It has been nearly a year and six months since the onset of nationwide protests, and the Islamic Republic is intent on holding parliamentary elections. This is despite the majority of civil and political activists opposed to the government, both domestically and internationally.
Therefore, they will be boycotting the upcoming elections.
The active boycott of elections has now become the primary action of Iranian civil society against a government that has closed all avenues of dialogue with society. This government seeks to politically exploit the non-competitive and ceremonial nature of the elections. In this article, we examine the act of “election boycott” from the perspective of political and ethical activism in the recent elections and its impacts.
After widespread civil protests following the killing of
Mahsa Amini, the political legitimacy of the Islamic Republic was tarnished. Now, the government seeks to regain political legitimacy through voter participation.
However, despite the government’s need for public participation to restore its lost legitimacy, the upcoming elections on March 1st are so restricted that even key figures within the Islamic Republic’s political establishment show little interest in participating.
Figures like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Larijani have stated their lack of intention to participate in the elections. Hassan Rouhani, who not only served as president but also held one of the highest security positions in the history of the Islamic Republic, did not receive permission to run in the Assembly of Experts elections. Security figures like Mahmoud Alavi, former Minister of Intelligence during Rouhani’s tenure, and Mostafa Pourmohammadi, known members of the “Death Commission” during the early years of the Islamic Republic and former Minister of Justice, have also been disqualified from participating in the elections.
In these circumstances, most political and civil activists concerned with civil society and the public interest follow civil protests through active election boycotts against the government.
From Narges Mohammadi, a civil activist and Nobel Peace
Prize winner who is currently imprisoned, to Abolfazl Ghadyani, Mostafa Tajzadeh, Saeed Madani, students, guild associations within the country, and opposition figures outside of Iran have boycotted participation in the elections.
Is active election boycott considered a form of political activism?
“Active election boycott” is a concept introduced by scholars and researchers. It refers to measures aimed at protesting the imposition of restrictions or problems in the electoral process or citizens’ political or legal participation. These measures are usually taken by civil society organizations or international bodies to exert pressure for the realization of democratic processes or to prevent the spread of authoritarianism in society.
The definition of active election boycott may vary depending on the scholarly background and theoretical framework. However, generally, this concept directly relates to the electoral process, the possibility of citizens’ free participation in elections, and its credibility and transparency.
Therefore, “active election boycott” can be considered a form of political activism due to the undemocratic nature of the elections. When a government or political system consistently disrupts the process of free elections and engages in practices such as disqualifying and prosecuting activists to engineer elections, one of the ways to disrupt the government’s plan for legitimacy in elections is through people’s non-participation or election boycotts.
Given that elections are one of the fundamental methods of public participation in the democratic political process, any restrictions, efforts to prevent free participation of people in elections, or the passage of laws that undermine public trust in the electoral process, are criticized through the engagement in political activism.
Many human rights defenders, political activists, civil society organizations, and international associations consider such disruptions to the democratic electoral process a violation of democratic principles and human rights. They work towards eliminating them and promoting more democratic electoral processes.
Therefore, active election boycott, due to the undemocratic nature of election interference, can be used as a means to protest against these deviations and to exert pressure for fundamental political changes within the targeted system.
Soheil Razzaghi, a prominent Iranian civil society expert and director of the Activists Institute, who was previously sentenced to long-term imprisonment due to active election boycott, states: “Boycott is a form of political action. Usually, when political groups are deprived of the right to compete or participate in organized forms, they resort to boycott as a protest against sanctions or for any other reason they express. Boycott is a political action.
The issue, however, is when this political action becomes meaningful. Because in some cases, we see that political action remains only at the level of rhetoric and does not reach the stage of political action. I say political action can be meaningful when it moves from the stage of rhetoric to the stage of political action.”
“What we are observing in Iranian society now is that this political action has not led to changes in political policies, and so it remains at the level of rhetoric. If it continues in this manner and remains at the level of rhetoric, it can have negative consequences.”
Is the recent election boycott effective in Iran?
In the upcoming elections, the majority of civil society, including various segments of the population, civil and political activists, students, retirees, have emphasized in various statements the continuation of civil protests and the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement. Even beyond that, students in at least twenty student associations across the country have stated that “the boycott of sham elections” is our vote for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.
Prominent political prisoners, leaders, and opposition groups of the Islamic Republic, along with students, workers, retirees, and many other sectors of the country, have boycotted the December 11 elections, all blaming the economic crisis, the hard life of the people, and the continued suppression of protesters in their statements.
Despite all the criticisms of the sham elections, the Islamic Republic continues its policy of widespread disqualification of opponents and critics to the extent that there is no longer any competition. Even fundamentalist political parties had not published a list until a week before the elections. Nevertheless, the emphasis of the Islamic Republic’s leader on maximum participation is only aimed at gaining political legitimacy in the international system again.
Now, with the active election boycott, democracy activists prevent the restoration of legitimacy to an authoritarian government, and this social solidarity will strengthen Iranian civil society. Election boycott, besides being a political act, is now a moral duty.
Narges Mohammadi, regarding the moral duty of election boycott, says: “The Islamic Republic deserves national sanctions and international contempt. Election boycott is not only a political duty but also a moral duty for us.”
Ms. Mohammadi, from her cell in Evin Prison, adds: “Election boycott is a despotic religious regime, not just politically, but morally, it’s the duty of Iranian freedom-seekers and justice-seekers. The Islamic Republic, with its ruthless and savage suppression, the massacre of the youth of this land on the streets, the execution and imprisonment, and torture of the men and women of this land, deserves national sanctions and international contempt. I too, with the sham election boycott, alongside the informed and proud people all over Iran from Sistan and Baluchistan to Kurdistan, from
Khuzestan to Azerbaijan, will declare the illegitimacy of the Islamic Republic and the rift in the oppressive regime with the people. Transition from the despotic religious regime is a national demand and the only way for the survival of Iran and Iranians and our humanity.”
When political activism takes on an ethical aspect in the belief of civil society actors, it strengthens the impact of the action. The sentiment that students conveyed in their election boycott statements, “Our vote is what we said in the streets,” or “We will not accompany criminals,” confirms the ethical view of the election boycott in society.
Therefore, the election boycott is a non-violent protest action that the government can hardly suppress. At the same time, it frustrates the government’s efforts to gain political legitimacy through engineered elections. Furthermore, it strengthens the solidarity of Iranian civil society against the Islamic Republic, and may lead to a further weakening of the Islamic Republic’s international position in the face of the growing international crisis following the start of the Gaza War.