Iran’s Electoral Crossroads: Navigating Tradition and Transformation
Iran announced that it will hold presidential elections on June 28, state media reported, following the death of President Ebrahim Raisi and his entourage in a helicopter crash. (Pic Arab News)
Written by Stefan van der Berg (Ministry Leader at dia-LOGOS)
Iran's recent history has been marked by alternating phases of hope and despair, tradition and modernization, revolution and counterrevolution, conservatism and reformism. As we approach another historic moment with a snap presidential election on June 28, triggered by the death of President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash last month, we find ourselves asking: what direction will Iran take next? This election is expected to reveal the Iranian establishment’s future plans, providing a glimpse into the country's potential trajectory.

Amongst a crowded field of 80 candidates for the upcoming state-controlled presidential election in Iran, one name continually stands out: Saeed Jalili. At 55, this anti-American ideologue and self-proclaimed revolutionary is seen by many as a potential replica of Ebrahim Raisi’s government. The state-monitored Rouydad24 news outlet suggests that while his path to victory is complex, certain elements within Iran's political landscape could favor his potential to win the presidency. Jalili, an ultraconservative close ally of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, belongs to the Principalist faction in Iranian politics, which emphasizes the principles of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Having run as a presidential candidate in the past, one of Jalili's official campaign slogans was “Great Jihad for Iran’s Leap Forward.” During his tenure as deputy foreign minister, several European diplomats described Jalili as someone who strongly and unwaveringly expressed his views. One diplomat even remarked that Jalili "specialized in monologue" rather than engaging in debate. Jalili’s diplomatic style led some experts to conclude that he would not be a suitable candidate if the regime wants to advance its current foreign policy and improve relations with the West.

As I delve deeper into the dynamics driving Iranian politics, it becomes clear that understanding the honor-shame worldview prevalent in much of the Middle East, and certainly in Iran, is crucial. This worldview, which significantly influences political decisions and societal norms, differs markedly from the guilt-innocence paradigm predominant in the West. But how does this really affect the everyday lives of Iranian citizens and their leaders' decisions on the world stage?

Honor-Shame Worldview and Iranian Politics

Leadership and Decision-Making

Iranian leaders often make decisions aimed at preserving national honor and avoiding any perception of weakness or subjugation. This is evident in the country's assertive stance in international diplomacy and its commitment to maintaining a strong national identity despite external pressures. How does this drive for honor influence Iran's interactions with the global community?

A major aspect of this is that leaders adopt rigid positions in negotiations to avoid the appearance of conceding to foreign powers, which they perceive as shameful.

Domestic Governance

Internally, the honor-shame dynamic influences the governance style and public policies. The regime's need to maintain its image as a strong, unyielding authority leads to strict control over dissent and opposition. Political leaders are expected to uphold the honor of the state and the Islamic Revolution, leading to harsh responses against any actions perceived as threats to national pride or ideological purity. How does this impact the daily lives of Iranians who might dissent?

Social Control and Public Behavior

In society, the honor-shame framework manifests in the emphasis on social conformity and the enforcement of moral codes. The government leverages this cultural aspect to promote certain behaviors and suppress those deemed dishonorable. Public shaming, a common tactic, is used to deter behaviors that go against societal norms or challenge state authority. What does this mean for individual freedoms and social progress in Iran?

International Relations

Iran’s interactions on the global stage are heavily influenced by the desire to uphold national honor. This can be seen in its stance on nuclear development, regional influence, and responses to sanctions. Iran's leaders often frame international conflicts and negotiations in terms of honor and dignity, positioning themselves as defenders of national pride against perceived Western hegemony. Could this pursuit of honor be a double-edged sword for Iran’s international relations?

Examples of Honor-Shame Influence

Nuclear Program

Iran's persistence in developing its nuclear program, despite international sanctions and diplomatic pressure, can be partly attributed to the honor-shame worldview. Possessing nuclear capability is seen as a matter of national pride and a symbol of resistance against external domination. Does this relentless pursuit truly benefit the nation, or does it isolate Iran further on the world stage?

Cultural and Religious Policies

Policies aimed at preserving Islamic values and Iranian culture reflect the honor-shame mindset. Efforts to combat Western cultural influence and promote Islamic dress codes, for instance, are driven by the desire to maintain cultural honor and avoid the shame of cultural erosion. How does this cultural enforcement affect the younger generation in Iran, who might be more inclined towards modern, globalized values?

Diplomatic Conduct

Iranian diplomats and leaders often use language emphasizing honor and resistance in international forums. This rhetoric serves to rally domestic support and project an image of strength and resilience to the world. I often wonder, does this rhetoric truly resonate with the Iranian people, or is it a facade to mask deeper issues within the country?

