Turnout of around 50% reported in Iran's runoff election

The first round of the snap presidential election on June 28 witnessed the lowest turnout of less than 40% in the history of Iran’s Islamic government, while the top leadership had campaigned for voter participation after a lackluster parliamentary election on March 1.

Dozens of videos on social media and several received by Iran International from citizens in Iran showed deserted polling stations in the capital, its suburbs and other cities and towns in distant provinces. Some of empty voting locations were central polling stations in Tehran.

Although some opinion surveys conducted by government-controlled media predicted a turnout of around 50% or slightly less, the videos tell a different story. Authorities will soon face a dilemma when polling stations close at midnight, and they must begin announcing results. If they report a figure lower than 40%, it will reinforce last week’s perception of a large boycott or widespread dismissal of the tightly controlled elections.

If they decide to inflate numbers, as many on social media say they expect to see, fewer citizens will believe the results and the Islamic government’s elections and legitimacy will come under more questions.

Officials extending voting beyond the official closing time of 6:00 PM, as is customary in Iran, expecting a larger turnout in the evening hours. Videos received midday showed several polling stations in Tehran, Karaj, Pardis and other locations around the capital virtually devoid of voters.

A video sent to Iran International showed just three workers in a polling station in Tehran, where the official in charge was playing the Hamster computer game.

A video published by a Baluch group showed Sunni citizens leaving the main mosque in the southeastern city of Zahedan without even stopping at the ballot boxes, which are typically brought and placed in places of worship.

Sociologist Mostafa Mehrayin wrote on X that “I can say with certainty that people’s No to the country’s current political situation was greater today than in the first round of the election.”

At least 100 political prisoners in Tehran also refused to vote when officials brought ballot boxes to penitentiaries. They had similarly boycotted the first round of voting.

Many insider politicians, mostly belonging to the ‘reformist’ faction of the Islamic Republic continued to urge people to vote. Chief among them was former foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. However, dissidents and critics dismissed these calls, saying that the reformists further discredited themselves by trying to save the credibility of the Islamic Republic.

In an exclusive interview with Iran International, renowned activist Bahareh Hedayat accused the 'reformist' of abandoning the Iranian people during the presidential election and helping the government to boost turnout.

“The term 'reformist' no longer illuminates their position, and they cannot be addressed by this title because they were supposed to bring about fundamental change in the existing system, but not only have they retreated from this stance, they have also taken a conservative position and openly state that they are here for the survival of the system,” Hedayat told journalist and TV host Mehdi Mahdavi Azad.

No candidate secured a majority in last week's snap presidential election, leading to a runoff this Friday between Masoud Pezeshkian and Saeed Jalili.

With over 60% of the electorate abstaining and numerous dissidents having called for a boycott of the election, many, including Hedayat, viewed this as a victory for the Iranian people, demonstrating the state’s lack of legitimacy.

“I feel that the people spoke last week. Without access to media, their voices were directly heard,” Hedayat said, calling on others to adhere to the “people's decisive ‘no’ to the Islamic Republic”

“Not only did the intellectuals and elites not help the voices of the powerless and voiceless people of Iran to be heard but they also have not recognized the people's victory last week,” she said.

Hedayat, who began her political activism with a reformist stance in the early 2000s, has endured several years of imprisonment, including a seven-year sentence for protesting the 2009 election results. She also publicly criticized the Iranian government for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards’ downing of Ukrainian Flight PS752, receiving a four-year prison sentence for her actions.

In recent years, she has publicly shifted her political stance, advocating for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.

The 42-year-old political prisoner, currently on temporary medical furlough, said she agreed to this interview, despite the risk of being sent back to the notorious Evin prison. In March, she revealed that doctors discovered early-stage cancer cells in her uterus following a routine gynecological visit.

"The very reason for this interview is to convey my protest to the ears of the people, in regards to the intellectuals and the elites who in these days put their efforts to back one of these [presidential] candidates,” she said.

Referring to Pezeshkian, the so-called reformist candidate, she refused to mention his name, stating, "He is that insignificant, and the issue is so absurd."

Hedayat named several individuals who reportedly participated in the election, thereby undermining the Iranian people's victory in abstaining.

"Keyvan Samimi and Alireza Rajai. A group of left and right-wing economists and other elites involved in shadowy politics in Iran have come forward and announced their support," she said, questioning, "What are you supporting, and how can you not hear the people's voices?"

Reflecting on her own past participation in elections, she stated that she understands the propaganda used to encourage voting.

Hedayat argued that the reformist movement has fundamentally failed, having either lost or never had influence, and made no progress even when they controlled the parliament and government.

“When they had the parliament and the government they couldn't take a step forward. Now, with this radical parliament, who do you want to send there to gain a vote of confidence?,” she said.

Arguing that the issue lies not in individual candidates, but in the systemic failure of the reformist project, she said “it's not that, for example, Jalili is bad, Pezeshkian is good, or Pezeshkian is bad and Jalili is worse."

Hedayat criticized Pezeshkian for his public statements of unwavering support for the Supreme Leader, questioning his credibility to advocate for protesters' rights.

