Connect with us

Middle East

Election role in Iran’s strategic security

Sajad Abedi

Published

on

After the glorious victory of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, a military came into being, based on two bases of Islamism and Republican rule. The approach that emerged most of all in this system was the approach to value the popular vote and the maximum participation of the people in the selection of senior officials. The importance of the maximum attendance category is enough to ensure that the leadership of the system has repeatedly and precisely emphasized in all elections, and has urged the people of the province to have a maximum presence in the elections. Indeed, the maximum presence in the elections guarantees the security and authority of the country and strengthens the unbreakable bond of the Islamic Republic’s holy system with the people.

The electoral system in the Islamic Republic of Iran is a political and democratic military. For this, its importance, not because of its role but because of its democratic structure, has its effects on the functions of the various political, social and economic dimensions of the system. National security is not, as one of the important structures of political life, the impact of the functions of the electoral system of the country. Given the importance of the electoral system from the angle of its mechanism and its mechanisms, “national security” is one of the areas that are not isolated from the winning electoral system in the country, and its relationship with the electoral system requires in-depth reviews.

Security and stability have long played a decisive role in politics and governance. In the new world, stability, development, motherhood is the key to prosperity. Poverty is intrinsically linked to insecurity and lack of stability. Investors are seeking security, and the brains, which themselves are at the same time an invaluable capital, are at the same time seeking stability. In the indicators of development and attraction of capital, stability is always a major indicator. There are countless factors involved in the issue of stability and security. There are certain factors in creating and sustaining what is right, their absence, in fragility or lack of stability. These components can be divided into external, internal and internal components in a general category, as well as political, economic, social, cultural and environmental components. Among the components of politics, the right to be and the choice of people and their familiarity with these rights can be considered central. These rights are manifested in the elections. Elections, if they are viewed as a symbol of democracy and likened to a living creature, are transparency and fairness, as the nerves and heart, which give the elections personality, essence, legitimacy and efficacy. In the transparent elections, this is the people’s vote, which is decisive; people see their role in managing their own destiny and managing the country. They see the rulers of their votes and the sovereignty of a popular legitimacy. In this way, there is an unbreakable link between sovereignty and the nation: what brings about lasting stability. That is why advanced societies, especially the parliamentary ones, have the slightest instability in their stability immediately; they seek refuge in the process of stabilizing the elections.

In 2012, when Greece came close to economic insolvency, political destabilization followed. Greeceis in order to survive the crisis and continue to be a member of the European Union. Held an early election where no party could win the majority vote. Thus, within a month, elections were held; in one year and within less than a month, two elections were held, and this way the country was able to overcome instability. In this way, in advanced societies, elections are seen as an unparalleled element of stability and security.

0The picture also holds true, that if the role of the people is ignored in the election, the presence of the people should be used symbolically and formally, or that the elections are unhealthy, unclear, unfair; this not only has no effect, but the elections There remains a felony which is the home of the neck, which is called the nation here. The unjust election, along with fraud and misconduct, can put society and the country in abyss and create devastating crises.

The 1991 elections in Algeria, in which Islamists, especially the “Islamic Salvation Front”, won, but the result of the election was not accepted, its consequences, violent and bloody domestic wars caused the country a catastrophe. The civil war lasted more than a decade, and it is said that as a result, 200,000 people were killed.

The current crisis in Egypt is also a crisis caused by elections and lack of transparency, which the Islamists did not act transparently, deceived and deceived, and at the same time, the majority of this vote was negligible. Therefore, the transparency of the election was fundamentally distorted; therefore, people came to the streets and called for their votes to be withdrawn. Eventually, the military, taking advantage of the cases, took over power through a pseudo-coup, and now Egypt with one there is an important perspective, and each day it is increasing on the level of insecurity and crisis.

Therefore, from what has been said, it can be said with certainty that the health of the elections brings stability and security and ensures it, as fraud and corruption are crises and crises.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is facing a very important election year next year. Undoubtedly, this election can make Iran’s fate, and this country can be fundamentally changed by the impact of this election. If the elections are sound and transparent, the stability of the country will be insured; security will be more prevalent; people’s hope for a brighter future, and the fears of those who always see power over the path of change, will forever be disappointed. Became In this case, foreign and domestic investors will be more encouraged in the Iranian market, and the result will be economic prosperity. If unfair elections are accompanied by fraud, the country will once again face divergence, the chaos of the conflict will endlessly, and there will be more and more crises ahead.