The Guilt-Innocence Worldview in the West

To fully appreciate the differences in electoral systems, it is worth our while to touch on the guilt-innocence worldview as adopted by the West and how it affects our politics. This is by no means exhaustive but a summary of the most important aspects:

The right-wrong worldview, also known as the guilt-innocence worldview, is a cultural framework that is prevalent in Western societies. This worldview is fundamentally different from the honor-shame and power-fear worldviews commonly found in other parts of the world. It emphasizes individual responsibility, legalistic notions of justice, and the intrinsic importance of moral and ethical behavior based on objective standards of right and wrong.

Origins of the Guilt-Innocence Worldview

Judeo-Christian Tradition

The Guilt-Innocence worldview is heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian ethics, which emphasize absolute moral laws given by God. The Ten Commandments, for instance, provide a clear set of rules that distinguish right from wrong. Christianity, in particular, emphasizes individual accountability before God. The concept of personal sin and the need for repentance are central to Christian theology.

Greco-Roman Philosophy

Ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle explored ethics and morality through reason and debate. They sought to understand the principles of a good life and justice, laying the groundwork for Western ethical thought. Roman law further contributed to the Guilt-Innocence worldview by establishing comprehensive legal codes that outlined rights and responsibilities, reinforcing the idea of justice based on established laws.

Enlightenment Thinking

The Enlightenment period emphasized reason, science, and the intrinsic value of the individual. Thinkers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant focused on human rights, the social contract, and moral imperatives grounded in reason. Enlightenment ideas significantly shaped modern legal systems in the West, promoting principles like equality before the law, due process, and individual freedoms.

Characteristics of the Guilt-Innocence Worldview

Focus on Law and Justice

Western societies place a strong emphasis on codified laws and legal systems to maintain order and justice. Legal systems are designed to determine guilt and innocence based on evidence and established legal standards. People are seen as responsible for their actions and are expected to adhere to societal laws and ethical norms. Violations result in punishment or corrective measures aimed at restoring justice.

Moral and Ethical Standards

There is a belief in objective moral truths that transcend individual or cultural preferences. Actions are judged based on these universal standards of right and wrong. The concept of guilt plays a crucial role in regulating behavior. Individuals internalize societal norms and feel guilty when they violate these norms, prompting them to seek forgiveness or make amends.

Emphasis on Rights and Responsibilities

Western cultures emphasize the inherent rights of individuals, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the right to a fair trial. These rights are protected by law and are considered fundamental to human dignity. Alongside rights, there is an expectation of civic responsibility and adherence to societal rules. Citizens are expected to participate in democratic processes, uphold the law, and contribute to the common good.

Implications of the Guilt-Innocence Worldview

Judicial Systems

The Guilt-Innocence worldview heavily influences Western judicial systems, emphasizing impartiality, evidence-based judgments, and the rule of law. Courts aim to establish guilt or innocence and administer justice accordingly.

Ethical Behavior

Ethical decision-making in the West often involves weighing actions against a moral code or legal standard. Ethical dilemmas are resolved by referring to principles of right and wrong.

Education and Socialization

Educational systems in the West teach children the difference between right and wrong from an early age. Social institutions reinforce these values, promoting a culture of individual responsibility and ethical behavior.

With this background it is important to explore some differences is Election Processes in most parts of the Middle East compared to the West.

What are the Differences Between Western-Style Elections and Those in Iran?

Election Framework and Structure

In a Western-style democracy, elections are typically characterized by multiple political parties representing a broad spectrum of political beliefs, from conservative to liberal to socialist and beyond. These elections are usually open to all eligible citizens, who can freely vote for their preferred candidates. The process is overseen by independent electoral commissions that ensure transparency, fairness, and adherence to democratic principles. Key features include free media, the ability for candidates to campaign without restriction, and the presence of independent observers to prevent fraud.

In contrast, Iran’s election system operates within a highly controlled framework where the supreme leader and institutions loyal to the Islamic Republic exert significant influence over who can run for office. While multiple candidates may appear on the ballot, all must be vetted by the Guardian Council, which ensures they adhere to the ideological and political principles of the regime. This vetting process limits genuine political pluralism and restricts the range of choices available to voters.

Political Pluralism and Candidate Selection

In Western democracies, candidate selection is generally a decentralized process involving primary elections or internal party decisions. Parties and individuals have the freedom to campaign, debate, and present their platforms to the public. The electorate then has a genuine choice among candidates with differing views and policies.

As I reflect on the dynamics shaping Iran’s political landscape, I can't help but ponder the implications of this upcoming election. We are witnessing a moment where the choices made by Iranian citizens could significantly influence the country's future. What direction will Iran take? Will it lean towards a continuation of its revolutionary principles, or will it open up to new possibilities for reform and engagement with the wider world?

We must ask ourselves: how does the honor-shame paradigm truly impact the decisions of Iranian leaders and the lives of everyday citizens? Can a nation's pursuit of honor and avoidance of shame coexist with the global need for dialogue, compromise, and mutual respect? As we observe these unfolding events, I believe it is crucial for us to deepen our understanding of the cultural and political nuances that drive such decisions.

