Iran Document: A Discussion with Mostafa Tajzadeh on the Green Movement and Free Elections

Earlier this week the opposition site Kalameh published an interview with former Deputy Minister of Interior Mostafa Tajzadeh while he was on furlough from a nine-year prison sentence. 

The headline from the discussion about the current political situation was Tajzadeh's position on the reformist debate over participation in the Parliamentary elections next March. He stood firm on no involvement without the release of political prisoners and a confirmed free and fair proces, "There is no middle ground. The reformists will take part only in democratic elections." He added that the situation had changed with the disputed Presidential ballot in 2009 and the post-election challenge to Mahmoud Ahmadminejad's legitimacy: "The narrative of the Green Movement has changed the entire affair....Either the elections will be free, with all the parties and free press, or we should not participate and leave them [supporters of conservatives and principlists] to play out the conflicts among themselves."

However, that important statement was made in equally important contexts about the aims of the Green Movement, the challenges facing the regime, and the prospects for "freedom" in Iran.

Translation by Muhammad Sahimi:

On the Difficulties of the Government

Their differences are over rare sources of power, because everyone wants to have the last word. On the other hand, it is the economic difficulties that have the last word, which they cannot address, and that has heightened the differences [between various hardline and conservative factions]. This government has been in power for six years, and even the cultural conditions have worsened according to their own standards.

Internationally, they have many problems too. The hardliners were of the thinking that, given the problems that the U.S. has in Iraq and Afghanistan, the possibility of U.S. intervention in other Muslim countries was practically nil. Given the recent developments, particularly in Libya, it has become clear that things are not the way they thought.

On the Roots and Objectives of the Green Movement

The Green Movement has its roots in in the Constitutional Revolution [of 1906-11], nationalisation of oil [of 1951-53], and the reform movement [of 1997-2005]. The reformists are the only group who want independence [from foreign powers] and freedom simulataneously and defend both. They are opposed to the internal dictatorship and external colonialism. The reformists and supporters of the Green Movement defend freedom and do not believe that to confront the internal dictatorship they must ask foreign powers for help. They also do not believe that struggling against foreign colonialism means that they should ignore the internal dictatorship. We are opposed to colonialism and dictatorship; independence and freedom are the two main slogans and the true nature of the Constitutional Revolution, the oil nationalisation, the Islamic Revolution, and the 2 Khordad [reformist movement].

On the Regime's False Pretext of "Foreign Intervention"

The only skill that the hardliners have is that, under the guise of opposing the US and in the name of justice, they act against freedom. We should explain that the only way to save the country is independence and freedom. In particular, those who hope for foreign intervention in Iran should know that [if that happens] the country will burn in a civil war for two decades. It will not be as if violence will end [quickly] and democracy will rule. The best examples are Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that these two nations will be involved in bloody wars for years to come, and if the US leaves them there will be the threat of civil wars there, but if the US does not leave, Talibanism will be created to confront the US.

On the Necessity for Free Elections and Other Freedoms

From a practical viewpoint, the strategic goal that has been created for the Green Movement is what has been the goal of all the reformists and freedom lovers since the Constitutional Revolution. National sovereignty and free elections are the two strategic goals of the Green Movement. The only way out for the country is holding free elections. The country will not be saved through national unity government and national reconciliation. And free elections have their own components. Free elections mean freedom of writing, expression, thought, and life style, meaning that the political parties must be free, gatherings of people must be free, and unions and nongovernmental organizations must be free. In my opinion, holding free elections is the only way to save the country, and we must direct our forces in that direction....From a tactical point of view, fasting, hunger strikes, gatherings on streets, and the like can be very useful. We must not, under any conditions, remain silent.

On the Control and Manipulation of Elections

In free elections, it is people who have the last word.... We must explain to the people what we mean by free elections. One aspect of such elections is that the officials and those who supervise the elections must either be completely neutral, or allow monitors from all the parties at the polls. We cannot call elections free if the head of election monitoring commission is Mr. Ahmad Jannati [secretary-general of the Guardian Council] who presides over meeting for the principlists and [tells them] to preserve their unity. Or Mr. [Mohammad] Yazdi, deputy secretary-general of the Guardian Council, who fights with the Reformists and even the independents.

The law stipulates that those who are members of the election monitoring commission cannot be part of the elections, and now the problems that the opposition to Mr. Ahmadinejad has are exactly the same, and interestingly they are expressing the same concerns that we had expressed. Now they [the principlists] want to form a committee for the protection of people's votes [like those the reformists set up for the 2006 and 2009 elections] and are concerned that the government will distribute cash in the billions among the people [as the reformists pointed out took place back in 2009].... Such a cash handout can affect people's votes, and therefore this is a legitimate concern....

But such concerns are not limited to just the government. We must also be concerned about the monitoring commission, the Guardian Council, and the Relief Committees [that were founded in the early days of the Revolution to help the poor]. Thus, when free elections are talked about, one must consider the tools for such elections, and carefully consider everything from the beginning. Everything and everybody must move in the direction of free elections and the government must not be able to help a certain group. There are now doubts and concerns about the government committing fraud against part of the principlists. One can develop a solution for this problem, but we cannot just tell them, "For God's sake do not commit fraud." They will say they will not, and [expect that] it will solve the problem. Surely, if all the groups have representatives in the monitoring commissions, they [the government] will not be able to commit fraud. When they insist that the commission must be homogeneous [from one group only], it is because they want to cheat; otherwise, they should not be terrified of the election being monitored and would invite others to take part. The conditions for free elections are not complex, and they have been met around the world.

On a Return to the Constitution and Free Elections

Yes, it was through the same constitution that the 2 Khordad [Movement in 1997] arose and the [elections] for the first [1998] and second city councils [in 2002] were held. I participated in the second city councils [for Tehran] and was defeated [he came in 16th; the Tehran council has 15 members]. Those elections were the freest elections over the last 100 years. No one was prevented from running due to his views and political standing [candidates for city councils are not vetted by the Guardian Council]. In those elections neither the loser nor the victor had any complaints, and the elections were 100 percent free. We [reformists] were defeated [in Tehran], and accepted our defeat. Of course, our defeat was not due to the high vote that our competitors received, rather it was because only 11 percent of Tehran's eligible voters took part in those elections. In any case, one of the freest elections were held during our time. If people are present in the elections, free elections can be held even with this constitution.

The important issue is the interpretation of the law. One can have democratic interpretations of the Constitution, but if people do not take part, one can also have dictatorial interpretation of the Constitution. It is up to us how to interpret the Constitution. I have always said that the U.S. Constitution was written [almost] a century before the abolition of slavery and is still being implemented. Although it now has several amendments, it is still the same constitution. This does not mean that this [Iran's] constitution must not be revised. We must do this at the appropriate time, but we should not defer holding free elections until the Constitution is revised.