The popularity of Ahmadinejad's rival might have more to do with wishful thinking, writes MARY FITZGERALD, Foreign Affairs Correspondent, in Iran
THE QUESTION of what kind of president Mir Hussein Mousavi, whose supporters believe won last Friday’s disputed election in Iran, would make is an intriguing one. Contrary to the perceptions of some in the West, buoyed by media images of Mousavi’s exuberant, youth-driven campaign, the man who last week presented the strongest challenge to president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s bid for re-election is no anti-establishment liberal intent on dismantling the structures of the Islamic Republic. Neither is he an Iranian Vaclav Havel about to guide his country towards a “velvet revolution”.
If Mousavi had been either of these things, his bid for the presidency would not have been approved by the Guardian Council, the 12-strong body of senior clerics that vets all prospective candidates to ensure they comply with the values and principles of the Islamic Republic.
More than 470 people – including several women – applied to run this year. Only four were considered suitable.
Mousavi is, and always has been, part of the very fabric of revolutionary Iran. Trained as an architect, he played a leading role in the birth of the Islamic Republic in 1979, and went on to serve as prime minister during its most formative years (1981-1989). This is the Mousavi that many of his older supporters speak of when they explain why they voted for him last Friday. The one who was close to Ayatollah Khomeini; the one who steered Iran through the turbulent years of its war with Iraq; the one whose commitment to the ideals of revolutionary Iran was – and still is – beyond question.
“Many of the young people believe Mousavi would bring sweeping changes if he was president but I remember when he was prime minister you couldn’t even wear a short-sleeved shirt,” says Akbar (58). “He may have softened a little since then, but he is still the same man in most respects.”
Akbar’s young sons and daughters all voted for Mousavi, and he admits their arguments helped sway him to support the former prime minister.
His wry observation that Mousavi’s younger supporters believe their candidate is the solution to all their grievances, and the vessel for their hopes and dreams is a pertinent one.
Much of the energy and enthusiasm of Mousavi’s pre-election campaign, and the hordes of young Iranians he drew to his cause, was oddly reminiscent of the excitement surrounding Barack Obama’s bid for the White House last year. But after talking to dozens of younger Mousavi supporters in the last week, it is clear that a great number, having no memory of the Mousavi of the 1980s, are somewhat vague as to what the man really stands for today.
It appears that increasing frustration with Ahmadinejad has led many to project their own varied aspirations, hopes and dreams on Mousavi without knowing for sure if he even shares their vision for the future.
“Many people my age see Mousavi as the person who can solve all their problems and change everything overnight,” says Mohsen (24), a mechanical engineering student who voted for Mousavi. “That’s not possible. People got carried away with the excitement of this election campaign and the idea of change.”
Mousavi retired from active politics after the post of prime minister was abolished in 1989. For the next two decades, he devoted his time to architecture and painting. He was an adviser to Mohammed Khatami, the reformist president elected in 1997. Many say Khatami’s endorsement of Mousavi’s candidacy this year proved a crucial imprimatur in terms of making reform-minded voters sit up and take notice. The backing of former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was also key.
Mousavi’s campaign platform was hardly radical or groundbreaking.
Observers described him as cautious and uncharismatic; a dull, rather plodding campaigner and an uninspiring speaker. His quip that Iranian passports now have the same status as those from Somalia was possibly his most memorable sound bite, along with some piquant digs at Ahmadinejad’s propensity for bombast on the world stage.
The choice of green – the colour associated with Islam – as the signature colour of his campaign was shrewd. It also gave a nod to his status as a seyyed or descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, an important detail for the more devout sections of Iran’s electorate.
Throughout his campaign, Mousavi stressed the need for a steady, competent hand to rescue Iran’s wilting economy. He called for economic liberalisation, and a less hostile engagement with the West.
He promised he would ease restrictions on civil society, media and women that had been tightened by Ahmadinejad. He defended Iran’s right to pursue nuclear power for energy purposes, but in interviews said its use for weapons was negotiable.
One of Mousavi’s biggest assets on the campaign trail was his wife, Zahra Rahnavard. A feisty professor and accomplished artist, she is said to be more liberal than her husband. Her involvement is believed to have helped galvanise women voters. Rahnavard accompanied Mousavi on the hustings – the first time a candidate’s wife had done so in Iran – and publicly harangued Ahmadinejad when he dared question her academic credentials.
Barack Obama has cautioned that the differences between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad may not be “as great as advertised”. Many analysts argue that while a Mousavi presidency may have signalled a change in tone, Iran’s policies would have remained largely the same.
As the controversy over the country’s disputed presidential election continues, the question now is what happens to Mousavi and, more importantly, what happens to the millions of young Iranians whose political outlook will never be the same again after the events of this week.