrates the correctness of this analysis if we refer to the history and development of its internal conflicts; from their clash on Bani‑Sadr to the dismissal of Montazari and the execution of his relatives, and from their clash with Shariyat‑Madari and the execution of Ghotb‑Zadeh to cancelling the nominations of mercenaries such as Mohtashami and Khal‑Khali, etc.
In short, we notice everywhere that the criterion in settling the inner‑conflicts of the ruling class’s various factions has never been the people’s decision. It is with the reliance on this analysis that we can avoid following the viewpoints whose harbour is the propaganda machine of the Islamic Republic and its imperialist advocates, and engage in assessing the reasons and motives that brought the regime to resort to such a major deception in the recent presidential election.
Both the Islamic Republic’s propaganda and the assessments and analyses of the majority of the opposition’s forces emphasised on the “vast”, “millions‑in‑number” and “exceptional” participation of the people in this election, and basically viewed the people’s wide participation as one of the distinctions (18) of this election.
Following the end result of the recent election, the regime’s State Department stated that 88 percent of those eligible to vote participated in the election, and that 69 percent of these voted for Khatami. Therefore, according to the State Department’s statistic makings, from Iran’s population of 60 million, 33 million were eligible to vote, and 29 million of these participated in the election of whom almost 20 million voted for Khatami. (19)
If referring to the official results of any election taken place under the Islamic Republic, we can easily see that it has always claimed that ‘millions have participated in this “masquerade” and with their votes, have stood up in support of the ruling regime’. The interesting point in these statistics is that the regime’s State Department has expanded the number of those participating in the elections according to the population growth, and whenever suitable to its interests and policies, has never hesitated to release 99 percent statistics. (20)
Of course, making up statistics of this kind has not been the unique innovation of the leaders of the Islamic Republic, and under the majority of the ruling dictatorships in dominated countries, the number of participants in these elections often swings between 80 to 99 percent. Having used this to conclude the so‑called vast magnitudes of their popular support, these unleashed dictatorships have, at the same time, made use of it in terrorising the masses and crushing their dissidents. Therefore, the “old‑minded Mullahs” ruling in Iran have not shown any particular innovation here but merely took notice of and utilised the experiences of their colleagues in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Uganda, Zaire…. Obviously, no one has forgotten the fact that under the very same Islamic Republic and after the so‑called referendum of April 1980, the government hoodlums and gangsters would yell that, “the one percent has no right to speak”, thereby presenting the Islamic Republic’s dissidents as a tiny minority that apparently, in comparison to the great majority of society, lacks any social significance.
That, by playing around with the figures, the Islamic Republic has overestimated the number of participants in the electoral jugglery of the recent presidential election is of no surprise since one of the tasks of the Islamic Republic’ State Department is to display a high level of popular participation in elections in order to fake the ruling regime’s “popular base”. However, the problem here is the acceptance and parrot‑like repetition of the regime’s made-up figures by the opponents of this regime. In accepting the statistics presented by the regime, and in analysing or, better yet, in justifying the problems based upon those propagated figures and statistics, these opponents not only reveal their political short‑sightedness but also demonstrate as to how unisonous they have become to the Islamic Republic’s propaganda machine.
When an assessment of the statistical tables presented by the regime illustrates that the claim of 13 to 29 million people or 60 to 90 percent of those eligible to vote participating in the “election” has been and still is one of the usual features of statistics‑makings of the Islamic Republic’s State Department, then portraying the character of the recent “election”, based on the acclaimed figures of the regime itself, as “millions” participating or “great majority” partaking is possible only by those who have no real understanding of “the Islamic Republic’s electoral system”. They fall for the faked statistics of the regime’s State Department inasmuch as to claim, like one of the leaders of “Rahe Kargar” who stated: “It is not a jock, 88 percent of those eligible to vote have participated in the election, and almost 70 percent of them have voted for Khatami. This shows that this was not a usual electoral incident. Such a full‑fervent participation in an election in normal situations, is rare phenomenon even within democracies.” (21)
Indeed, if we were to have a serious discourse here, what would be these individuals’ answer to the question: according to what sources do they issue these claims? Is it not that they base their claims upon the statistics published by the regime’s State Department which are, in turn, reflected by various communication services as the Islamic Republic’s official viewpoint on the results of the recent election? And if so, are they not analysing the events based upon the falsified statistics of the enemy, and by doing so, are they not indeed blowing wind onto the enemy’s windmill? In this regard, Rahe Kargar goes so very far to portray the people’s participation in the criminal Islamic Republic’s mockery of election as “rare” even in comparison to Western “democracies”!
