Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV

Or, click to learn more


« The Latest from Iran (21 June): Beyond Quiet Remembrance | Main | Iran, One Year On: The Names of 107 Killed in Post-Election Violence »

UPDATED Iran: Full Text --- Karroubi Takes on the Supreme Leader (20 June)

Translation by Khordaad 88:

To the great and honorable nation of Iran,

A year has passed since your spectacular presence during the 10th presidential elections that took place last year. This enthusiastic participation in the elections was a sign of your desire to exercise your right to self-determination in the affairs of your country. Some however, based on a theory that considers people as [mere] supporters of the government and Guardianship of the Jurist rather than appointers, presented their decisions and their votes as though they were yours.

A year has passed since these elections and during this year we witnessed many ups and downs. We witnessed how the powers that trampled upon all modesty, brought upon a negative image for the Islamic Republic. We witnessed the martyrdom of our citizens who had come to the streets only to demand what had happened to their votes. We witnessed bloodshed, killing and the filling of prisons with the children of our regime and revolution.

What were unfortunately lacking during this year were the people’s rights under the Constitution. Instead these fundamental rights were replaced by extreme repression through brutal force with no regard for the sanctity of life. Despite all this darkness and bitterness, we still remain hopeful that the train that has been derailed from the foundations of our Constitution, our revolution and our Imam will return to its original path and that the wrongdoers repent and, in doing so, pave the way for dialogue and interaction.

The Great and noble people of Iran,

A year after the 10th presidential election, having gone through many bitter moments, I foremost want to commend the great families of our martyrs in the past year who, in complete injustice, were not even allowed to hold an honorable funeral for their loved ones.

While offering my condolences, I ask God to bless our martyrs and give the survivors patience and forgiveness. I give my respects to the injured that did not get the chance to recover in peace. I bow down to your strength and endurance. Finally, I remember those who were jailed unjustly in an effort to silence this oppressed but great nation’s righteous voice.

Today the prison cells are filled with compatriots of the revolution and Imam Khomeini , thinkers, intellectuals, youth, and freedom-lovers. We are still hopeful that judiciary officials instead of issuing political indictments and pronouncing sentences dictated to them [by security apparatus] will very soon prepare the context for releasing and freeing all political prisoners and therefore redeem the status of the judicial branch.

The Righteous and noble people of Iran,

Despite numerous differences in how to govern the country and self-fulfilling interpretations of the Constitution by some officials, a relative solidarity and unity existed between people with different opinions , different political factions , majority of the people, and state officials. Before the election, though people’s rights and freedoms were ignored, ethnic and religious minorities were disrespected, women and youth were insulted and confronted sometimes violently, the nation was demoralized, and academic and religious scholarly institutions were under tremendous pressure to submit to the powerful, it still did not compare to what happened in the election and events after it.

They [certain officials] fully utilized the public funds, public media, the military, and the reserves to deny people their say and clumsily rig the election results. They insulted and humiliated the people and their movement after the election, and worst of all ignored the protestors. Such large-scale corruption had never taken place in the past 30 years.

Thus, even if there was a relative national unity in the country a year ago, after some officials plundered people’s votes, such unity seems impossible. The election candidates as well as their supporters along with many sects and groups in the society protested this big and obvious wrongdoing. We remember the message that brought them together: “Where is my vote?”

But unfortunately the administration has decided to react to the demonstrations by employing violence, heightening security, jailing and torturing protestors, and convicting them in show trials instead of listening to their message and acting fairly within the legal framework. These actions have taken a great toll on the nation. They have falsely accused some of the most experienced leading figures in the religious and political scene of infidelity, treason, and armed confrontation. They are selling out all the worldly and spiritual capital of the country.

My beloved nation of Iran,

As you all know, and I as I have mentioned before, events of last year have exposed those who think of themselves as connected to the powerful. Their foot soldiers are their media outlets and websites who steal from the oil income and other public funds. They are burning down the Islamic Republic in flames so large that have reached all the dedicated servants of the people and revolutionaries. Their flames have even reached Imam Khomeini’s house and that of his grandchild –-- Seyed Hassan, who is a great scholar and intellectual –--- and other senior clergymen.

We all saw the group of thugs who dishonored Imam Khomeini’s house and Mausoleum . We also saw the wide condemnation of these foolish acts from the people and clergymen. In reaction to this condemnation, a newspaper, surrounded by many evils and which knows no law or boundaries in using foul language, backed the thugs who insulted Imam’s grandson for the crime of being on the people’s side.

