zaterdag 20 juni 2009

Iran 289

Iranian Elections: The ‘Stolen Elections’ Hoax
By James Petras

“Change for the poor means food and jobs, not a relaxed dress code or mixed recreation…Politics in Iran is a lot more about class war than religion.”Financial Times Editorial, June 15 2009
June 19, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- There is hardly any election, in which the White House has a significant stake, where the electoral defeat of the pro-US candidate is not denounced as illegitimate by the entire political and mass media elite. In the most recent period, the White House and its camp followers cried foul following the free (and monitored) elections in Venezuela and Gaza, while joyously fabricating an ‘electoral success’ in Lebanon despite the fact that the Hezbollah-led coalition received over 53% of the vote.

The recently concluded, June 12, 2009 elections in Iran are a classic case: The incumbent nationalist-populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (MA) received 63.3% of the vote (or 24.5 million votes), while the leading Western-backed liberal opposition candidate Hossein Mousavi (HM) received 34.2% or (3.2 million votes). Iran’s presidential election drew a record turnout of more than 80% of the electorate, including an unprecedented overseas vote of 234,812, in which HM won 111,792 to MA’s 78,300. The opposition led by HM did not accept their defeat and organized a series of mass demonstrations that turned violent, resulting in the burning and destruction of automobiles, banks, public building and armed confrontations with the police and other authorities. Almost the entire spectrum of Western opinion makers, including all the major electronic and print media, the major liberal, radical, libertarian and conservative web-sites, echoed the opposition’s claim of rampant election fraud. Neo-conservatives, libertarian conservatives and Trotskyites joined the Zionists in hailing the opposition protestors as the advance guard of a democratic revolution. Democrats and Republicans condemned the incumbent regime, refused to recognize the result of the vote and praised the demonstrators’ efforts to overturn the electoral outcome. The New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, the Israeli Foreign Office and the entire leadership of the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations called for harsher sanctions against Iran and announced Obama’s proposed dialogue with Iran as ‘dead in the water’.
The Electoral Fraud Hoax
Western leaders rejected the results because they ‘knew’ that their reformist candidate could not lose…For months they published daily interviews, editorials and reports from the field ‘detailing’ the failures of Ahmadinejad’s administration; they cited the support from clerics, former officials, merchants in the bazaar and above all women and young urbanites fluent in English, to prove that Mousavi was headed for a landslide victory. A victory for Mousavi was described as a victory for the ‘voices of moderation’, at least the White House’s version of that vacuous cliché. Prominent liberal academics deduced the vote count was fraudulent because the opposition candidate, Mousavi, lost in his own ethnic enclave among the Azeris. Other academics claimed that the ‘youth vote’ – based on their interviews with upper and middle-class university students from the neighborhoods of Northern Tehran were overwhelmingly for the ‘reformist’ candidate.
What is astonishing about the West’s universal condemnation of the electoral outcome as fraudulent is that not a single shred of evidence in either written or observational form has been presented either before or a week after the vote count. During the entire electoral campaign, no credible (or even dubious) charge of voter tampering was raised. As long as the Western media believed their own propaganda of an immanent victory for their candidate, the electoral process was described as highly competitive, with heated public debates and unprecedented levels of public activity and unhindered by public proselytizing. The belief in a free and open election was so strong that the Western leaders and mass media believed that their favored candidate would win.
The Western media relied on its reporters covering the mass demonstrations of opposition supporters, ignoring and downplaying the huge turnout for Ahmadinejad. Worse still, the Western media ignored the class composition of the competing demonstrations – the fact that the incumbent candidate was drawing his support from the far more numerous poor working class, peasant, artisan and public employee sectors while the bulk of the opposition demonstrators was drawn from the upper and middle class students, business and professional class.
Moreover, most Western opinion leaders and reporters based in Tehran extrapolated their projections from their observations in the capital – few venture into the provinces, small and medium size cities and villages where Ahmadinejad has his mass base of support. Moreover the opposition’s supporters were an activist minority of students easily mobilized for street activities, while Ahmadinejad’s support drew on the majority of working youth and household women workers who would express their views at the ballot box and had little time or inclination to engage in street politics.


A number of newspaper pundits, including Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times, claim as evidence of electoral fraud the fact that Ahmadinejad won 63% of the vote in an Azeri-speaking province against his opponent, Mousavi, an ethnic Azeri. The simplistic assumption is that ethnic identity or belonging to a linguistic group is the only possible explanation of voting behavior rather than other social or class interests. A closer look at the voting pattern in the East-Azerbaijan region of Iran reveals that Mousavi won only in the city of Shabestar among the upper and the middle classes (and only by a small margin), whereas he was soundly defeated in the larger rural areas, where the re-distributive policies of the Ahmadinejad government had helped the ethnic Azeris write off debt, obtain cheap credits and easy loans for the farmers. Mousavi did win in the West-Azerbaijan region, using his ethnic ties to win over the urban voters. In the highly populated Tehran province, Mousavi beat Ahmadinejad in the urban centers of Tehran and Shemiranat by gaining the vote of the middle and upper class districts, whereas he lost badly in the adjoining working class suburbs, small towns and rural areas.
Lees verder: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22868.htm

3 opmerkingen:

Thesingh zei

En na alle hysterie, heeft iemand bewijs gezien dat er is gefraudeerd?

Unknown zei

Dat Ahmedinejad heeft gewonnen is duidelijk geweest vanaf het begin - en net als bij Chatami maakt het niet veel uit.
En daarom ook is de redenering van Petras
“Change for the poor means food and jobs, not a relaxed dress code or mixed recreation…'
zo volstrekt laakbaar. Deegelijk ouderwetsch fellowtravelerschap van iemand die noch eten en werk tekort komt, noch last heeft van kledingvoorschriften en verbod op gemengde recreatie - en die wel even voor de Iraniërs bepaalt dat het vreten en het werk dat Ahmedinejad ook niet levert toch het belangrijkst zijn. Het gezonde Gewonemensengevoel dat tenslotte eindigt in Finsterwolde als bolwerk van Wilders.

Het genre is nog niet uitgestorven, blijkbaar, ook al zijn er geen communisten meer.

Unknown zei

Tot mijn verrassing is het citaat waar ik over viel niet van Petras, maar van de Financial Times, een redactioneel. Op ICH staat het grafisch duidelijker aangegeven.
Het zal Petras' instemming wel hebben.

Mijn bezwaar blijft uiteraard het zelfde, zoniet zwaarder. De FT-redacteur m//v zal zich wel niet met een quasi-proletarische pet hebben uitgedost, zoals Petras - maar we zijn hier op het terrein waar die arme autochtone stakkerds zonder baan, aan de drank en met een lege maag, hopeloos en depressief, gerechtvaardigd worden op Wilders te stemmen, want eerst komt het vreten en dan de moraal - zoiets heb ik ook inderdsad in verband met Oost-Groningen gelezen.

En de Financial Times noch Petras hoeft te bepalen dat het wel goed is als studentes worden neergeschoten op straat omdat zij het misschien zat zijn een knal met een laat te krijgen omdat zij een haartje laten zien.
En studeren in Iran is echt niet alleen een privilege voor "de eilte" (en wat dan nog?).
FT en Petras eisen voor Iranieërs minder rechten op dan zij zelf hebben. Verachtelijk.

Peter Flik en Chuck Berry-Promised Land

mijn unieke collega Peter Flik, die de vrijzinnig protestantse radio omroep de VPRO maakte is niet meer. ik koester duizenden herinneringen ...