News ID : 175336
Publish Date : 5/30/2024 8:47:01 AM
Which is more useful: big party coalitions or independent candidates?

Which is more useful: big party coalitions or independent candidates?

Concerning Iran’s political situation, it seems that parties and larger coalitions consisting of several parties have better competency for introducing candidates and offering their party platforms. It is more likely that big party coalitions have programs and are committed to their execution compared to individuals.

NOURNEWS: Following the helicopter crash and the martyrdom of the president, the ambiance of the country has unexpectedly become electoral.

According to some experts in political science, the electoral system of the Islamic Republic of Iran suffers from certain shortcomings that lead to the malfunction of parties and political systems. Of course, it is clear that there is not enough time to reform the existing electoral system in advance of the upcoming presidential election.

However, one can be hopeful that both governmental entities and those related to organizing the election, as well as political entities and even the people, will have a reformistic approach concerning some of these shortcomings in the upcoming election.

Within this framework, and considering the time limitations that impact this election period, it is useful to remind candidates about the enrollment process, the introduction of parties, support from parties or political coalitions, and the presentation of electoral platforms.

One can prepare a long list of likely candidates over the past few days, which is inconsistent and odd regarding its composition. Only a few of them have publicly announced their readiness to participate as candidates, though. Of course, every eligible and competent person is entitled to expose themselves to people’s votes. However, the upcoming election is being held in the aftermath of a tragic event, and it is not unreasonable to say that none of the likely candidates are fully ready to enter this arena. So, compared to previous elections, the constitution of electoral headquarters, the presentation of programs, and the pre-election movement are naturally different. Therefore, it seems that requiring candidates’ platforms, as the most important pillar of a candidate’s actions to introduce themselves to people, is a high expectation and may even be impossible. It is because no program has been prepared, at least not in full shape, unless they repeat the same usual generalizations as their programs, which cannot solve any problem.

The usual and common process in all democratic countries is that parties play a role in elections. Parties, as stable institutions that follow known principles and frameworks, already have written programs that are either clear to public opinion or can be shared with people in an emergency. To the extent that one can predict or analyze what programs would be on the agenda of a popular party in the face of inflation or low economic growth. Or what programs would be on the agenda for the exit of industries from stagnation.

In such systems, figures or electoral candidates emerge as the executors of party platforms that have already been studied. For example, if the prime minister is removed for any reason in a parliamentary system, another person will replace them according to defined constitutional frameworks, and affairs will be conducted within a predictable ground. For instance, following shifts and transformations in the Conservative Party in Britain, and eventually the election of Rishi Sunak as prime minister, the main principles of the party continue, although certain reforms have been made to address the problems.

The story of parties in Iran and their role, although one of the fundamental weaknesses related to the electoral system, has nonetheless seen these existing parties, limping along, experience at least a minimal organizational working method over the past years. Perhaps it can even be said that they are the "best of the existing options." Compared to other methods of political and electoral activism, which are mainly individual-centric and lack expert capabilities, they are more defensible.

Based on this, it is quite natural that candidates who enter the competition backed by the invitation and support of larger political parties and coalitions are more useful and efficient than other candidates who enter the field individually and merely out of a sense of duty. This claim is defensible for any election period, but the need to pay attention to it is even greater in the upcoming election.

This, of course, does not mean ignoring the managerial capabilities of individual candidates without organizational backing, but in any case, not all paths of public service and duty necessarily end in the presidency.

Given Iran's political conditions, it seems that larger parties and coalitions composed of several parties have better and more substantial competency for introducing candidates and presenting their programs. In other words, larger coalitions are more prepared to face the elections.

In this context, while it is expected that potential candidates and those interested in competing in the presidential race should pay attention to this and fulfill their personal sense of duty elsewhere or in another manner, it is also expected that the Guardian Council, as the body overseeing the elections that reviews the qualifications of the candidates, should consider this important point—that large coalitions representing various segments of society can send their main candidates into the competition. Ultimately, it is appropriate for the people, as the main actors determining the outcome of the elections, to remember that the executive branch and the presidency are not meant to be run by a single individual (the president). The election fever and excitement will subside after a short while, and the president who has a team and a program can bring more benefit to the people and the country. 







first name & last name