This was not enough for the malevolent newspaper. Without regard for anything, they ripped through the veil of respect for the Sources of Emulation. In a wave of insults never seen before, they threatened those who had condemned the attacks on descendents of Imam [Khomeini]. This newspaper scolded the Sources of Emulation for their concerns. The newspaper asked them: “What can [possibly] stand against the defence of Islam and the Revolution?”

It is very unfortunate that people [who] have no understanding of the Islamic and Revolutionary teachings of Imam [Khomeini] still want to impose their power-hungry understanding on others with threats, force, and prison. [These "others"] include the greatest and most respected Sources of Emulation within Shi’ite Islam. [Such actions are committed] while the history of Emulation is long and its position is very well-regarded. Sources of Emulation are the guardians of Prophet Mohammad’s Islam during the time before the return of his descendant. But [the hardliners] even see these [revered figures] as subjects to their power. This is why they send their ground-troops to the offices of Sources of Emulation in Qom to invite them to the "right" path. And when the Sources of Emulation deny this, they pay a group to attack the offices of Grand Ayatollah Saane’i and Grand Ayatollah Montazeri and demand that they exit Qom.

Thinking about these incidents and [seeing] images from these wild attacks leads us to [ask] the following questions: Has respect and dignity for religion and Sources of Emulation ever been ripped apart this badly in the history of the Shi’ites? How is it that some people have shifted from [being members] of a group that used the name of the daughter of the great Prophet as code for its operations –-- people who defended the land against those who waged war –-- to those who attack the offices of eminent Sources of Emulation at 5.30 in the morning and loot their property, belongings, and religious books?

Who is ready to answer for this great deviation? We still remember the days before the victory of the Revolution when the bold opinion of one person against one Source of Emulation, [published] in a prominent newspaper, was met with a storm of response. But today a newspaper which is seen as the representative of the Supreme Leader insults these religious figures so easily. Maybe today’s awful constraints, as well as the immeasurable protection and financial support that these slanderers receive, stops people from holding them accountable and responding to them. But they should know that people will never forget these insults. Let them even ignore the people. If they are not responding, will God stand still and do nothing in the face of such terrible oppression of great men of religion and Islam?

If we move past the slander and insult in that evil editorial, there is a detail that is actually accurate and worth thinking about. [I am talking about] a quote from Ali, the first Imam of the Shi’ites. He said that individuals should be judged based on the criteria of justice; not that justice should be measured by what some individuals proclaim. Indeed, what is the definition of right and wrong (and justice) from the perspective of these "honorable" men? How can you respond to people’s demands for their votes with bullets and then talk about justice? What formed the basis of people’s demands was their right to vote. After the atrocities at Kahrizak detainment center and other legal and illegal prisons, people began to add more demands to their list. How can you open fire on people and then ask them to stop asking for those responsible?

Who from the beginning interpreted pronouncing justified demands and asking questions about [our] votes against the Guardianship of the Jurist [Velayat-e-Faqih]? Why, by means of the Guardianship of the Jurist has a hatchet been taken to the very roots of the Constitution and the Islamic Republic that was founded on the people’s vote? Why has the authority of Guardianship of the Jurist been so greatly extended that I doubt that much authority and power were [even] given to the Prophets or the infallible [Shi’a] Imams? I even doubt that God considers himself to have the right to deal with his servants in the same way [that the Supreme Leader does].

Historically, Shi’a Islam considers criticism of the ruler not only necessary but a requirement based on the Sharia law stipulation that describes “advising the leader of Muslims” [1] . Imam Sadegh [2] says “my dearest brother is the one who tells me my faults”. But as you can see, these gentlemen understand voicing opinions and views to be in opposition to Guardianship of the Jurist .The Supreme Leader expressed his opinion regarding the election [and post-election events]. But the people, while maintaining respect for him , had a different view and demanded that their votes [be counted]. Is it possible to take away the people’s right to question [events] and to distort their perception and understanding by jailing them in places like Kahrizak or killing them? They attack Marjaas and damage their homes, justifying [their actions] based on the views of the Supreme Leader. Or, by recruiting thugs, [they] insult the compatriots of Imam Khomeini and crush the articles of the Constitution under their authoritarian boots. Imam Khomeini’s compatriots and [our] wise people have not forgotten his tradition, manners and conduct. On many occasions where Imam Khomeini voiced his opinion on an issue, officials acted differently and according to their own judgments and understanding. Yet the Imam was never upset over this. [Moreover], no one would object to those officials or infringe on their rights. If the greatest marjas and the Supreme Leader do not detect the crescent of the new moon that marks the end of Ramadaan; if, instead an illiterate shepherd or simple laborer observes the new moon on the high hill of his territory and therefore breaks his fast – can someone call him an infidel, an armed dissident, a stooge of the US and of Zionism and [accuse him of acting] against the Guardianship of the Jurist as well as the state? If we assume the officials did not realize that the people’s votes were stolen, but people have observed it with their own eyes, can someone call them an infidel or an armed dissident, or [accuse them of being] against the Guardianship of the Jurist ? How is asking questions regarding one’s votes related to opposing Islam, religion and the Guardianship of the Jurist ? How is it that some people consider a demand for rights to be a crime and against the Guardianship of the Jurist when, in Islam, a dissident can debate with an infallible Imam even regarding the existence of God?

