The Constituent Assembly: A Dream of Salvation or a Repeat of History?

Camera crises and the great question of the founders

Abdi Media: The subject of tonight's program on the Constituent Assembly is the "Dream of Rescue or Repeat History".  In Iran today, we stand in the middle of a moment that may be called a disruption point;  The moment the crises have risen like the relentless waves: the crisis of trust, the crisis of legitimacy, the crisis of livelihood, the environmental crisis, the efficient crisis, the hope crisis.  Now the big and controversial question has come up again: Is it the way to save a referendum and form the Constituent Assembly?  Or is this just a repetition of the cycle that has made us another point of tyranny?  What do you think about this proposed path?  What exactly do we talk about when we talk about the Constituent Assembly?

Supporting Mousavi's plan and the necessity of structural change

Afshari: I have always been one of those who have supported Mousavi's plan to hold a referendum and the founders of the Constituent Assembly.  But what's important is this solution itself.  Seventeen political and civil activists have also put forward a similar plan.  This suggestion is not for the first time that is raised;  In the past, most of my referendum was debated.

This is an important idea.  The idea itself that has a procedure aspect is not the main issue;  Most of the instrumental or signal aspects.  The content and logic are important: the treatment of the various pains of the country and the people you mentioned in the introduction.  These are not met through ordinary solutions, they are not resolved through politics in the common sense.  These issues require structural and structural changes.

The existing political framework and order has taken the country near the abyss.  If it continues, unfortunately the country will fall downhill and the risk of the collapse of the government will be serious.  Especially with what has happened outside the Iranian borders, there are crises on independent Iran that relies on its shoulders.

The necessity of participation and rejection of individual leadership

Afshari: The alternative solution and treatment of the country should occur with the participation of all political, social and civil sections.  The solution that is being put within it has the capacity to participate.  No one said that "I am the leader of the transition period" or "I will form a temporary government" or "give me people."  There is no promise.  The outline is the final destination;  It is a compass that must guide political, social, and civil struggles.

But how to hold a referendum and how to get from the current point to that destination requires a discussion field.  The extent of convergence, disagreements, and efforts will determine the final form.  The work is not going to go based on engineering or to dictate certain people and put their self -proclaimed superiority.  Just as Iran is the property of all Iranians, this solution gives everyone the opportunity.

Of course, it is not a challenge and risk.  More importantly, the declaration of the necessity of a referendum or the parliamentary elections does not mean that this happens automatically.  We are far from that time.  But in terms of form and form, these two strategies can be considered.

Because the views of the alternative political system are different.  Political, civil and even expert and specialized tendencies are disagreeable on all issues.  Finally, political decision -making must be made.  If anyone insists on their own content, the convergence, synergy, and integration of the force will never be desirable to move from the status quo.

This design connects all the different fragments of society.  Decision -making for issues must be made in the post -transition time;  At first the transition must be realized.

The move to the new military

Afshari: There have been many discussions that this is "reformist" or "fantasy".  But when it comes to the Constituent Assembly elections, it has a clear meaning: moving towards the new political system.

It is important that Engineer Mousavi Mandar has become such a debate.  A person who was one of the senior agents of the system in the 1980s has presented such a plan today.  His message is clear: change is not going to take place with conflict, conflict, war and bloodshed.  The one who was within this system has come to this conclusion.

More confidence in Mousavi in ​​the religious and state body

Abdi Media: Does that mean parameters like religion, is a religious person and knows religion?

Afshari: Yes, it knows the Islamic Revolution.

Abdi Media: He himself was involved in the revolution and had responsibility.  Many people who are present in the body of the system today have either worked or understood with him.  Maybe in the current body and the body that is important to comment, they may have more confidence.  They believe that he is not going to bring freedom to the lamp. "

Afshari: Or is the country going to be unstable, vacuum of power and disorder?  Mousavi is a 5 -year -old person and is somewhat ill.  He is not in a position to ask for something for himself.  We have never heard of him once to say, "I am the leader of the transition."

In June, millions of people took to the streets.  In New York, tens of thousands of people were chanting "or Hussein, Mir Hossein" in front of the UN building.  At the same time, he always said, "I am with this movement."  No leadership gesture.  He does not claim the interim government right now.

Mousavi's plan;  Collective Motion

Afshari: This plan has no personal focus;  Is a collective movement.  Some say "we are in a war," but Mousavi's strategy is minimal;  The result of today's Iranian society is today.  In his plan, he considers the participation of the people to be the principle.  Mousavi does not claim to "form my Constituent Assembly".  He says the "People's Constituent Assembly" must be formed;  A parliament that responds to Iran's requirements.

This project is based on past experiences - some failed and some successful relative.  Mousavi can have a greater impact on the body of the military;  Until the work does not work violence and open the way for slow transfer.

Again, I emphasize: My approach is not imaginative.  It is very difficult to bring the Islamic Republic to this point.  But the referendum plan and the Constituent Assembly creates a context for various dissatisfied, protesters and critics of the country to gather around it and build a power channel to change the balance of powers.

Support letters

Afshari: Society has already had a positive attitude.  The support letter released was the support of Mousavi's plan, not the "Mousavi person".

Abdi Media: Does that mean no one?

Afshari: Yes, in the text of the support letter, the person's name is not mentioned.  Some issues issues for destruction, some judge without reading the text.  But so far, 2.5 people have approved the letter.  The majority of their decisive people are known;  Those who have had a political and civil activity have been a university professor and have a history of freedom.  More than 5 of them have been in the past government and the Islamic Republic.

Mousavi and Ms. Rahnavard have been in home arrest for nearly 5 years.  More than 5 % of the signatories are domestic.  This is the most important post -revolutionary move to demand structural changes;  A movement that has never been before.

Post -war conditions have increased the necessity of these changes.  The transfer of power to people must take place through structural changes.  The set of forces that run the country today have shown in various areas that their views have not only worked, but have worsened the country.

Their claim was that "we have become a great military power and thwart all threats outside the border."  But all these bubbles burst.  In the 6 -day war, we saw that the country is weak in these areas.  The only real relief is people.

If the people had not acted in these difficult days with national dignity, it would not have been clear what Iran would have.  This shows that society has understood these issues.

The high number of political and civil forces that come together is unprecedented.  There was no diversity and diversity seen in this movement before.  Opposition forces, members of the Islamic Republic, even some former intelligence officials are all present.

This means that if major political changes are to be taken, they must join more forces.  If they were only traditional opponents, these changes had to happen many years ago.  They could not.  So more forces need to be added.

From the very beginning we saw that this potential is there.  But again, if it does not lead to action, it will remain an idea.  Mousavi had put forward the project three years ago.  Today the reactions have become more positive and support is more.  But we are still far from becoming a movement.  The Islamic Republic is a fierce military.  It is not easy to surrender.  Even after the six -day war, although most of the prominent political prisoners opposed the war, their simple transfer from Fashafuyeh prison to Evin deliberately turned them into a crisis.

Criticism of Elias Hazrati's Speech

Abdi Media: The words of Mr. Elias Hazrati, the head of the Information Council of Mr. Dr. Pezzekian's government, were strange to me. In response to the request of the head of the judiciary to provide a list of political prisoners, he said: "We examined a large number of journalists and intellectuals, and we introduced five political prisoners. What a good country it is if we have five political prisoners! What is the problem with us? They are treated with measures and amnesty, what is the problem?"

Mr. Pezzekian's government is unable to provide an honest list that shows "we have this many political prisoners who are in prison for expressing their opinions, beliefs, and views." I find it strange how Mr. Elias Hazrati made these words. I knew it would be difficult for him to sit in front of Ejei and speak, but I expected him to speak honestly. These words will be recorded in history. History will judge us all very cruelly; the future is our court. We must be accountable to history. This answer surprised me.

