Iran paper examines rifts in reformist front

23 January 2008

Text of unattributed report headlined: A Keyhan analysis suggesting concern about disqualification in order to cover up differences in the reformist front published by Iranian newspaper Keyhan website on 20 January. Subheads as published

When Sa'id Hajjarian used the phrase ?between two Abbases' [punctuation as published here and throughout] to describe the [Islamic Iran] Participation Front, he meant to show that the Participation Front is an amalgamation of opposing forces with ?Abbas' Duzduzani on one side and ?Abbas' ?Abdi on the other.

Not many years had passed from that time when the spokesperson for the Reformist Coalition Headquarters introduced one side of the reformist front as the Freedom Movement and forces called the national-religious forces, and the other side as the [Executives of] Construction Party. This beginning depicts the existence of a history of differences in the front of those who claim to be reformists. The reality is that the front of people who claim to be reformists is full of bankrupt generals who sit at a table with no people or logistics and argue over operational plans regardless of whether or not the people are in favour of them. The salient aspects of the debates of these generals - who are not at one with the people and who consider visiting the people and getting their opinions to be populism and favouring the common people - are unremitting arguments and recurrent differences in their political positioning.

Over recent weeks, various issues have led to the front claiming to be reformists producing the black smoke of disagreement. The differences of opinion over issues such as ?Bush's support for the reformists;' ?foreign supervision of Iran's elections;' the ?radical-moderate split in the reformist front;' the ?list header game' and . . . [ellipses as published] were so deep and wide that the heads of those claiming to be reformists became concerned, for they knew that with such a divided and defeated group it would not be possible to repeat even the current minority in the seventh Majlis [parliament]!

It was here that the radicals of the Participation Front once more took centre stage and tried to create a new scenario from the attention that was paid to the screening process as a result of the en masse registration of reformists. This scenario involved inviting the unpopular, reformist generals, who want nothing to do with the people, to remain silent and cooperate, at least for a short time, so that an axis of coordination could be created for this divided front (even if only temporarily). Let us review this news item together.

The first act: Bush's support for the reformists

Following the open declaration of support by George Bush for the reformists in Iran, ?Noruz,' the official website of the Participation Party, with the publication of a statement entitled: ?Special Analysis' explicitly accepted that Bush's support stretched to the 2nd Khordad [reformist] current, and with no hesitation concluded that: Of course, we should not be accused of spying and dependence on foreigners because of this support. !

In this statement, which was apparently written by someone who is both a member of the Participation Party and the Organization of Combatants of the Revolution, the official site of the Participation Party clearly accepted the fact that Bush's recent comments were in support of the reformists and said: Because of the stances taken by a Western politician in favour of the reformists, this current should not be accused of being dependent on foreigners and of espionage, nor should it be subjected to other accusations of this ilk. (!) According to this [official] organ of the Participation Party, it has cleverly got round the issue that Bush's support for the reformists is down to this current's stances and activities which conform to the wishes of America.

However, contrary to the views prevailing in the Participation Party and the Organization of Combatants of the Revolution, a prominent member of the Executives of Construction Party considered the entry of any kind of foreign parameters into domestic equations as despicable and reprehensible and stated: The political factions in Iran are united against Bush's anti-Iranian plans. The spokesperson for the Executives of Construction Party while announcing this added: Bush should know that all the political factions in Iran are united against the anti-Iranian plans of the United States.

Hoseyn Mara'shi emphasized that after the Islamic Revolution, foreign and hegemonic powers like America have no place in Iran. The prominent member of the Executives of Construction Party stressed: It would be better for Bush to pursue his aims through his allies.

He stated: With the victory of the Islamic Revolution, foreign and hegemonic powers no longer have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of the country; the time for Bush being able to influence the internal affairs of Iran is at an end.

However, disagreement amongst the generals of the reformist front was not limited to the issue of Bush's support; it showed itself in another act.

