Like this:

It would be incredibly difficult to effectively summarize the vast amount of quality reporting on the Iranian presidential “election” (Christopher Hitchens is loath to call it as such) and its aftermath that has come out of the blogosphere in the past few days. Without bloggers like Andrew Sullivan and Juan Cole, as well as sites such as Twitter, it is likely that this event would have been seen quite differently in the eyes of the world.  Nate Silver has thrown his pollster analysis into the mix as well.  

For every triumphant people’s power movement witnessed in Wenceslas Square there is a Tiananmen, whose veterans quietly reminisced during the 20th anniversary last week while the Chinese government ostentatiously suppressed its peoples already constrained access to outside information.  Ferdinand Marcos, Suharto and ironically the former Shah of  Iran Reza Pahlavi were brought down by groundswells that ushered in new regimes. On the other hand, in Burma and Zimbabwe, mobilized dissent has been ruthlessly marginalized, co-opted and at times outright annihilated.  This week, the world is wondering on which side of this divide the Iranian people will find their country in the coming weeks.

Far from desiring another revolution, the majority of protesters seem to simply want their vote to count. The clerics that pull the strings behind Iran’s heavily scripted democratic trappings have already rigged the system in their favor by having final approval on who the candidates are. Unfortunately for Ayatollah Khamenei, the facts on the ground were changing faster than they could comprehend. Not only would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lose, but the victor, former prime minister Mir Houssein Moussavi, embraced a reformist platform that was mobilized record turnout and enthusiasm that not only made a Moussavi victory possible, but also promised that anything but a victory for change would be met with incredulous outrage.

Thailand must seem like a world apart from Persia (aside from both countries having similar rates of per capita sex-change operations, but that is a different story altogether). Unlike Iran, which is a republic in name, but a theocracy in practice, Thailand is a feeble and fragile constitutional monarchy. But its recent spat of coups d’etat and demonstrations may help illustrate the current struggles in Iran.

Bangkok has been besieged by demonstrators in the past year, which culminated in November when protesters invaded and occupied Suvarnabhumi International Airport for a week, effectively shutting down Bangkok air traffic.  The protesters were opposed to the current prime minister, who they accused of being the political successor of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra who was deposed in a bloodless military coup in September 2006.  Hugely popular in the countryside due to his populism, Thaksin was despised in the cities by the urban elite and middle classes, who organized the protests. They identified themselves with the color yellow, and were successful in toppling the government of  Samak Sundaravej, eventually ushering in opposition ;eader Abhisit Vejjajiva as the newest prime minister. Thaksin’s followers, donning red, tried their hand at toppling the government, but failed in April 2009. And so it goes, protesters think they can circumvent the political process through demonstrations and activism as opposed to letting the process play out. The military has shown more restraint as of late, but is still quite capable of seizing power when things in their eyes start to slide out of control.

What does this have to do with Iran? Substitute the Thai military for the Iranian mullahs and you have two institutions that will subvert the democratic process when the results are not too its liking. Undermining the democratic process only serves to undermine their own legitimacy as guardians of the state and weakens all institutions across the board. And to those countries that are contemplating letting go of power? Regimes without the veneer of democratic institutions like Burma, Zimbabwe – as well as Saudi Arabia and Egypt – will be less inclined to relinquish their grip on power, even cosmetically.

Whether the mullahs are acquiescing to the demands for an investigation as a means of stalling until the demonstrators lose momentum is unclear but likely, but its impact should be clear in the coming days. How should the rest of the world react is a little unclear. George Packer and Fred Kaplan say that Obama needs to disengage if the results stand. Others argue that national interests override internal concerns. It is understandable that Obama has thus far been circumspect in his statements about the situation; as popular as America seems to be in the Islamic Republic, meddling in its internal affairs has gotten the US in trouble with Iran in the past (understatement of the year award nominee). A more open Iran is in the world’s interests. Let’s hope that Ayatollah Khamenei realizes that it is also in his country’s interests and ultimately in his interest.

Advertisement