For an organisation that considers itself Marxist, for an individual that claims to be the leader of a communist current, no more narrow‑mindedness and no more bafflement would be imaginable than assessing the bourgeoisie and its advocate governments base on their claims; claims that normally are but complete lies and that have been concocted to deceive the people. Experience has proven that “just as one cannot judge an individual based upon how the individual views his or herself” (22), when dealing with the Islamic Republic and the events related to this deceitful regime, one cannot and should not rely on claims and faked statistics presented by this regime as well but rather, one must consider the practice and prolonged rule of this regime as a criterion to understand its anti‑people reign.
In order to avoid a probable misunderstanding, it must be emphasised that, of course, the controversy here is by no means the number of participants in the recent election. Rather, it is the assessment of the Islamic Republic’s staged election based on the false statistics given by the very regime on which the discussion lies. A regime whose interests made it necessary to display the participation of the people in this electoral “event” as vastly and massively or, with Rahe Kargar’s accent if you will, as fervently as it could, and to call it a “rare” phenomenon or, according to Khamenei, name it a “glorious turning point in history”.
In relation to the motives and reasons of a sector of the population participating in this election, we can and must lay a discussion. Yet, in this kind of a discussion, before anything else, a demarcation line must be drawn with those assessments and analyses concerning the election that rely on the Islamic Republic’s falsified statistics. Only then would it be possible to take the steps forward towards both a real understanding of “the Islamic Republic’s electoral system” (23), i.e., the very system of which “many opponents of the regime”, as Rahe Kargarclaims, “present a baffled perception and propaganda” (24) that “in actuality results in the benefit of the regime” (25), and a realisation of the reasons and constraints of a sector of the population for participating in the election. Based on this, it would be easily perceivable for anyone who has a bit of knowledge of the Islamic Republic’s electoral system that presenting astronomic figures in regards to the number of participants in elections not only is a usual affair for the State Department of this regime, but in fact this department tries in various ways to portray its given statistics as real and as rational as possible. For instance, by juggling with population statistics, this department arbitrarily overrates “the percentage” of participants in each election. In the recent “election”, the State Department announced that the number of those eligible to vote was as many as 33 million and then claimed, based on the above figure, that 29 million, i.e., 88 percent of those eligible had participated in the election.
The results of the 1996 population census published up to this point, however, proves that by announcing the number of voters as 33 million, the Islamic Republic has committed an obvious fraud. According to these statistics, the country’s population was reported to be 60,005,5000. Since the minimum legal age for voting is declared as 15 years of age, by deducting all those under this age from the total population, we arrive at the number of those eligible to vote. However, due to the fact that the denotative result of the 1996 population census has not yet been completely released, by referring to the 1991 census (26) and other various statistics reported on different occasions since then, the actual number of the population under the age of 15 could be estimated to be near 23 to 24 million. Based on this, the total eligible population comes to approximately 36 to 37 million, which heavily differs from the State Department’s alleged number, i.e., 33 million. And if the actual number of those eligible is, in fact, not 33 million (27) but 37 million people, then the 29 million votes brought out of ballot boxes would only represent the participation of almost 78 percent of the voters and not 88 percent as this department claims. This simple calculation reveals one big fraud committed by the regime in the course of the recent “election”. This very fact alone proves that one should not trust the fake statistics of this defrauder regime, nor should anyone base their own assessments and analysis on such numerogimics presented by the Islamic Republic as “statistics” so that one would not fall into the deplorable situation of Rahe Kargar’sleadership who, by reliance on the false statistics of the regime’s State Department, baptises the recent staged election as an “uncommon” event and a “rare phenomenon”, thus in their own fashion, facilitating the broadcast of the enemy’s false propagation!
The fact of the matter is that in order to grant Khamenei’s wish, after him having said: “What I have asked of God, was 30 million votes”, the State Department has overrated the number of participants in the election as much as possible. Obviously, this makes it feasible for the regime to foist the people’s “vast participation” as a sign of the “popularity” of the ruling system, and thereby strengthen its position within society. However, in deed, the task of the Islamic Republic’s opposition is to expose the regime’s made-up statistics, and to illustrate the various frauds, which are the inherent characteristics of “the Islamic Republic’s electoral system” and without understanding this analysis and assessment of the recent election, even if presented by using the most fervent terms and seemingly Marxist claims, would be but “baffled propaganda” that “in actuality, result in the benefit of the regime”.
1) I.e., Mohammed Khutami
2) I.e., Ali Khumenei
3) When taking a position regarding this round of the presidential election, it has been stated in the Majority’s publication named “Kar”, dated June 4, 1997 that: “The intervention of the Islamic government’s most influential centres of power in favour of Naateg Noori, the President of the Islamic Parliament, turned out to be weaker than the people’s determination.”
