Iran's Presidential Election Combines Low Turnout with High Stakes
The second round of Iran’s snap presidential election marks a critical moment for the country. On July 5, voters will decide between former deputy head of parliament Masoud Pezeshkian and ex-nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili. While both candidates will struggle to restore power and prestige to the office of the president, the outcome of the election will be highly consequential for Iran, especially as the succession of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei looms. Pezeshkian and Jalili have presented two diverging visions for the future of the Islamic Republic at a time when most Iranians have come to question the fundamental tenets of their political system.
The political divisions in Iran now extend beyond the long-running rivalry between “Principalists” and “Reformists.” Cleavages exist within progressive and conservative groups and between those who believe in the continuation of the Islamic Republic and those seeking fundamental political change. The record-low turnout in the election’s first round—just 40 percent of eligible voters cast ballots—reflects how a focus on ideological policies has alienated the electorate. In 2021, 18 million people voted for Ebrahim Raisi, whose shock death in a helicopter accident triggered new elections. On June 28, the combined vote for Jalili and third-place contender Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the leading conservative candidates, totaled less than 13 million.
Reformists have likewise struggled to mobilize voters. Progressive Iranians want action on a wide ranging of issues, including women’s rights, internet censorship, political freedoms, minority rights, foreign relations, jobs and wages, healthcare, climate change, and education. While Pezeshkian, who received 10.4 million votes in the first round, has acknowledged these demands, most progressive voters do not believe he can foster change, and have so far stayed away from the polls.
Moreover, many Iranians opted not to vote because of a widespread belief that the election is illegitimate, owing to perceived election engineering and vote tampering. Many influential political figures have boycotted the snap elections, labelling the process an “election circus.” The sham election that brought Raisi to power in 2021 underscored the regime’s commitment to its own dogma, sacrificing decades of legitimacy earned through elections that were not free, but were competitive.
Raisi was a weak president, presiding over a system in which the executive’s powers are curtailed. Unelected bodies and interests groups enjoy significant influence over government policy in Iran and the Supreme Leader sets the red lines. Voters are under no illusions about the limits of the Iranian president’s power. But within the bounds of Iran’s political system, the divergence in the domestic and foreign policies of different presidents are often stark.
During the debates earlier this week, Pezeshkian and Jalili showcased their contrasting visions. Jalili comes from a self-proclaimed shadow government. He has led from the shadows for eleven years since securing just 4.17 million votes in the 2013 presidential election, which was won by Hassan Rouhani. Jalili champions a future where Iran is detached from Western influence. He vehemently opposes any engagement with the United States and, to a lesser extent, European countries. As a member of the Supreme National Security Council, Jalili used his political power to stymie revival of the Iran nuclear deal. Many fear that, if elected, Jalili might withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, thrusting Iran back into a nuclear crisis.
On the domestic front, Jalili’s camp includes ultra-conservatives vying for strict Islamic governance, more censorship, and tighter hijab laws and social restrictions. Even though Jalili has positioned himself as a kind of status-quo candidate, poised to maintain the policies of the Raisi administration, he is a divisive figure even within conservative circles. Some Raisi and Ghalibaf allies have indicated that they will support Pezeshkian over Jalili.
That Pezeshkian appeals to some conservatives points to the challenge he faces in mobilizing disaffected voters. His background distinguishes him from recent presidential candidates. He is an accomplished cardiac surgeon with certificates from the United States and Switzerland and served as Mohammad Khatami’s health minister. Some voters have connected with his personal story. Pezeshkian lost his wife and son in a car crash in 1993. He has not remarried.
Pezeshkian has said his foreign policy will be based on “engagement with the world,” which includes “negotiations for lifting sanctions.” Pezeshkian may be permitted to revive talks over the Iran nuclear deal—there is growing awareness among policymakers across Iran’s political specturm that sanctions relief is necessary for getting the economy back on track. However, he will face significant challenges in advancing his domestic policies. The parliament is dominated by hardliners, who will make it difficult for Pezeskhian to confirm his preferred ministers, which may include his outspoken campaign surrogates, former foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and former communications minister Mohammad-Javad Azari Jahromi. Without an intervention from the Supreme Leader to encourage post-election unity, the political paralysis in Iran could prove even worse than in the final years of the Rouhani administration.
The specter of further political paralysis has no doubt deterred voters from believing in the viability of a Pezeshkian presidency. Boycotting the first round allowed the Iranian electorate to send a strong political signal that they will not allow their votes to legitimize a political system that is failing them.
But the stakes seem different now. A Pezeshkian victory appears a real possibility. If 10.4 million had not voted for Pezeshkian in the first round, it would have been reasonable for disaffected voters to completely boycott the election. But on the eve of the final round, voters may be thinking more tactically about the stakes of this election. A Pezeshkian presidency is a chance to hit the brakes at a time when Iran is accelerating towards a deeper political, economic, and social crisis. Whether Pezeshkian can turn the car around remains to be seen. But preventing Jalili from driving the country off a cliff might be reason enough to vote.
Photo: IRNA