Afshari: I completely agree with you that history judges cruelly. But even now, people and public opinion are judging cruelly. Every word we say and every action we take has a political and moral responsibility. Given the responsibility that Mr. Hazrati has in the information organization of the Pezizian government, he also has a certain legal responsibility.
I do not have a positive opinion of Mr. Hazrati. I have known him for years. Of course, this was not the case in the past. He has gone through a slow but downward trend and has had some downward leaps in places. However, with what I knew about him, I did not think he would fall to this extent.
Statements like “we do not have political prisoners, these are security prisoners” are not new. Such claims have been made for years. But these statements are unacceptable. They classify political prisoners as “security crimes” in the Islamic Penal Code to say that they are “not political.” This claim is unacceptable.
When Mr. Hazrati himself was a member of parliament, he did not accept such a claim and objected to it. He even ridiculed the words of judicial officials. At that time, the prisoners did not have a common record with Mr. Hazrati. But today he knows very well that people like Tajzadeh and Ghadiani are political prisoners. He knows them.
Power corrupts and contaminates people. The problem is that people like Mr. Hazrati and others whom I call “repentant reformists” have gathered around the Pezizian government and put forward political and theoretical justifications. They have all served to produce “false awareness.”

Mousavi and comparison with Hazrati

Afshari: Mr. Hazrati cannot be compared to Engineer Mousavi. Some say that all the problems of the 1960s are Mousavi’s fault. But it should be noted that his authority and scope of work were clear. I am also a critic of Mousavi in ​​many of his actions during that era. But Mousavi was “impromptu” in those circumstances, and neither of us were.
If we want to judge, we must consider Mousavi’s entire political career. Consider this Mousavi with that position. It is true that he had a disagreement with Mr. Khamenei and perhaps he could no longer become president, but at least he could have remained a respected person in the Expediency Discernment Council.
The outcome of the political and cultural demands of society since 2009 is significantly different from Mousavi’s personal positions. Mousavi is an intelligent person, he is not a populist who does not notice these differences. But he has accepted it. This man has a high level of freedom and independence. He has approached the people step by step and accepted that his will is the will of the people.
He expresses his personal opinion; Many protesters and critics may not like his personal views, but Mousavi does not seek to impose and generalize his own. He expects others not to impose theirs. He accepts that free and fair elections be held in which the public opinion prevails.

The cost of Mousavi’s confinement and perseverance

Afshari: Mousavi is willing to pay the price. House arrest is harder than public prison. I have been to many public and solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is like house arrest; its degrees may vary, but when it lasts more than a year, it makes no difference whether you are imprisoned in a large hall or a two-by-two cell. When you have no communication, life becomes very difficult.
In a public prison, you have communication with other prisoners; like a university dormitory where the door is closed but there is interaction inside. You can exercise, get fresh air. We are social beings. But Mousavi has been standing in such conditions for 15 years and making a fuss. He has accepted some sarcasm towards himself and his wife. This is really hard work and not everyone can do it.
He was in a high position and now he is constantly enduring humiliation, insults, revenge from Mr. Khamenei, etc. The words that are mentioned in the official accounts are retouched. But the guards speak more nakedly and openly. It is hard for anyone to tolerate such behavior. Imagine dealing with such people for 15 years.
Mousavi and Hazrati are not comparable. Humans have an infinite capacity for rising and falling.

The Experience of the 1958 Referendum and Its Lessons

Abdi Medya: What are the historical lessons of the 1958 referendum? Given this historical background, what points should be included or deleted in the new laws?

Afshari: We have the experience of referendums and elections to the Constituent Assembly, but they are mostly negative experiences. Elections to the Constituent Assembly have been held three times in Iran:

The First Constitutional Assembly (to draft the Constitution and the electoral regulations). Although they were not considered founding by the Qajar court, the majority of the representatives considered themselves as such and considered themselves founders.

The Second Constituent Assembly, the transfer of the monarchy from the Qajar to the Pahlavi in ​​1925.

The third case, the Assembly of Experts of the 1958 Constitution. According to the resolution of the Revolutionary Council, this assembly was not equivalent to the Constituent Assembly, but was an intermediate solution.

At that time, Bazargan and Sahabi insisted that the Constituent Assembly be formed with 500 representatives. But people like Hashemi Rafsanjani and Beheshti were against it. Rafsanjani said that if elections were held, the reactionary forces would get a high vote and the task would become more difficult. He suggested that the same constitution approved by the Revolutionary Council be put to a direct vote. Finally, with the mediation of Ayatollah Taleghani, the Assembly of Experts was formed with 72 or 75 representatives.

We also have some experience with referendums:

Dr. Mossadegh held a referendum to dissolve the 17th Parliament.