Freedom-loving and noble people of Iran

We all remember that the socio-political views of the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran were different from those of the great Marja of the time, Ayatollah Boroudjerdi . But no one recalls them having said anything against each other or having encouraged and incited their supporters to confront each other, causing unrest in religious society.

We all recall the Imam’s response to the different views of Marjaas[Sources of Emulation] within the seminary. In particular, [we recall] the manner with which he responded to the late Ayatollah Golpayegani’s social and even political views, as well as his views on jurisprudence The announcement for Eid-e-Fetr for all Muslims was even made in his name in all of the media outlets. I recall, specifically, a tape that a number of people had recorded of one of Ayatollah Golpaygani’s sermons. It was about fifteen minutes long and related to the Guardianship of the Jurist [Velayat-e Faqih ] His views were in complete contradiction to the Imam’s, yet when they brought this tape to the Imam, he ordered for Ayatollah Golpaygani’s remarks to be broadcast on national radio twice with all the details. We all recall that during the first presidential term of the current Supreme Leader [4], he had in mind a candidate for Prime Minister who was not recommended by the Imam or by Parliament. How beautiful [it was] that [Khamenei] was able to firmly stand behind his decision even though the Imam, with the power of the Guardianship of the Jurist , did not agree with him. The response to opposing the Supreme Leader as well as the Velayat-e Faqih was different at the time. . I even remember the infamous events that followed the election of Mr. Mousavi to the post of Prime Minister for a second time in 1364. 99 Parliamentary representatives did not vote for Mr. Mousavi and the current Supreme Leader, who was president at the time, famously stated that “99 people have cast a vote of non confidence and that will be 100 votes if you include mine.” He also stated the following during the inauguration and in the presence of spectators and reporters: “As I administer this presidential oath, I pledge that its execution is not completely within my authority.” With that announcement, [Khamenei] continued to assert his opposition to the choice of the Imam. However, neither he nor any of the members of Parliament who voted against the Imam’s selection were insulted, arrested, or described as against the regime or the Guardianship of the Jurist We can all recall the speech of one of the representatives of the second Parliament and the comments he made to those who disapproved of the fact that his words were against the views of the Imam: “If [speaking against the Imam] is unacceptable, then maybe he should send 270 ‘muzzles’ to Parliament.” Even after making such an inflammatory statement, that individual was never frowned upon by the Imam or his offices. He was never harassed, tortured or arrested for that speech. In fact, he was even appointed to a senior legal position within the Guardian Council and served as deputy to the Judiciary. He was also on the radar of many high-level officials within the regime. I remember that when he visited the Imam – even though it was not customary at that time – they even broadcast the news that a member of Parliament had visited the Imam on national radio.

Now compare that Guardianship of the Jurist which one might imagine, based on the scholarly and practical teachings of the founder of the Islamic Republic, with the image that is presented today of the Guardianship of the Jurist and the defense of which casts a shadow over what goes on. God knows what damage the betrayal by a number of people of the Guardianship of the Jurist and the people’s religion has done to the people and their spiritual beliefs.