Second act: Alliance with Freedom Movement and issue of foreign supervision of elections

At the time that the Freedom Movement spoke openly about its shameful suggestion for foreign monitors to supervise the Majlis elections, Participation radicals nurtured the dream of an alliance with the Freedom Movement! In this regard, the secretary general of the Participation Party announced the consent of his organization to the presence of nationalist-religious politicians and the Freedom Movement in the reformist coalition.

In an interview with Mehr [news agency], Mohsin Mirdamadi, in response to this question that would the Participation Front, which has no clear boundaries with the nationalist-religious politicians and the Freedom Movement, agree to the presence of these two political currents at the Reformist Coalition Headquarters, said: We in the Participation Party try to have relations with all parties and groups.

The secretary general of the Participation Front explained that the presence of political currents such as the Freedom Movement and the national-religious politicians can have a real impact on the elections and said: In any case, each of these two groups has its supporters who will take part in the elections when these groups enter. This will lead to a better turnout and more successful elections.

At the same time, the Freedom Movement also spoke of its desire to cooperate with the reformists. In this regard, a short time ago Radio Koln quoted the head of the Freedom Movement's election headquarters as saying: This current is ready to change its mind about its candidates in order to have a coalition with the reformists. Mohammad Tavasoli announced: We prefer to support the reformist list.

Also last week Ebrahim Yazdi, the secretary general of the Freedom Movement, revealed the reformists interest in the Freedom Movement. Ebrahim Yazdi reported that the reformist groups had privately expressed their wish for closer ties and cooperation with the Freedom Movement group, and claimed that because of the ?cost' involved, these groups would not openly admit to it. The secretary general of the illegitimate group the Freedom Movement, who was speaking in an interview with the internet station [website] Roozonline, said: Amongst the existing reformist groups, there are many people who are inclined towards and believe in closer ties with the Freedom Movement. But because there are costs involved in such actions, they do not see this closeness and cooperation to be to their advantage under the current circumstances.

However, following the decisive stance adopted by the Supreme Leader and the idea of foreign supervisors monitoring elections in Iran being declared ignominious, prudent individuals in the current which claims to be reformist such as Mohammad Reza ?Aref, Majid Ansari, Abdolvahed Musavi-Lari and . . . . strongly condemned the proposal of the Freedom Movement and described it as patent interference by foreigners in the internal affairs of our country. Concerning this, Musavi-Lari, the head of the policy-making council of the Reformist Coalition Headquarters, described the presence of foreign supervisors as an insult to the Iranian nation. Hoseyn Mara'shi, spokesman for the Executives of Construction Party, also wrote: The suggestion about international supervision in elections for the eighth Majlis, which has recently been put forward, is a propaganda move which will create the suspicion that political forces need the help of foreigners. It will lead to the inference that a number of individuals are trying to make themselves appear acceptable to foreigners. The reformists, and beyond them all the political forces in the country, have no need for this, and do not need to use this method to prove that democracy exists. What have international organizations done for Lebanon and the establishment of stability and security in that country?

What have the Western countries done to help establish democracy in Pakistan, a country where whenever its army and military forces decide to carry out a coup d'etat they do so, and where horrific political assassinations take place? Preserving the Iranian identity and that of the Revolution calls for us not to seek succour from foreigners, even in the worst of circumstances when we complain about one another's behaviour. Therefore we are completely opposed to foreign supervision of the elections, and we consider this suggestion to be an insult to the great Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic.

This is while only last week the official organ of the Participation Party in the publication of a statement pointed to the advantages of international supervision in the elections, but then immediately attempted to qualify this with the specious claim: Of course, we are not saying that foreigners must supervise the elections in Iran. (!)

The disagreement amongst the reformist generals does not end here either!

The third act: The radical-moderate rift

The issue of radical reformists is not a current one. In the ninth presidential elections, the Participation Party and the Organization of Combatants of the Revolution described themselves as progressive reformists, and with one exclusive candidate - whose candidature it was clear also had the implicit approval of the president of the time - they separated themselves from the others in the current claiming to be reformist. It was in this way that the reformists entered that election race with three banners.

The reality is that the bases of that historical rift can be seen in the confrontation between pragmatism and those who work within the infrastructure and inexpedience and those who work to change it.

