Iranian elections: fraud?

I was surprised to see the widespread accusations of voter fraud in the Iranian elections as, in its own terms, Iranian democracy is normally a pretty smooth affair. After all, if the Guardian Council can veto any candidate before they even get onto the ballot paper you don't need to stitch up the vote itself.

Take Rafat Bayat, an MP who had put herself forward as a candidate. She's essentially a conservative who is critical of the current government for it's economic mismanagement.

The Guardian Council have previously stated that there is no legal bar to women standing for the position of President and that "women have submitted their names to the Guardian Council during previous elections and the GC disqualified them only because they lacked the general qualifications".

So Rafat Bayat seemed in with a chance. Her politics were within the acceptable range and she has previously been permitted to stand for a lower position. Sadly she was not among those deemed 'qualified' for the role - but the fact that four men were should not lead anyone to assume this was on the basis of her gender. Supposedly.

When we come the these results the idea that the regime has a need to indulge in electoral fraud seems uncharacteristic but, and this is important, not impossible. Mousavi is the candidate of moderation who'd engaged with young people in a big way through mediums generally frowned upon like YouTube, twitter and the like. The government then barred access to these sites and that doesn't bode too well.

But Mousavi is not someone who wants to shake things up, but rather calm them down. He was the Prime Minister for years presiding over some of the most horrifically reactionary policies you might care to imagine. It's just he's not as keen on confrontation as his rival and so he would have been a mild improvement.

Indeed barring websites and riots on the streets are often indicators that there was a certain amount of democracy lacking, if you'll allow me a moment of understatement. The difficulty, of course, is that the Iranian government lies just as the Western media lies about Iran - which leaves us in a difficult position.

The Western media says that there was widespread electoral fraud, I think it would be extremely unwise to accept this at face value. Likewise if the Iranian regime, who appears to have curtailed democracy on a stronger scale than on previous occasions, simply announces a landslide victory for the incumbent we have to treat that with caution too. I'm sorry if that sounds like I'm hedging my bets.

There was a widespread expectation in the West that the moderate would win and when he didn't there is sympathy for those who say he must have been cheated out of the Presidency. Personally I don't think this is based on anything except wishful thinking.

It seems that over 900 people have been arrested on pro-democracy demonstrations and I support them whether or not the result is fraudulent because the entire nature of Iran's democracy is, frankly, undemocratic but that doesn't mean Mousavi definitely got more votes - it only means that at least a significant number support him, which even the official figures show.

If protesters are then rounded up and arrested that's a terrible crime against democracy whether or not they are factually accurate about the total number of votes for each candidate. Personally I would have been very happy had Ahmadinejad been sent packing by the electorate but I'm not prepared to simply accept either side's propaganda in order to confirm my own prejudices.

This was an undemocratic election, make no mistake about it. Candidates barred from standing, online media blocked, not to mention the fact that on a day to day level the ability to build political opposition to the regime is constantly hampered. The rioters deserve our support because they are voicing their frustration at a society that consistently curtails their democratic rights. That just doesn't mean their guy necessarily got more votes.