Therefore, it should be said that those who are likely to think about electoral fraud and engineering should realize that this will not be less than the coup of the seven communists, the destruction of the Mojahedin and the Black Day, when the Taliban were brought to Afghanistan the stability and security of the future of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in the next year’s election those who seek to disrupt this election are in fact enemies of stability in Iran and are therefore the enemies of the people and nation of this country.

As stated, the maximum number of people in the election is closely linked to the authority and security of the country. There must be a massive and massive presence of people in the election and the first principle is “the principle of participation in elections” and the second principle is “the principle of the right to vote and vote for the best candidates.” In this regard, Imam Khamenei pointed to the presence of the maximum and its impact on the security and authority of the country and said: “Everyone will take part in the election, even those who do not agree to the system to maintain the credibility of the country / may There is nobody to accept, but he / she does not have a leadership role, it is for Islamic Iran; to ensure the country’s shelf life and to remain in the security fence.”

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

Battling for the Future: Arab Protests 2.0

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

Credit: Institute of Security Studies

Momentous developments across Arab North and East Africa suggest the long-drawn-out process of political transition in the region as well as the greater Middle East is still in its infancy.

So does popular discontent in Syria despite eight years of devastating civil war and Egypt notwithstanding a 2013 military coup that rolled back the advances of protests in 2011 that toppled Hosni Mubarak and brought one of the country’s most repressive regimes to power.

What developments across northern Africa and the Middle East demonstrate is that the drivers of the 2011 popular revolts that swept the region and forced the leaders of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen to resign not only still exist but constitute black swans that can upset the apple cart at any moment.

The developments also suggest that the regional struggle between forces of change and ancien regimes and militaries backed by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia is far from decided.

If anything, protesters in Algeria and Sudan have learnt at least one lesson from the failed 2011 results: don’t trust militaries even if they seemingly align themselves with demonstrators and don’t surrender the street until protesters’ demands have been fully met.

Distrust of the military has prompted an increasing number of Sudanese protesters to question whether chanting “the people and the army are one” is still appropriate. Slogans such as “freedom, freedom” and “revolution, revolution” alongside calls on the military to protect the protesters have become more frequent.

The protests in Algeria and Sudan have entered a critical phase in which protesters and militaries worried that they could be held accountable for decades of economic mismanagement, corruption and repression are tapping in the dark.

With protesters emboldened by their initial successes in forcing leaders to resign, both the demonstrators and the militaries, including officers with close ties to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are internally divided about how to proceed.

Moreover, neither side has any real experience in managing the crossroads at which they find themselves while it is dawning on the militaries that their tired playbooks are not producing results.

In a telling sign, Sudan’s interim leader Abdel Fattah Abdelrahman Burhan praised his country’s “special relationship” with Saudi Arabia and the UAE as he met this week with a Saudi-Emirati delegation at the military compound in Khartoum, a focal point of the protests.

Saudi Arabia has expressed support for the protests in what many suspect is part of an effort to ensure that Sudan does not become a symbol of the power of popular sovereignty and its ability to defeat autocracy.

The ultimate outcome of the dramatic developments in Algeria and Sudan and how the parties manoeuvre is likely to have far-reaching consequences in a region pockmarked by powder kegs ready to explode.

Mounting anger as fuel shortages caused by Western sanctions against Syria and Iran bring life to a halt in major Syrian cities have sparked rare and widespread public criticism of president Bashar al-Assad’s government.

The anger is fuelled by reports that government officials cut in line at petrol stations to fill up their tanks and buy rationed cooking gas and take more than is allowed.

Syria is Here, an anonymous Facebook page that reports on economics in government-controlled areas took officials to task after state-run television showed oil minister Suleiman al-Abbas touring petrol stations that showed no signs of shortage.

Is it so difficult to be transparent and forward? Would that undermine anyone’s prestige? We are a country facing sanctions and boycotted. The public knows and is aware,” the Facebook page charged.

The manager of Hashtag Syria, another Facebook page, was arrested when the site demanded that the oil ministry respond to reports of anticipated price hikes with comments rather than threats. The site charged that the ministry was punishing the manager “instead of dealing with the real problem.”