In this regard, when registering for the Majlis elections, Mohammad Reza ?Aref (who headed the list of the Executives of Construction Party) referred to a recent comment made by Mostafa Tajzadeh and then confirmed the existence of radicals amongst the reformists. This was while Behzad Nabavi, a prominent member of the Organization of Combatants of the Revolution, on Thursday in an interview with E'temad newspaper announced: Essentially, I do not accept that there are radical-moderate divisions amongst the reformists. This type of terminology is used to create division in the reformist current.

But the reformist generals were not content to stop with disagreement over this issue, and this matter continued.

The fourth act: Disagreement over who would head the list

The radicals, who had come together in the form of a Participation-Combatant grouping, tried to slip whatever they had done to Mr Hashemi Rafsanjani in the elections for the sixth Majlis into the forgotten archives of public opinion, and, through their hypocritical support for him, seize the votes he had won in the recent elections and use them to their own advantage. This tactic, however, sank into the mire with its first step, and the Participation-Combatant radicals could not brook the presence of Hasan Rowhani and Mohammad Hashemi as reformists. It is said that they sent a clear message that they did not recognize Hasan Rowhani and Mohammad Hashemi, who are the closest political elements to the head of the Expediency Council, as reformists!

In this regard, the 8th Baharestan website (which is close to the reformist coalition), while referring to the radical stances and quoting from someone close to Hasan Rowhani, wrote: Over the past few days, some inexperienced political elements have attempted to find fault with Hojjat ol-eslam Hasan Rowhani for various reasons, and by tacitly not recognizing him as a reformist and putting conditions on his possible candidature in the upcoming elections, they are trying from now to prepare the preliminaries for breaking the unity in the reformist coalition.

In an interview with the Kargozaran newspaper, Sa'id Leylaz revealed Hasan Rowhani's isolation amongst the reformists and said: Rowhani did not come because he knows he is not a suitable parliamentary speaker for the reformists.

A new scenario was introduced when the extent and depth of the differences between the reformist generals were revealed. The Participation-Combatant radical current attempted, through a grand plan, to create a new scenario under the heading of ?disqualification en masse, recommendation of a few' and force the reformist generals into a temporary silence and a truce, and raise the banner of their ephemeral unity.

Regarding this, the Noruz website, the official organ of the Participation Party, wrote: Following comments made by Mr Khatami that I have received reports about a blinkered attitude and steps taken to deprive many of the God-fearing, experienced and enlightened forces from participating in the elections, Seyyed Mostafa Tajzadeh, a member of the Islamic Iran Participation Front's central council, presented details of these worrying reports and gave his own analysis of the method used to screen candidates.

Concerning the method used to determine who will qualify to stand in the elections, he said: With the utmost regret, I have to say that information has been received indicating that the Interior Ministry is not unbiased in this regard, and has appointed individuals to the executive committees who are affiliated with the rightist faction and the majority of whom support the elimination and disqualification of their respective rivals, be they independent or reformist.

In an interview with a reporter from Noruz, Tajzadeh added: I have heard that a number of people intend to adopt illegal measures against the candidates and fabricate dossiers for them. For this reason, there are many concerns about the policy of executive committees being selected by officials in the Interior Ministry. The most predominant view is that they will disqualify the reformist candidates en masse and then, on the recommendation of higher authorities, approve only a small percentage of them.

This new scenario intends to create a fear of disqualification so that it will embarrass the radical critics in the front claiming to be reformist to the extent that if they persist with their criticisms, they will be seen as toeing the same line as the rival current. Meanwhile, the line of those who play the innocent who are radical law-breakers and who do not enjoy even the least of qualifications will stand out in the minds of the public.

Experience shows us that the tricks of professional politicians, who think of nothing else but how to gain power, when pitted against the public opinion of the brave nation of Iran, is disgraced more than ever before. Today, no one better than the people themselves are able to identify the bright faces who will serve them from amongst the masked faces of those who claim to be democratic and reformist!

Source: Keyhan website, Tehran, in Persian 20 Jan 08