The primary evaluations indicate that the ambiance of society takes on an electoral dynamic. This political matter gradually finds a social nature, with discussions about the candidates flowing from elite-centered social networks to talks in family gatherings, workplaces, and taxis. So, we are facing a process in which the election is the top matter of public opinion in the country.
It is predicted that by the beginning of televised advertising programs, especially debates, the rivalry will get more serious and warmer, with the market of partisan conflicts and discussions thriving. Such a situation is a requirement of any electoral ambiance. So, it cannot be devoid of excitement, emotions, criticism, and mutual attacks.
One can predict that based on the existing conditions and candidates, the upcoming election will be polarized or tri-polarized. The reformist forefront, which was not very active during the past couple of elections, now has exclusive candidates and is determined to be present at the election.
However, it is important to understand how an election is defined. In past years, as the competitions became more serious, and sometimes with the aim of swaying people’s tendencies in favor of a specific candidate, we would witness that the rivalry went beyond polarization and extended into topics that were outside the true meaning of an election. This means the creation of actions that portray the election as a “referendum.”
A referendum has a specific meaning and employs mechanisms that are defined within the framework of law, which are different from those of a presidential election in nature. It is an obvious cognitive mistake to assume that a presidential election is actually a “referendum in disguise.”
Both main parties have made such mistakes in the past. For example, one party claims that winning the election by a certain party equals “saying no” to the whole governing system or the present governing structure. The opposing party has also claimed that winning the election by a certain party means “yes” to the whole system and current political structure.
Such stances are examples of mixing up an election with a referendum. This assumption is wrong because all candidates and the political parties supporting them are acting within the framework of constitutional law and political structures and have been ratified by the Guardian Council in advance.
What is more important is that the concept of “system” cannot be defined by a political group, an individual, or a candidate. What is called “system” is a more general concept beyond the rivalry of political groups during an election. In other words, political parties are competing with each other, not with the system. The electoral competition and conflicts basically happen within the framework of the system.
Even when certain candidates assume they are closer to the system, they must mean being closer to the values and official manners of governance recorded in constitutional law. And, they are not entitled to describe the opposing movement as out of or against the system simply because it opposes them.
Unfortunately, this mistake, or perhaps logical fallacy, has been repeated by certain groups or candidates who have tried to absorb votes by introducing themselves as the true reflection of the system and their rivals as those against the system. Alternatively, there were candidates who defined themselves as critics of the system (and against the status quo), while describing their rivals as defenders of the system (the causes of the status quo).
This is while the presidential election has a clear meaning and is a common and legal way to transfer power within the boundaries of executive power. In fact, the election is limited to executive management for four years. The presidential election is not a referendum for various parties to assume its result as a yes or no to the system. Basically, it is a selection of a program that deserves to take the responsibility of executive power. Of course, this does not discount the role of the president, executive power, or the role of the government in foreign or domestic affairs. It reminds us that a wrong reading of the election or its results is not only unproductive but also problematic. The point is that taking the presidential election as a referendum is a logical fallacy.
Fueling dichotomies like pro/against the system widens societal gaps and diverts candidates and electoral participants from focusing on their programs. It extends polarization beyond normal boundaries and benefits no one. Historical experience from previous elections has proven that the notion “presidential election is a referendum targeting the system” is wrong. Despite criticisms of Iran’s election system, governments with a variety of approaches have gained power over the past 45 years.
There are claims that certain elections have imposed heavy costs without benefits. Nevertheless, elections and people’s votes require that if people are not satisfied with a political group or a candidate, they vote for another, and if they are satisfied, they vote for the same system in place. Criticizing the status quo and highlighting problems does not mean that candidates are determined to fight against the system. Voting for the continuation of the status quo does not mean a change in people’s attitudes concerning the system. The presidential election is not about evaluating the system but about assessing the candidates' agendas for the executive management of the country.
Among the damages of such a wrong attitude is that the political group stays away from elections more, and the competition extends beyond the election season. Elections must boost national unity by institutionalizing the possibility of transferring power peacefully and with minimal risk. Elections should not be seen as animosity among political groups. An election is not a 0/100 equation in which the defeat of a political movement means its end.
Thinking of elections as referendums will raise the level of conflict so high that the possibility of cross-party collaboration to solve major national problems will be affected.
A four-year journey during which the winning group has no mission other than to continue or change methods and executive programs to improve the current situation and better secure national interests within the frameworks defined in the constitution. Therefore, the presidential or parliamentary elections cannot be considered a referendum.
NOURNEWS