Said Syrian journalist Danny Makki: “It (Syria) is a pressure cooker.”

Similarly, authorities in Egypt, despite blocking its website, have been unable to stop an online petition against proposed constitutional amendments that could extend the rule of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi until 2034 from attracting more than 320,000 signatures as of this writing.

The petition, entitled Batel or Void, is, according to Netblocks, a group that maps web freedom, one of an estimated 34,000 websites blocked by Egyptian internet service providers in a bid to stymie opposition to the amendments.

Mr. El-Sisi is a reminder of how far Arab militaries and their Gulf backers are potentially willing to go in defense of their vested interests and willingness to oppose popular sovereignty.

Libyan renegade Field Marshall Khalifa Belqasim Haftar is another, Mr. Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA) is attacking the capital Tripoli, the seat of the United Nations recognized Libyan government that he and his Emirati, Saudi, and Egyptian backers accuse of being dominated by Islamist terrorists.

The three Arab states’ military and financial support of Mr. Haftar is but the tip of the iceberg. Mr. Haftar has modelled his control of much of Libya on Mr. El-Sisi’s example of a military that not only dominates politics but also the economy.

As a result, the LNA is engaged in businesses ranging from waste management, metal scrap and waste export, and agricultural mega projects to the registration of migrant labour workers and control of ports, airports and other infrastructure. The LNA is also eyeing a role in the reconstruction of Benghazi and other war-devastated or underdeveloped regions.

What for now makes 2019 different from 2011 is that both sides of the divide realize that success depends on commitment to be in it for the long haul. Protesters, moreover, understand that trust in military assertions of support for the people can be self-defeating. They further grasp that they are up against a regional counterrevolution that has no scruples.

All of that gives today’s protesters a leg up on their 2011 counterparts. The jury is out on whether that will prove sufficient to succeed where protesters eight years ago failed.

Continue Reading

Middle East

As Marsha Lazareva languishes in jail, foreign businesses will “think twice” before investing in Kuwait

Published

on

IF THERE IS one thing to glean from the case of Marsha Lazareva, it’s that foreign businesses must now think very carefully before investing in Kuwait.

For more than a year, Lazareva, who has a five-year-old son and is one of Russia’s most successful female investors in the Gulf, has been held in the Soulabaiya prison by Kuwaiti authorities. Those authorities claim she ‘stole’ half a billion dollars, a claim she strenuously denies.

Human rights groups and prominent officials, including the former FBI director, Louis Freeh, and Jim Nicholson, former Chairman of the Republican Party and former US Ambassador to the Vatican, have called for her release and expressed concerns about the apparent absence of due process in a country where Lazareva has worked for over 13 years. Both Freeh and Nicholson visited Kuwait in recent weeks with Neil Bush, son of the late President George H. W. Bush. Bush has said Lazareva’s incarceration ‘threatens to darken relations between the U.S. and Kuwait, two countries that have enjoyed a long and prosperous relationship.

Russian officials have been equally concerned. Vladimir Platonov, the President of the Moscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry, confirmed that a single witness gave testimony in Kuwaiti court, and only for the prosecution. ‘I myself worked in prosecution for more than eight years, and I cannot imagine any judge signing off on an indictment like this,’ he said. ‘One fact of particular note is that Maria was given 1,800 pages of untranslated documents in Arabic.’

Serious questions surrounding the safety and future viability of investing in Kuwait are now being raised. Through The Port Fund, a private investment company managed by KGL Investment, Lazareva has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to local infrastructure and economic development projects during her time in the country. Until 2017, when a Dubai bank froze $496 million without cause, she had worked largely unobstructed.

But as things stand, more foreign investment is unlikely to be forthcoming. Jim Nicholson has said that the ‘imprisonment and harassment’ of Lazareva ‘threatens’ U.S. support. adding that the ‘willingness of the U.S. to do business with Kuwait’ is based on ‘its record as a nation that respects human rights and the rule of law’. Mark Williams, the investment director of The Port Fund and a colleague of Lazareva’s, has called on international investors to ‘think twice before doing business in this country’. 

These comments will surely concern the Kuwaiti government, who said last year that FDI was ‘very crucial’ to the success of its Kuwait Vision 2035 road map. In September 2018, the FTreported that the government planned to reverse its traditional position as an investor in order to diversify its economy, carrying out a series of reforms designed to facilitate foreign investment and assist investors.

