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
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
Social Control and Public Behavior
International Relations
Examples of Honor-Shame Influence
Nuclear Program
Cultural and Religious Policies
Diplomatic Conduct
The Guilt-Innocence Worldview in the West
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
Greco-Roman Philosophy
Enlightenment Thinking
Characteristics of the Guilt-Innocence Worldview
Focus on Law and Justice
Moral and Ethical Standards
Emphasis on Rights and Responsibilities
Implications of the Guilt-Innocence Worldview
Judicial Systems
Ethical Behavior
Education and Socialization
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 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
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
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
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
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
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?