Ultimately, this election not only reflects the internal struggles within Iran but also poses a broader question for all of us: How do we, as a global community, bridge the gap between differing worldviews to foster understanding and cooperation?

Iran’s candidate selection process is centralized and heavily regulated by the state. The Guardian Council, composed of clerics and jurists appointed by the supreme leader and the judiciary, has the power to disqualify candidates. This council ensures that only those loyal to the core tenets of the Islamic Republic and the supreme leader's vision can participate. As a result, the range of candidates is significantly narrower, often excluding reformists and those who challenge the status quo.

Electoral Freedom and Media

Western-style democracies emphasize the importance of a free and independent media, which plays a crucial role in informing the public, scrutinizing candidates, and ensuring accountability. Media outlets operate without government interference, allowing for a diversity of opinions and investigative journalism that can uncover corruption or malpractice.

In Iran, media freedom is severely restricted. The state controls major media outlets, and those that operate independently face strict regulations and censorship. Journalists and media organizations that criticize the government or promote dissenting views can be subject to harassment, imprisonment, or closure. This controlled media environment limits the public’s access to unbiased information and hampers the ability to conduct a transparent and informed election process.

Voter Participation and Legitimacy

High voter turnout is a hallmark of Western democracies, seen as a sign of public engagement and the legitimacy of the electoral process. Governments and electoral bodies actively encourage participation through various means, including public education campaigns and making voting accessible.

In Iran, the regime also strives for high voter turnout, but often for different reasons. High participation is used to demonstrate the regime's legitimacy and popular support. However, recent trends show declining voter turnout due to public disillusionment with the political system's lack of genuine representation and reform. The government may resort to orchestrating a competitive-looking race to boost turnout, but the underlying control over candidate selection diminishes the authenticity of the democratic process.

Conclusion

As I reflect on the dynamics shaping Iran’s political landscape, I can't help but ponder the implications of this upcoming election. We are witnessing a moment where the choices made by Iranian citizens could significantly influence the country's future. What direction will Iran take? Will it lean towards a continuation of its revolutionary principles, or will it open up to new possibilities for reform and engagement with the wider world?

We must ask ourselves: how does the honor-shame paradigm truly impact the decisions of Iranian leaders and the lives of everyday citizens? Can a nation's pursuit of honor and avoidance of shame coexist with the global need for dialogue, compromise, and mutual respect? As we observe these unfolding events, I believe it is crucial for us to deepen our understanding of the cultural and political nuances that drive such decisions.

Ultimately, this election not only reflects the internal struggles within Iran but also poses a broader question for all of us: How do we, as a global community, bridge the gap between differing worldviews to foster understanding and cooperation?

A Christian Perspective

As I reflect on the situation in Iran, a recent survey suggests there are nearly one million believers inside the country. Iran ranks ninth on the Open Doors World Watch List, which annually ranks the 50 countries where Christians endure the most severe persecution. Unfortunately, we can anticipate that after the elections, the regime is likely to continue persecuting them, both as part of the general crackdown on all dissent and for religious reasons.

Violations of freedom of religion, belief, opinion, expression, peaceful assembly, and protection from arbitrary arrest, detention, and torture are expected to persist. I wonder, could potential internal Iranian power struggles result in even tighter control and intensified persecution of Christians?

"Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor." - 1 Peter 2:17

This verse offers a profound and challenging perspective for us Christians, especially in a context of persecution like that in Iran. Honoring the emperor, or any oppressive leader, is a provocative concept. For early Christians in Asia Minor, receiving Peter's instruction to “fear God and honor the emperor” was undoubtedly difficult. It might seem a mistake—shouldn’t it read, “honor God and fear the emperor”?

Peter, however, knew exactly what he was writing. He echoed Jesus' words: “Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him” (Luke 12:5). To honor the emperor, especially someone like Nero, who persecuted Christians with extreme cruelty, must have been painful. Nero's punishments included brutal public spectacles, such as Christians being torn by dogs or burned alive to light his gardens.

The Greek word Peter uses for "show respect to everyone" and "honor the emperor" is tim-ah’-o, meaning to "fix a valuation upon" or "revere." Thus, Peter instructed us Christians to value every soul, even those of corrupt leaders.

Respect, then, is about valuing souls, not evaluating character. As Christians, we are called to value everyone as God does. 1 Timothy 2:1 urges us to pray for all people, for God desires everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. This means showing respect to everyone because they are valued by God.

Respecting those we disagree with or find morally reprehensible is challenging but essential. We must honor all people, recognizing their inherent value as beings created and loved by God. This includes corrupt politicians, difficult neighbors, and others who might wrong us. I often ask myself; how can we practice this respect in our daily lives, especially toward those we perceive as adversaries?

As Christians, we respect others because God values them. Our respect can either be a building block or a stumbling block in God’s work of salvation. We honor because Christ is our example. By doing so, we manifest the redeeming love of Christ, even in the face of adversity.

In a world so divided, how can we, as followers of Christ not foster a spirit of tolerance and understanding toward different worldviews and opinions?