Proud and Noble Nation of Iran:

One year after the tenth presidential elections and after what they did with your votes, and one year after blood was spilled so that you may gain your rights, I declare again, clearly and sincerely, that in accordance with my pact with you I have stood firm until the very end, and that I am ready to sit down with anyone who should present themselves from the side of the authorities and debate with them. I will express my views on the Constitution, the Line of the Imam, and the Revolution, so that the people—the same people of whom the Imam said that his life is a sacrifice for each and every one of them—may sit in judgment and establish which are the people who have deviated from the Constitution, the path and thought and ideals of the Revolution, and which are the people who despite all the pressures and difficulties they have faced have held fast to the principles [of the Revolution and Constitution]. It is only in this kind of free debate in front of the nation that the lost trust of the people can be recovered. And had it been it possible to convince the people with this mass of propaganda and with a quagmire of lies and accusations, there would have been no need for crackdowns, and they would have given protesters permission to hold a silent march, without fear and without recourse to armed force. Yet the opponents of the people’s vote were not prepared to allot to the protesters even an insignificant share of the possibilities of expression through the media and propaganda channels which they [the authorities] control, so that they [the protesters] might explain and given an account of or declare their positions, or express their viewpoint and defend themselves from the unjust accusations brought against them. Rather the gentlemen saw logic in bullets and fired them on the people. Astonishingly, the gentlemen, instead of running the country and listening to the voice of the people, in this “heavenly Islamic city”[4] shouted slogans about running the world and planning for its inhabitants. They fear both the people and their own shadows, and instead of development for the country, their programme is composed of crackdowns and the spread of prisons and Kahrizaks [detention/torture centres], while in their heads they also entertain the idea of running the world.

Noble and Righteous Nation of Iran:

The vote they stole from you and the rights that they took from you unjustly are a shameful stain that cannot be hidden with whatever colour it is painted over. This is so much the case that after one year, despite all the pressures and intimidation, not only have your rightful demands not been forgotten, but this desire for change has taken deep root in different layers of society, based on an extensive social network. This widespread desire is not something that can be destroyed by means of crackdowns, intimidation, arrests and arbitrary courts. God has requested of believers that they be patient and enduring, and has promised them victory. Although your road is hard and winding, nonetheless the future promised by God belongs to you and the oppressors are destined to nothingness. “Is not the morning nigh?” [5]

[1] A well known quote from Prohpet Mohammad Peace Be Upon Him , regarded by him as one of the most important responsibilities of Muslims.

[2] The six Shia Imam

[3] Ayatollah Khamenie

[4] An ironic allusion to the claims made by some high-ranking dignitaries that the aim of the Islamic Republic is to build a heavenly regime, literally omm olqora-ye eslam, ‘Mother of the Villages of Islam’, in Iran.

[5] Quran 11:81.

Reader Comments (19)

[...] Iran Document: Karroubi Takes on the Supreme Leader (20 June … [...]

[...] Enduring America | June 20, 2010 by Scott Lucas [...]

[...] Iran Document: Karroubi Takes on the Supreme Leader (20 June … [...]

It's funny, last year during the election campaign, Karroubi was not taken very seriously. He was widely seen as a somewhat silly old man who said crazy things, especially when talking about his economic policies. Mousavi supporters I spoke to said they were glad the was echoing some of their own views, but he was basically a joke - just providing the campaign with comic relief.

June 21, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterCatherine

One certainly must admire Mr. Karroubi for courageously insisting, in a public letter, that the 2009 election was "rigged." I am surprised, and I suspect Mir-Hossein Mousavi is surprised and disappointed, that not a single one of his tens of thousands of election-day observers has shown the same courage as Mr. Karroubi. In all that time, not one of them has stepped forward to claim that any wrongdoing whatsoever occurred at his polling station on election day. Not one of them has come forward to say that the vote count he witnessed was not the vote count that local election officials reported to Tehran. Not one of them has come forward to say that the vote count reported to Tehran was changed by the Interior Ministry when it issued its ballot-box by ballot-box report.

It would not surprise me to learn that Mousavi feels betrayed by his tens of thousands of election-day observers. One would expect at least one of them to show the same courage as Mr. Karroubi showed in this letter.

June 22, 2010 | Unregistered Commentereabrill

Hi Mr. Brill,

Do you have any explanations where the 113% surplus for AN in comparison
with the elections in 2005 came from?

"According to the official Ministry of Interior voting data (see Appendix),
Mahmud Ahmadinejad has increased the conservative vote by 113%
compared to the 2005 election. There is little correlation in provincial-level
results between the increase in turnout and the swing to Ahmadinejad,
challenging the notion that a previously silent conservative majority came out
to support him. Interestingly, in 10 out of 30 provinces, mainly former Mehdi
Karrubi strongholds, the official data suggests that Ahmadinejad not only
received the votes of all former non-voters and former President, Ali Akbar
Hashemi Rafsanjani voters, but also took up to 44% of the vote from those
who had previously voted reformist."

source Chatham house

June 22, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterGunniy

And by the way - Mr. Brill - any answers to the latest written by Chatham house?