The “White Revolution of the King and the Nation” referendum to approve 6 principles.

The referendum on the type of political system in Farvardin 1979.

The referendum on the initial version of the constitution.

The referendum on revising the constitution in 1989.

But these tools alone neither have specific content nor do they necessarily achieve positive results. It depends on how they are used.

Many have a black and white view; They generalize the negative experience of the April 1979 referendum to all referendums. This view is not valid. The world’s referendum capital is Switzerland, which has held more than 700 referendums. This process has contributed to the political growth of citizens and the strengthening of democracy.

The 1979 referendum; allegiance or election?

Afshari: In April 1979, it was true that it was held under the name of a “referendum” or “referendum,” but it was not a referendum in terms of form. The elections should be within the framework of free and fair criteria; something in which people could make a real choice.
In that referendum, the people had to choose between the continuation of the previous system—which had collapsed with the revolution—and what Mr. Khomeini had determined. Of course, the people chanted the slogan “Independence, freedom, Islamic Republic.” But in the past of Iranian history, there was no clear system with a specific concept called the “Islamic Republic,” and it was not clear what the future would be.
There were even requests to call it, for example, "Republic" or "Republic of Iran." Engineer Bazargan also said: "Islamic Democratic Republic" so that the aspect of democracy would not be sacrificed with different interpretations of Islam. But Mr. Khomeini selfishly and arbitrarily did not allow it. That referendum was an undemocratic referendum; in fact, a reconstruction of the oath of allegiance in the 20th century.
The "White Revolution of the Shah and the Nation" referendum was also a top-down and arbitrary one; it was not free and did not allow the opposition to operate. The same was true in the 1958 referendum; the opposition could not speak in the public media under equal conditions so that the people could make an informed choice.
Dr. Mossadegh's referendum also had problems; because the "Yes" and "No" voting places were designated separately.

Conditions for a Democratic Referendum in the Future

Afshari: If we want to consider the future, first of all, adherence to the standards of democracy and free and fair elections must be observed. The latest authoritative document in this regard is the document of the “Inter-Parliamentary Union”, which has specified in precise detail the conditions for free and fair elections.
In such circumstances, there must be professional supervisory institutions. “Fair” means fair: all political tendencies that accept several fundamental principles—Iran’s national sovereignty, Iran’s territorial integrity, territorial integrity, and the principle of democracy—can advertise in the referendum space.
The options that are put forward must reflect the real tendencies of society. Engineer Mousavi has not gone into details, and I do not have a specific opinion on the details either. I believe that everyone should express their opinions in this area, and then the conditions and the government’s reaction will determine.

Transition Scenarios: From South Africa to Revolutionary

Push: If the Islamic Republic finally succumbs to pressure, we will have a kind of “combined transition”; either a top-down transition, or a negotiated transition like South Africa. In that case, part of the sovereignty comes, but an independent body holds a referendum. This process usually has two stages:

First, a vote on whether to keep the existing constitution, abolish it, or amend it.

Then elections for the Constituent Assembly.

Then the final text of the constitution is put to the vote again in a referendum.

Another way is for the government to resist until the end. In that case, the transition takes a revolutionary turn. It is no longer important whether the Islamic Republic exists or not. The alternatives are clear:

A constitutional system and a monarchy (symbolic, with limited powers).

A republic (which can be non-ideological, secular or laic, and take various forms, presidential, parliamentary, federal, or non-federal).

The details of these will be examined in the Constituent Assembly elections.

The need to guarantee fundamental rights in the new constitution

Afshari: The forces must be able to operate in a relatively equal and non-threatening environment. In the Constituent Assembly elections, guarantees are needed so that the new constitution reflects the diversity of society's demands.
The problem in Iran has been that whenever the people have chosen, a majority has been formed and a small minority has been left out. We have not had balanced elections in recent history. This concern also exists with the Constituent Assembly elections.
Therefore, there must be guarantees for the "fundamental rights of citizens" from the beginning. Not all issues should be subject to voting. For example, people's lifestyle or clothing; restrictions such as compulsory hijab or a ban on alcohol should not be included in the law. Even if 99% of the people do not drink, one percent have the right to choose.
These are clear in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the additional conventions.
Quotas can also be set to guarantee the presence of groups:
A gender quota for a minimum presence of women.

Ethnic quota for ethnic minority participation.

Criticism of the idea of ​​an “immediate constitution”

Afshari: Some believe that a constitution should be drafted right now or that a virtual constituent assembly should be formed abroad or inside the country. They have even proposed “online elections.” I personally believe that these are not only impractical, but also produce negative results.

Abdi Medya: Why do you think they are impractical?

Afshari: Because the person who writes the constitution is practically putting himself in the place of the people. He thinks that he and his group are superior and the natural reaction of those who are not present in this process will be opposition.
There is a naive mentality behind these ideas: that a few people sit down, write a text through discussion and agreement and say, “This serves Iran and national interests,” and that’s it. But in practice, this is not possible.
There are differences of opinion in all areas. On paper, the majority agrees that the current government is reactionary, corrupt, and unjust. But even the best constitution cannot completely prevent corruption and injustice; it can only reduce it.
Parts of the opposition also have no problem with the “authoritarian aspect”; in practice, they still want to give too much power to one person or group. They have a patronizing view, they do not accept the equality of all citizens.

Democracy and the Boundary of Religion and State

Afshari: We want to draft a constitution based on democracy. But the question is: What should be the extent of the separation of religion and state? Should religious people not have any political activity and be confined only to the mosque—like the model that is to some extent in France? Or can they be politically active like in America and Germany?
Some believe that the clergy should be completely removed. But experience has shown that they will not be removed even with uprisings and restrictions. Everyone insists on their own opinion, and this goes back to their political, cultural, and ideological lineage.
Within the framework of fundamental rights—of which religious freedom is one—people must choose. Drafting a constitution requires special competence and legitimacy that no individual or group has alone. No one can come up with a plan and impose it simply by relying on themselves or their group.
If they think that it is possible to prepare a constitution and then submit it to the Constituent Assembly, the experience of the Islamic Republic has shown that it is not possible. The Revolutionary Council did the same thing. The Assembly of Experts was supposed to make only minor amendments to the approved draft constitution. But on the first day, they were put aside and they said: “We are the representatives of the people; who told you to draft a constitution?” This is the natural reaction of newly elected representatives.
Host: They wanted to correct his eyebrows, they blinded him.
Afshari: Exactly. This mentality that the constitution can be drafted in advance is not correct. Even in the Constituent Assembly, various commissions are formed and the country’s leading lawyers are invited.

Composition of the Constituent Assembly and Conditions of Entry

Abdi Madia: What forces should the Constituent Assembly include and what forces should not be present? What is the process of selecting members like?

Afshari: It depends on how the existing order collapses. If it becomes revolutionary...

Abdi Madia: But in the current situation, what Mr. Mousavi is saying?

Afshari: It depends on the conditions. In two cases, we can say: Suppose social pressure increases and even moderate or separatist forces accept that a Constituent Assembly should be held. Naturally, the Guardian Council cannot determine the qualifications of these people. A new institution must be formed for free and fair elections so that all political tendencies in Iran are present in it.
The general principles are also clear: They must believe in Iran’s national sovereignty. They must not have a history that has been proven in court.

Abdi Media: That is, there must be no specific criminal records such as theft?

Afshari: Yes, immoral records such as proven theft or espionage, or cooperation with foreign aggressors in wars. Such people cannot be in the Constituent Assembly. They must believe in Iran’s territorial integrity. These are general principles. The age range must also be taken into account.

Abdi Media: That is, an elite group should write the constitution and their conditions should be acceptable?

Afshari: Yes. Of course, there is one potential solution for the future that I strongly oppose: foreign intervention, such as war, to overthrow the government and then hold elections. Those elections will be similar to the referendums of the Islamic Republic.
I am not a legal expert on these issues; experts should give their opinions. But the Constituent Assembly is a legal and political specialized area in the world, and experts should put forward their ideas. When the ground support is provided, the elections will be held.
But I can say one general point: there must be freedom and sufficient opportunity for propaganda. The issue of time is also important; a reasonable time must be considered for holding elections.