But despite these changes, which have propelled Kuwait to 96th—higher than the Middle East average—in the World Bank’s ‘Ease of Doing Business’ report, investors may be unwilling to take the risk so long as Lazareva remains in jail. Lazareva’s lawyers have accused Kuwait of violating international law by breaching a long-standing bilateral investment treaty with Russia. Lord Carlile of Berriew, QC has brought the case to the attention of the British public and the EU, writing in The Times that ‘there is no evidential basis to justify any claim of dishonesty, corruption or any other criminal wrong’. He added: ’Anyone thinking of doing business in Kuwait should read on with mounting concern.’

What’s worth remembering is that Kuwait is an important, long-standing ally of the UK, and a country generally seen as stable and fair. It is equally a major non-NATO ally of the United States, where there are more than 5,000 international students of Kuwaiti origin in higher education. But these relationships, and the investment to which they have historically led, have been cast into doubt. And it now seems certain that relations will continue to sour so long as Marsha Lazareva languishes in Soulabaiya.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Economic reform in the Gulf: Who benefits, really?

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

For Gulf leaders, long-overdue economic reforms were never going to be easy.

Leaders like the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed, quickly discovered that copying China’s model of economic growth while tightening political control was easier said than done. They realised that rewriting social contracts funded by oil wealth was more difficult because Gulf Arabs had far more to lose than the average Chinese. The Gulf states’ social contracts had worked in ways China’s welfare programmes had not. The Gulf’s rentier state’s bargain—surrender of political and social rights for cradle-to-grave welfare—had produced a win-win situation for the longest time.

Moreover, Gulf leaders, struggling with mounting criticism of the Saudi-UAE-led war in Yemen and the fall-out of the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, also lacked the political and economic clout that allowed China to largely silence or marginalise critics of its crackdown on Turkic Muslims in the troubled northwestern province of Xinjiang.

The absence of a welfare-based social contract in China allowed the government to power economic growth, lift millions out of poverty, and provide public goods without forcing ordinary citizens to suffer pain. As a result, China was able to push through with economic reforms without having to worry that reduced welfare benefits would spark a public backlash and potentially threaten the regime.

Three years into Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030 blueprint for diversification of the economy, Saudi businesses and consumers complain that they are feeling the pinch of utility price hikes and a recently introduced five per cent value-added tax with little confidence that the government will stay the course to ensure promised long-term benefit.

The government’s commitment to cutting costs has been further called into question by annual handouts worth billions of dollars since the announcement of the reforms and rewriting of the social contract to cushion the impact of rising costs and quash criticism.

In contrast to China, investment in the Gulf, whether it is domestic or foreign, comes from financial, technology and other services sector, the arms industry or governments. It is focused on services, infrastructure or enhancing the state’s capacities rather than on manufacturing, industrial development and the nurturing of private sector.

With the exception of national oil companies, some state-run airlines and petrochemical companies, the bulk of Gulf investment is portfolios managed by sovereign wealth funds, trophies or investment designed to enhance a country’s prestige and soft power.

By contrast, Asian economies such as China and India have used investment fight poverty, foster a substantial middle class, and create an industrial base. To be sure, with small populations, Gulf states are more likely to ensure sustainability in services and oil and gas derivatives rather than in manufacturing and industry.

China’s $1 trillion Belt and Road initiative may be the Asian exception that would come closest to some of the Gulf’s soft-power investments. Yet, the BRI, designed to alleviate domestic overcapacity by state-owned firms that are not beholden to shareholders’ short-term demands and/or geo-political gain, contributes to China’s domestic growth.

Asian nations have been able to manage investors’ expectations in an environment of relative political stability. By contrast, Saudi Arabia damaged confidence in its ability to diversify its oil-based economy when after repeated delays it suspended plans to list five per cent of its national oil company, Saudi Arabian Oil Company, or Aramco, in what would have been the world’s largest initial public offering.

To be sure, China is no less autocratic than the Gulf states, while Hindu nationalism in India fits a global trend towards civilisationalism, populism and illiberal democracy. What differentiates much of Asia from the Gulf and accounts for its economic success are policies that ensure a relatively stable environment. These policies are focused on social and economic enhancement rather than primarily on regime survival. That may be Asia’s lesson for Gulf rulers.

Author’s note: first published in Firstpost

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy