Where does power lie in Iran?

Reader and EconTalk listener, Lance Wiggains writes in response to Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's claim in this podcast of about a year ago that the President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, is perhaps only the 17th most important person in the Iranian pwer structure:

If it's true that the president is only the 17th or so most important
person in Iran, then why are so many Iranians upset about his
reelection? It seems like a blatant contridiction. I assume that so
many people would only be upset if he truly was important and powerful,
otherwise why expend the resources protesting.

It's a good question and Lance's email isn't the only one I've received wondering the same thing. I hope to get Bruce back on EconTalk in the near future, but the answer, I think, is in understanding the protests. My understanding is that Mousavi isn't radically different from Ahmadinejad. After all, Mousavi was approved as a candidate by the mullahs. It's not like he's promising a western democracy. I see the protests against the heavy-handedness of the mullahs in declaring a victory for Ahmadinejad before the ballots could have been counted. The protesters want liberalization. They were unlikely to get it had Mousavi won. They are fighting now not for Mousavi per se, but for some more freedom and less oppression. That's my reading. Hope to get Bruce's.

Comments Share Print Email

aub

If it's true that the president is only the 17th or so most important person in Iran, then why rig the elections at all? Why would the Mullahs expend the resources and fight so hard against the protesters?

Surely one #17 would be the same as another #17.

DAVE

It may well be that he is merely perceived as most powerful.

No offense to young Iranians, but they do tend to get a little to excited about things. See Iran 1979.

TrUmPiT

I'm sure Mousavi would be marginally different (better) than Ahmadinejad. Economists love the term "marginally" or "at the margin." Some advocate that gradual change is better than abrupt change in government or economic system such as what happened in the USSR. Usually abrupt regime change by war is the most disruptive and destructive, as what happened in Iraq with the 2nd gulf war. Civil wars are notoriously nasty and bloody. If the system is rotten to the core, then maybe abrupt change is the best way to go. But usually a new "rotten to the core" government replaces the old system. When the Shah of Iran's government collapsed, we got the Mullahs running the show. That may have been going from bad to worse, although at the time most Iranians were happy to oust the shah, who was viewed as a puppet of the U.S. The Iranians and Cubans can't seem to drop the "revolutionary" tags for their system, and must continually rev up revolutionary fervor. On the other hand, you don't see the Vietnamese living in the past. I would say that revolutionary movements that can't get past the original revolution are failed systems. Who thinks of the 4th of July as anything but a day off for barbeque or going to the beach?

Cheers

I was actually speaking to a friend last night who is close to some of the actors. He said that the main issue is that it is because it's essentially a disregard of not only the people of iran's ability to vote in the republic, but also for the revolutionary movement 10 years ago.

Keep in mind as well that one of the two main disagreements between sunni and shia perspectives is the need for theocratic rule over the country.

John

Surely one #17 would be the same as another #17.

Who are you?

The new Number Two.

Who is Number One?

You are Number Seventeen.

I am not a number! I am a the president of Iran!

Bill A.

First: Ahmadinejad has popular support, and almost certainly would have won a comfortable majority without any vote tampering. The liberal, English speaking, pro-western, ipod-toting Tehranians that the Western media talk to aren't representative of the majority of Iranians.

But to the point of the post: What is going on in Iran is basically a power struggle between a populist leader and some entrenched elites - the protesters are loud (to us), but a distant third in terms of power and influence.

Ahmadinejad's current power comes from his popular anti-corruption stance which appeals to Iran's conservative religious majority, who are unhappy with what they see as the corruption of the elite clerics (who have been enjoying the wealth and power their positions bring them). This is why many of the mullahs supported Mousavi.

Khamenei, very in touch with where the popular winds are blowing, has thrown in his support with Ahmadinejad, as have some of the other clerics.

The fact that the protesters aren't receiving any significant support from the broader populace makes it fairly clear that we won't be seeing any liberalization in Iran any time soon.

Douglas

Russ,

This is my reading as well. It is, I think, the most optimistic way of reading what's going on. I hope it's accurate, but I'm not sure for what it's sowing seeds.