Listen without filter in Castbox
 

Interim government and transition from the status quo

Abdi Medya: What will happen to the people during this period of time?

Afshari: If it is a revolutionary situation, the interim government must transition the status quo. There have also been discussions about what powers and duties the interim government has.
In the past, they used to joke: “If the management building is removed, the workers will work better.” This is also true of ministries. The body of administrative organizations is full of healthy and knowledgeable people. There are always people in middle management who can manage things.
Until new institutions are built and new procedures are defined, daily tasks must continue. It is mainly related to people’s welfare.
In the case of a revolutionary situation, the transitional government can even take an elected form, although this has not usually been the case in the world. However, a person who was at the head of the revolutionary movement can take over the management of the status quo within the framework of democracy so that free elections can be held as soon as possible.
At least five to six months are needed for this; So that people have the opportunity to campaign, hear criticism, and examine strengths and weaknesses. In the 1957 revolution, the speed that Mr. Khomeini pursued became problematic. He proudly said, “We made a revolution quickly,” while if more time had been given, revolutionary excitement would have subsided and people would have made a more informed choice.
If the transition is a combined (top-down) transition, the existing government will play the role of the transition period. But the elections must be held by an independent institution and a combination of government, opposition, and other groups. The Constituent Assembly will also determine the duties of the new government and parliament.

The presence of monarchists in the Constituent Assembly

Abdi Medya: Can monarchists be in the Constituent Assembly alongside republicans?

Afshari: The Constituent Assembly is like an election: it has a clear method, but the results are uncertain. It is not known who will get the necessary votes. In practice, a combination of all tendencies will be present. It is not possible to expect that there will be no constitutionalists or republicans in the Constituent Assembly.
In my opinion, it is better to first determine the type of political system in a referendum. Then the Constituent Assembly will know within which system it should write a constitution. Because constitutionalism and republicanism are two completely different paths, and it is unlikely that the Assembly will be able to reach an agreement on this issue.

Abdi Medya: So you think we should go one step further in the referendum idea and put the type of political system to a vote?

Afshari: Yes, I think it is better. This will both simplify the work of the Constituent Assembly and remove the competition between republicans and monarchists from its destructive state.

Fantasy or reality?

Abdi Medya: Isn’t it a fantasy that the Islamic Republic will hold its own referendum?

Afshari: It is definitely a fantasy. This event comes out of the heart of political struggles. The referendum and Constituent Assembly plan is a banner that orients and unites the existing protests. This plan can create a new wave of social and political movement.
Projection of the time for the realization of the plan

Abdi Medya: What is your prediction? How long will it take for this plan to be realized?

Afshari: I cannot predict an exact time. But I emphasize the role of individuals. In the first step, the plan was presented and received good support. If this plan becomes a campaign and becomes more widespread and finds implementation stages, it can become a movement.
If it becomes a movement, it will be successful; that is, in addition to the elites and political and civil activists, the masses of the people will also join and find tangible results in the streets, universities, factories, etc. Strikes and protests will take place. Then the government may be paralyzed and be between two paths: either to accompany the changes, or to collapse. The ball is now in the court of the Islamic Republic.
But the important thing is that this idea gets out of the mind and is transferred to the field of struggle. It can also play an important role abroad, but the main thing is inside Iran.

Pressure from civil society and the role of Khamenei

Abdi Medya: You are of the opinion that people should protest and a revolutionary atmosphere similar to that of 1979 should be formed; to the point where the current leader says, "I heard the voice of your revolution, I accepted your plan, go home so that the transfer of power can take place." Do you really think that Mr. Khamenei will be burdened with this issue?

Afshari: The plan I am talking about does not need to be burdened by Khamenei. This is his decision. But as this movement gains more supporters—even those who previously hoped for reform and thought we should use the constitutional capacity—they will join the plan.

If the protests increase, there are two scenarios:
1. Either Khamenei goes along.
2. Or he stands up and the people overthrow him. In that case, his fate will be similar to Saddam, Ben Ali, or Mubarak.

The Challenge of Republicans and Monarchists

Abdi Medya: One challenge on the path of republicanism is that monarchists will not remain silent either. They say that people chanted “Reza Shah” in the streets, supporting Reza Pahlavi. How will this dispute be resolved?

Afshari: If Khamenei acts like Mohammad Reza Shah (which is unlikely, but in politics, never say never), people will not stay at home. In that case, the elections should be held in two stages by an independent institution:

1. First, a referendum on the system.

2. Then elections for the Constituent Assembly.

This method has the advantage of being less stressful and costly.

But unfortunately, the monarchists have announced the result in advance. They even use the term “Reza Shah II.” This shows that they do not believe in the ballot box and democracy. They want to introduce Reza Pahlavi as the lawyer and head of the transitional government through artificial and unnatural methods.
But our point is that the ballot box is decisive. The Constituent Assembly and free elections will show who the people have voted for: Reza Pahlavi, Mir Hossein Mousavi, or a democratic system?

Guaranteeing elections and independent monitoring

Abdi Media: What should the ballot box look like so that everyone accepts it?

Afshari: In the first stage, the referendum will determine the system’s survival or change, as well as whether it will be a monarchy or a republic. Then it will be time for the Constituent Assembly elections.

Abdi Media: How should these elections be held so that their results are acceptable to everyone?

Afshari: There are two general forms. But the election administrators must be an independent body, including representatives and observers from the country’s various political factions.

Abdi Media: I have witnessed elections firsthand. It requires a broad and long structure. Iran is a large country. A representative must be present at each ballot box, and information must be recorded in the system. It requires a complex mechanism. There is no guarantee that political groups will not claim fraud.

Afshari: It is true, some may be able to. But the current structure should be used: governorates, provincial governorates, the Ministry of Interior, and electoral forces. The most important issue is the authority to verify the qualifications of candidates; and the implementing authority that monitors the elections.

There should be a transparent and defensible procedure; freedom and fairness in elections should be a priority. There should also be a mechanism to address violations. For example, a special committee that all groups accept.

We can even ask the United Nations for advisory assistance. Professional institutions around the world have experience in monitoring elections. A reasonable amount of time should be allowed for training and preparation.
We should not expect to hold elections on the level of Switzerland. After all, there will be protests. But the whole thing should be defensible.
Previous experiences should also be taken into account. For example, in the first elections of the Islamic Republic, Rafsanjani was both the organizer and one of the main players. Or in some areas, Islamic Republic Party placards were placed at the polling station. All of these need to be corrected. Fortunately, inter-parliamentary documents can be used as an impartial framework.

Scenarios if the plan fails

Abdi Madia: If this plan fails, what scenario will Iran face?

Afshari: The plan is not based on implementation; it is more of a compass. But if it fails, the scenarios are as follows:

Continuation of the status quo: The Islamic Republic moves forward with the same decree. Like the election that ended with the victory of the doctors. In this case, they will have measures for a “third leadership.” They say the country is at war, don’t talk about a referendum. They say the nation is unanimously behind the system and the leadership.

Limited reforms: The government makes small changes. For example, the presence of Ali Larijani or stopping the policy of purification. This could rebuild the atmosphere of the Khatami government or the Sixth Parliament, and even de-escalate foreign policy.

Violent collapse or foreign intervention: Either the government destroys the country through violence and bloodshed at the cost of its own survival (a second Venezuela or a second North Korea), or a foreign coup occurs. Mousavi's proposal is a middle ground; in the interests of all. Because it is participatory, it requires people's activism and even allows for part of the government to join.

The necessity of activism and avoiding civil war

Afshari: Ultimately, if activism does not happen, either the country will be destroyed or foreign intervention will lead it to chaos. But if active participation is formed, a better future can be built.
We need an intersubjective and participatory approach beyond dialogue. We are not supposed to have the answers to all the issues. The final solution will come out of dialogue and confrontation in the fields, not from a pre-written plan.
In my opinion, the future of Iran will be built with a national, democratic, and humanist opposition; with forces within the government that are not directly infected with corruption and repression; with the people and forces of civil society and the gray strata.
The desired form of the future political order will only come out of this participation. The most important thing is to preserve the structure of the Iranian nation. We must be very careful that these conflicts do not turn into a civil war between different parts of Iran; this is one of the nightmares of the future.

Full file of Abdi Media's interview with Ali Afshari, Republican political activist