Despite embarrassment due to invalid votes, Iran conveniently ignores the issue of electoral shortcomings

Anyone aware of the election results of Iran will know that by definition, it was not a fair election. Election practice is not only about vote counting or free choice of leadership but it is also about the numbers of voters registering their votes and whether that number crosses the majority.

It is common knowledge that the voter count in these elections was well below 50 percent of the people which indicates that the choice for them to choose or reject the leadership was not fairly granted. The voting was conducted on June 18 this year and in many ways, it was different from pollings that were done before it.

It highlighted the loopholes that the Iranian administration has and how deep the hle has been dug when it comes to proximity with the civilians and the political leaders. Even before the polling was conducted, it was gathered that it would witness the lowest turnout in the practiced democracy of the country. A report suggested that only less than one percent of the population casting their votes expected any change in the political ideology once a new leader comes to power.

Before Covid-19 came into picture, the people were already struggling with a deepening economic crisis and increasing violence in the region which was specific to certain communities. There were hundreds of protests in Iran against the ruling party and leaders but this call went into undestined calm due to the coronavirus pandemic. But even then, some of the most affected communities continued to protest without thinking of their safety as they were looking for liberation.

The Iranian politicians were well aware of the shortcoming that the electorate system consisted of and the centrist response to the whole issue did not benefit either. The centrist regime is the one that is capable of making changes that could have an impact on the government but with the type of leaders up the order, it too is a far-fetched notion.

Those capable of making revolutionary changes, the voters, were also not given as much power as they should have. The whole country functions on the call of an unelected so-called supervisory body who call themselves the ‘Guardian Council’. It is dominated by extreme conservationists who are specifically selected by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Khamenei is known for his promises even if it means that he has to sacrifice even the most loyal of hsi leaders and he will not think twice on it. In no time, his circle was as limited as it could be but the same was not the case when compared to the influence it had on the country as it kept growing.

With that kind of dominance, the idea that fixing is very much possible in the elections with such low turnout, occurred many times. Even before the polling and elections result announcement, the inner circle were well aware of the leader who would next come to power and civilians knew which council he would be a member of. None other than one of the favorites of the supreme leader, Ebrahim Raisi came to power but unlike most elections, competed only with himself for the throne. The results were not much of a surprise for people aware of the Iranian regime.

The world is aware of the issue and the electoral fraud committed by the Iranian organizations but the lack of them addressing the issue and sheer neglect for the kind of atmosphere it may bring upon itself is threatening. This time the threat may not be restricted to the people of the country or the country itself, which is already burdened with economic loss, but may extend to neighbors and foreign partners.