Adam

Another factor is probably that even if he's only #17, and even if the candidates are vetted before their nomination, the voting itself is supposed to be fair and free. To put it another way, the voters know that the system is rigged but at least this little breadcrumb is theirs. And now the powers that be have taken even that away. I think they're saying that they're fed up with being deprived even of what they already knew was a sham election at every stage of the process prior to the vote itself.

Kevin

Stratfor addresses this in their weekly letter. They also had a piece last week about why western perceptions of internal Iranian matters are rarely correct. Both are worthwhile reads.

Stewart Ulm

I think you need only ask "Why did many Americans feel so strongly about the slight policy differences between, say, Obama and Clinton, or even between Obama and McCain?"

From an legitimate, outside perspective, it probably seems trivial. Even from an inside perspective, primary voters were often unable to articulate differences between Obama and Clinton. And yet if you just looked at the rallies, and listened to the media coverage, you would think they were diametrically opposed.

Ray Gardner

I agree with Russ's take on the protests; they are in response to the realization that their elections are frauds.

On BDM's podcast, I was thinking all along (I listened to it today) about Taleb and the numerous examples of people saying "It's never happened before" and the like.

Especially on his weak assertion that since various Middle East dictators have not waged a suicidal nuclear war in the past, they are unlikely to do so in the future.

I liked much of what he had to say, but he seems a little blinded to certain irrationalities of human nature. It was in Hitler's best interest to not overreach as he did. He could have had a cozy little dictatorship with the NY TImes fawning over his economic miracle, and so on, but no, he had to cross the line from "rational" dictator to suicidal warmonger. Sheesh, some people.

vidyohs

Com'on guys,

Ahmadinejad could very well be the 17th most powerful man in the Iranian power structure and the public protesting in the streets would not necessarily have a clue.

How long did it take Americans to get the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication by the LBJ administration?

"Remember the Maine", well it made a good rallying cry, but had no more validity than did the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication.

Social Security is mandatory, how long will it take for people to learn the truth?

People, the people in the street, the mass that relies on conventional wisdom and enculturation for all their reactions, know nothing of the truth, and like Sir Winston said, should they trip over it they hurriedly pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and go on as if nothing ever happened.

Why would we assume the Iranians would be any different from the aware, intelligent, and curious people of the USA?

LOL!

cjc

I believe what we're seeing started out as a faction fight between Iran's ruling class. The elections were necessary political theater, where the tyranny has semi-free elections to legitimize itself as an "Islamic Republic". What no one in the ruling class foresaw was how this faction fight wrapped around this election provided a spark to the anti-regime portion of the population.

With their violent crushing of dissent, the regime will have to give up any pretense of being a "republic". Whether these events result in the collapse of the regime depends on how many of the regime's supports remain willing to kill their fellow citizens. Unfortunately, this last outcome is proving to be the case.

Against the Grain

I would think that it is winning colalition of the No. 1 through 20 selectorate that place their spokesman back on the stage.

This is a big bet on private goodies over the public goods and the ability to lie blatently and get away with it.

I think that the top level winning coalition may have over played their hand, with the overwelming victory. I am not convinced that Ahmadinejad would have lost without manipulation. The blatent manipulation will show either the true power of the current winning coalition or it's ouster.

Ray Gardner

Well, most Americans are convinced that there's a real difference between Republicans and Democrats as if there's a real ideological battle going on in Washington, and not just a power struggle among the like minded aristocracy. So how can we expect the citizenry of a lesser developed country like Iran be any more clued in to the realities of government power?

I still think the riots have more to do with them realizing how much of a fraud their election was, but it is doubtful that they understand the nature of a power struggle any more than someone who thinks John McCain is ideologically different than Barak Obama.

Daniel Kuehn

I think something that a lot of people don't realize is that even though elections don't determine much in Iran, they have been respected by the mullahs as the voice of the people even since Khomeini's time. And Khomeini, while a theocrat, was also a populist. It's hard to take any election seriously in Iran from our vantage point - but my understanding is that however insignificant the results are, this level of fraud is new (not to mention strange - the reactionary mullahs survived reformers in the presidency in the late 1990s). It's not that the election is particularly consequential so much as it is that an element of democracy that's been central since the revolution - however insignificant - is being taken away.

Mathieu Bédard

He may be 17th in the official chart, but informally his power may very be greater than it seems I suppose.

That, or the public perceives his power as greater than it really is.

What do you say?