"" rel="nofollow">

June 22, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterGunniy


As do many analysts, Dr. Ansari compares the 2009 election here to the first round of the 2005 election, which had 7 candidates, none of which got more than 21% of the vote. In 2009, though 4 candidates ran, 2 of them split over 97% of the vote, which effectively made it a 2-man race. Comparing a 2-man race to a 7-man race is not conducive to meaningful comparisons. I suggest you compare the 2005 run-off to the 2009 election. See what you think. Better yet, consider the section of my article at:" rel="nofollow">

June 22, 2010 | Unregistered Commentereabrill

See comment #354 at the RFI website on this subject. As I note there, I read and responded to Dr. Ansari's new article before it was published:" rel="nofollow">

June 22, 2010 | Unregistered Commentereabrill


"It's funny, last year during the election campaign, Karroubi was not taken very seriously. He was widely seen as a somewhat silly old man who said crazy things, especially when talking about his economic policies. Mousavi supporters I spoke to said they were glad he was echoing some of their own views, but he was basically a joke - just providing the campaign with comic relief."

Then why does anyone take him seriously today?

June 22, 2010 | Unregistered Commentereabrill

Mr. Brill,

@ Karroubi: Some people do change -- due to extraordinary circumstances. I guess that you would ignore these extraordinary circumstances, even when security forces would line up along Tehran's streets everyday, not only as they did yesterday.
Others like you, your AN and SL will never change, caught in a nightmare of hubris, loss of reality and pitiful lack of intelligence.
Your false gods are happily digging their graves with their own hands -- high time to search for others! I recommend Kim Yong Il...


June 22, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterArshama


Election candidates are vetted by the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader. That's where the election fraud begins. The rest is minutiae.

Unless of course you support a "guided democracy" that's "guided" by ultra-reactionary theocrats, militaristic ideologues and corrupt profiteers.

Seeing as you're a member of the lunatic left, you happily gloss over these inconvenient facts given your love for the IRI's habit of making funny faces at the big bad imperial powers.

June 22, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterBozorg

Still waiting for an answer, from those who argue for the legitimacy of the election, to this question on another thread:

Where are the Form 22s from the individual polling stations?


June 22, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterScottLucas11

Because he has shown, that the colour of his beard is not very important and those circonstances, where it's risky to criticize the leaders, Mr Karroubi is as a coach boosting people when they have been down, speaking out about the problems in the country and especially saying that he's not afraid of the consequences of what he does; he dares to stand against KH saying the truth; he's very courageous !

June 22, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterAnge-Paris

I see your comments in multiple blogs and sites that discuss Iran-related topics and can only assume you are feiging ignorance when you ask this question. Within the shortest time this perception of him as a silly, harmless old man changed 360 degrees in Iran and amongst Iranians abroad (positively for those who support his actions, negatively for those who disagree with them) because of his courageous and uncompromising stances on human rights abuses during the brutal crackdown perpetrated by the regime against its citizens after the election and to this day.

June 22, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterCatherine


>”It's funny, last year during the election campaign, Karroubi was not taken very seriously. He was widely seen as a somewhat silly old man who said crazy things, especially when talking about his economic policies. Mousavi supporters I spoke to said they were glad he was echoing some of their own views, but he was basically a joke - just providing the campaign with comic relief.”<

May I humbly say that it would be an over generalization to say that Karroubi was not taken seriously at all before the 2009 election, or that he was taken by everyone as a joke. He was supported by Abtahi, Mohajerani, Soroosh, Karbaschi, a sizable part of the student movement, etc. He also had good support amongst non-Persian and non-Azeri ethnic communities (the Azaeris and Persians seemed to have favoured Mousavi, he being Azaeri himself).

During the election TV debate Karroubi managed to attack Ahmadinejad and expose his folly on every conceivable point (this was despite having to defend himself over having received money from Shahram Jazayeri, which he had BTW). The effectiveness of Karroubi’s ridicule of Ahmadinejad’s policies was probably why the officially announced (by the Ahmadinejad government) tally of his votes was so low.

Before the elections there were at times a high level of animosity between the supporters of Mousavi and Karroubi. One example is the very public and very nasty exchanges between the writer Mahmoud Dolatabadi and Abdolkarim Soroosh. On another occasion, Mousavi had refused to answer questions about the executions of the 1980s. This lead to Karroubi supporters saying that Mousavi was another establishment man who (some used to call him another Ahmadinejad).

In the final days leading to the elections, there were quite serious efforts by Mousavi supporters to persuade Karroubi backers to vote to Mousavi instead. The logic was that during the final week (especially after the “green chain” across Tehran and in other cities on the Monday before the election) support for Mousavi had grown considerably and that switching your vote from Karroubi to Mousavi would ensure that Mousavi won outright in the first round. I was approached by several people about this (even though I had not told anyone who I’d vote for, or even if I intended to vote at all).

One other thing: when he was the speaker of the sixth Majles, Karroubi acted (in my view at least) intelligently on a few occasions. For example: early in that Majes (which had a reformist majority) there was debate on a bill to liberalize (by IR standards) the press law and make it more difficult for the courts to shut down the press and jail journalists. Khamenei had written in confidence to Karroubi as the Speaker asking that the Majles not pass that law. The expectation would have been that, like many occasions before, no reference would be made to Khamenei, but the bill would either be watered down to a point where it made no sense or that it would be voted down by the Majles (by telling MPs in private that the SL was against it). Instead, Karroubi read out the Khamenei letter in Majles and said that this was an order from Khamenei. The passage of the bill was stopped, but it exposed Khamenei as wanting to manipulate that Majles and as directly and strongly backing the draconian press laws. Thisforced Khamenei to change tactics. He was forced to rely less on confidential orders and instead, the Council of Guardians was used to block the reformist laws. This started the process of delegitimizing the Council of Guardians (which also oversees the elections). It also started the process of exposing Khamenei’s Machiavellian tactics.

I agree that Karroubi’s proposal to pay cash to people on a monthly basis does not make economic sense, but it probably had some effect in blunting the effect on the vote of Ahmadinejad’s cash payments during the previous four years.

One has to note that all of this is within the context of the Islamic Republic which is very closed. None of these people are saints.



June 22, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterVerde_e

Thanks Mr Verde for your informative reply. I realised I was making a generalisation when I posted the first comment of this thread. I was more concerned - and should have made this explicit - with illustrating how far Karroubi has come from the dismissive remarks about him we heard from people we talked to on the street last year (no one official and not more than a total of about 50 individuals) and his present standing as a model of courage and steadfastness in defending people's civil and human rights (or an extremely bothersome scourge - depending on your point of view).

But I'm glad I generalised because otherwise we wouldn't have had this lengthy post from you! :-)

June 22, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterCatherine

Hi Brilly –

Better yet consider the behaviour of Iranian people and voters instead of spreading lies. This is just only one of your biggest mistakes.

As you can see -" rel="nofollow"> - after the war was finished the Iranian Establishment constantly had lost voters.
A clear sign and indicator of this development is the dwindling turnout at the end of the eighties and at the beginning of the nineties.

With the election of Khatami this political trend of a dwindling turnout changed: You can indicate that a big turnout in the Iranian elections is a clear sign that lots of supporters of the reformists are going to deliver their vote.

But what is much more important: The votes for the Reformists were always deeply connected with the will of Iranian people of a political change towards a path of more democracy and towards a much more open society.

People thought that Khatami, the Candidate of the reformist will clear up the crap – with other words: Iranian people expected that Khatami will lead the Iranian politics to be more democratic. People expected that Khatami will consolidate the republican elements inside the constitution and inside the politics. People expected that the Reformists will be able to make a much more democratic path irreversible.

Results from 1997: 70% for the Reformist Candidate Khatami
Turnout : nearly 79 %

The elections 2001 was nearly the same – but the voter turnout decreased for several reasons.

2005 was the negative example: The 2005 elections were boycotted by many reformist voters. They stayed at home. At 2005 the voter turnout was 62%.

What we can clearly analyse is that a big voter turnout as 85% at 2009 indicates a big amount of reformist voters. Looking to the history of Iranian election results you can see: A big voter turnout above 60% contained always a big result of the reformist’s candidates. The reasons you will find when you analyse the dramatic change of the social structure and especially the age patterns inside Iran.

Brilly – you can easily rig numbers and as everybody knows and you are going to continue spreading lies mainly inside the Leveret blog – like a rat catcher on the run.

But you can’t deny political trends.

A big voter turnout inside Iran above 60% was always connected with big profits of reform candidates.

And that’s just only one of hundreds proves why the President elections in 2009 were rigged.

But you have never changed your cruel argumentation – why?
And now you are back on EA – that’s fine – you are looking for orientation and your glasses?

June 22, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterGunniy

Very Very Interesting Information.

Thanks" rel="nofollow">Litea Corp

June 25, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterLitéra

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>