4 & 6) Excerpts from Babak Amir-Khoosravi’s remarks published in the Majority’s “Kar” No. 160 dated June 18, 1997.
5) The Islamic regime itself claims that 88 percent of those eligible to vote have participated, though Mr. Amir-Khoosravi has thereby corrected the regime’s mistake!
7) In a survey taken by the Majority’s “Kar”, Babak Amir-Khoosravi declares the recent “election” as an affirmation to his own strategy of a “peaceful and parliamentary road of struggle”, and states to his colleagues that: “For us and your organisation who have been writing and insisting on the strategy of peaceful political struggle for freedom and democracy for years, there had never occurred any event as powerful to confirm our policy as this.” (same place as Nos. 4 & 6)
8 & 9) Quote from Mohammad Yazdi’s speech at the Friday prayer on June 13, 1997.
10) Quote from Khomaini’s utterances.
11 & 12) Et-te-haade Kar, No. 39, July 1997.
13) Kar-e Agaliyat (Minority’s Kar) No. 302, June 1997.
14) A look at the election process in the U.S., England and France, i.e., the three capitalist countries where elections are held in a so-called democratic manner, illustrates that the voters are eventually left with nothing but to choose between “the bad and the worse”. Undoubtedly, the comrades accept also that choosing between Clinton and Bush, Major and Tony Blair, and finally between the so-called Left and Right in France does not mean choosing between the bad and the worse.
15) Lenin’s single volume selected works, The State and Revolution, p.533.
16) Mehdi Fatah-pour’s viewpoint printed in the Majority’s publication Kar, No. 161, July 1997.
17) From the Marxist point of view, the right to a general election is but “an instrument for bourgeois domination” from which one should come to see the degree of “the working class’s development” and, thus, realise that under capitalism, “nothing more than this would be generated” from these elections. [Engels quoted by Lenin in: The State and Revolution]
18) Describing the latest presidential election, Rahe Kargar writes: “The first and foremost characteristic of this election is the pervasive participation of the people.” [The publication Rahe Kargar, No. 145]
19) Table No. 1: the results of the latest election announced by the State Department as follows:
Nominees Number of Votes Percentage
1) Khatami 20,078,187 69.1
2) Naateg Noori 7,242,859 24.9
3) Zavare-e 771,460 2.7
4) Ray-Shahri 742,598 2.6
5) Votes Cancelled 240,966? 0.8
Total 29,076,010 100
20) Table No. 2: Comparative data on the given statistics regarding different elections within the Islamic Republic, quoted from “Iran Times” dated May 30, 1997.
- The establishment of the Islamic Republic, Apr. 1, 1979: 20,288,021 votes.
- The enactment of the Constitution, Dec. 3, 1979: 13,600,000 votes.
- The 1st presidential election (Bani-Sadr), Jan. 28, 1980: 14,146,622 votes.
- The 2nd presidential election (Rajayee), July 25, 1981: 14,642,252 votes.
- The 3rd presidential election (Khamenei), Oct. 31, 1981: 16,847,017 votes.
- The 2nd round of Khamenei’s presidency, Aug. 16, 1985: 14,244,630 votes.
- The 3rd round of Federal election, April 5, 1988: 17,004,437 votes.
- The 5th round of presidential elections (Rafsanjauni) July 29, 1988: 16,439,267 votes.
- The 4th round of Federal election, Apr. 8, 1992: 18,800,000 votes.
- The 2nd round of Rafsanjauni’s presidency, June 10, 1991: 16,799,666 votes.
- The 5th round of Federal election, March 8, 1997: 24,716,692 votes.
- The 7th presidential election (Khatami), May 24, 1997: 29,076,010 votes.
21) Rahe Kargar’s interview with Mohammad Reza Shalgooni, printed in No. 146 of this publication.
22) Karl Marx; selected works, Vol. 1, pp. 269-70, Russian edition.
23, 24 & 25) [see No. 21.] Of course, we do not disagree with these statements, but we believe that Rahe Kargar itself is one of those currents that, by having a baffled understanding of the Islamic Republic’s electoral system, has engaged in propagating views which in actuality result in benefiting the regime.
26) According to the 1991 statistics, the number of the population between 5 to 14 years of age was 17 million. Considering that they have estimated the population under 5 years of age to be around 6 million, the country’s population under the age of 15 would be 23 million. Obviously, the population growth also has to be taken into consideration here.
27) Interestingly enough, prior to the election and according to the necessities back then, the Secretary of State announced the number of eligible voters to be as many as 30 million (in an interview printed on page 3 of Kayhan’s newspaper dated April 23, 1997). After the election and when announcing its results, the very same person, however, considered the number of eligible to be 33 million!