Mousavi could be the change the whole world needs

By James Millls

Today Iranians are at the ballot box choosing who they wish to represent them. I know our society is more liberally tolerant even though we too have an un-elected theocratic head of state. The difference is that ours has a more symbolic role in appointing the elected official who presides over us. But what is rather depressing is that Iran is perhaps more democratically advanced than we are in some regards: their elected leader at least can claim to have a majority of the votes cast, unlike ours. Today they are even expecting to have high levels of turnout.

In Iranian elections, if you fail to win more than 50 percent of the vote then there is a run off between second and first so that whoever is elected knows they stand on a mandate from the majority of the voting people in the country. Wouldn’t it be good if here, at the next general election, the British people could decide who we wanted to represent us in that way? Those who chose neither Labour nor the Conservatives would have had their voice heard in the preliminary round of voting but they would be compelled to decide who runs the country between the two most likeliy options. Obviously this could only occur under a presidential election style, which we do not have as yet as we elect parties not individuals. But this could be something the new second preference voting system could take consideration of.

Iran also have fixed term elections every four years, and the way in which they choose their government was decided by a plebiscite in 1979 with over 90% of the vote. I am not in anyway justifying such autocratic rule be brought to Britain, but have the British people ever been asked whether we like the theocratic nature of our democracy?

What you see in Iran right now is the younger generation, who did not have a say in that plebiscite, supporting the reformist candidates. Also, it’s the aspirational middle class Iranians, who have contacts with the West and Western culture, who desire a change in the status quo’s stance towards the West who are supporting Mirhossein Mousavi. Many of the latter happen to be women – around 70% of university graduates who go into the professional classes in Iran are women. If you visit a dentist in Iran it’s likely to be a woman who treats you.

Their “written” constitution also stipulates that they must provide support to oppressed people throughout the world regardless of their creed. Hence, their support for the IRA (as well as animosity towards the British), which led them in a symbol of solidarity to rename the road on which the British Embassy in Tehran sits from Winston Churchill Boulevard to Bobby Sands Street.

I am not in anyway defending the more questionable aspects of Iranian diplomacy or political structures; I merely speak from an interest in that country’s history and culture, with a belief in the wealth of knowledge that we can share with each other. In the past we have only shared the negative aspects of our two civilizations – helping to overturn democratically elected reformist leaders in Iran, and propping up tyrants like Mohammad RezÔ ShÔÂh Pahlavi with Western arms. Also, let’s not forget it was US/UK sharing of nuclear technology that helped the first Iranian nuclear facility to be built, the crux of our major current fall out. But I truly hope that those who fear that the Revolutionary Guard will step in are wrong.

There was once a chance for a more cordial relationship with Iran, under former President Khatamy. That is now looked upon as a missed opportunity, due to George W Bush’s Axis of Evil mantra: I just hope that today proves it wasn’t our last.