According to the dissident the political landscape in Iran is fully occupied by figures like Jalili's team, leaving no space for reformists or any other forces to make an impact, and lacking the power to displace them.

"The issue is the gap that has arisen between the elites and the people who rightly and justly protest the current situation, and unfortunately, these people do not receive support from their elites," Hedayat said.

While criticizing intellectuals and elites who urged people to participate in elections, the activist emphasized that Iranian society needs to be able to “trust its elites again at critical moments, and these two must create a genuine bond so that, for once, we can take a step forward in the project of transformation or overthrow."

She warned that those opposing revolution and transformation are reigniting this discourse, effectively revitalizing the Islamic Republic despite the significant sacrifices made by the youth in recent years.

Hedayat also noted that many connected with the 1979 Islamic revolution avoid calls for overthrow due to doubts about their place in Iran's future.

While this reluctance isn't limited to them, some elites participate to maintain their status, while others are genuinely concerned about the country's future.

"I have no issue with ordinary citizens who are under pressure and might hope that the situation improves a bit; I understand that. We must accept it…We must adhere to the people's opinion and vote. Last week, people said no…We have no right to break and dissipate this mobilization and attribute this victory to the gap-openers who still carry the name of reformism. We do not have the right to do such a thing," she said.

‘The duty of intellectuals and the opposition’

In response to the question of what the duty of an intellectual is in today's Iran, she said: "The opportunity we have now and should not delay is to spread discourses. If we find existing discourses insufficient, we should create the needed discourses, with three specific dimensions that can explain the past, frame the present, and most importantly, outline a realizable vision for the future."

Referring to the narrative that the opposition lacks a clear plan and vision for overthrowing the regime and managing the aftermath of a revolution in Iran, Hedayat questioned who, other than these very elites, should determine that path.

“They are showing that at this critical moment, for various reasons, they fear overthrowing, the absence, and the fall of the Islamic Republic," she said.

She stated that while many intellectuals critically view the monarchy movement, it is essential to acknowledge its presence and influence.

Hedayat emphasized that to develop a discourse that moves beyond the current situation, it is necessary to recognize and accept the monarchy movement as a significant part of the existing reality on the ground. Only by doing so, she argues, can a more effective and inclusive discourse be created.

She explained that the current efforts are focused on the "duality" between the monarchist front and a fragmented, anti-Pahlavi opposition, which has worn out the opposition and disheartened the people.

The dissident noted that while criticisms are not solely directed at anti-Pahlavis, the actions and behavior of monarchy supporters show they "do not intend to recognize the other side at all," contributing to the lack of recognition and unity within the opposition.

She concluded the interview by addressing both the participation of intellectuals in the "disgraceful election" and the resulting despair within the opposition.

Despite internal disputes and setbacks, Hedayat emphasized that the people's refusal to participate in the election last Friday is a valuable asset that the opposition must leverage.

She asserted that the majority of the Iranian people will persist in their acts of resistance, including reaffirming their “victory” by abstaining in Friday's runoff election.

Their criticism implicitly acknowledges that many who do not support the Islamic Republic will be turned off from voting.

An example of the Ministry's messages blamed by officials includes: “Supreme Leader: those who love Islam and the Islamic Republic should vote.”

Mohammad-Javad Azari-Jahromi, who served as the Minister of Communications in Hassan Rouhani's government, quoted Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in a tweet, saying, “Even the people who don’t believe in the establishment, should vote,” adding, “For Interior Ministry’s information.”

Azari-Jahromi criticized this approach, tweeting, "Mass messaging should aim to increase participation, not decrease it!"

Ali Gholhaki, a journalist close to Iran's hardliners, wrote on X: “One of the surveys explicitly states that 'text messages from the Ministry of Interior' have had a negative effect (albeit a small one). So, please don't send text messages! Those who are committed to vote don't care about your messages; those who are undecided become more uncertain because of them!”

Reformist political activist Rahmatollah Bigdeli didn't hold back his criticism of the Ministry's messages. In a plea on X, he wrote, "Dear Ministry of Interior, if you truly want broad public participation in the elections, please stop encouraging people to vote! If you don't invite people, participation will definitely be higher! Please stop sending text messages!"

Reformist activist Emad al-Din Baghi highlighted the significant impact of the Ministry's messages. He recounted the experience of a local shopkeeper who had initially planned to vote at 6 o'clock but changed his mind after receiving a message from the Ministry of Interior that tied voting to support for the establishment. Baghi emphasized, “The votes of millions of citizens are for determining their own and their country's future, not for supporting the system. Do not tie the right to vote to your policies or the regime.”

Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, the director of IHRNGO, cautioned that Iranian authorities historically reduce executions "to encourage people to participate in the elections" and then sharply increase them immediately afterward.

“The people of Iran and the international community must prepare now to counter and respond appropriately to the potential wave of executions,” Amiry-Moghaddam stated.

IHRNGO’s latest figures show 249 executions have occurred over the past six months. The report indicates a 30% decrease in executions compared to last year, attributing this decline to the parliamentary and presidential elections. The organization's 15-year statistical analysis shows a consistent decline in executions in the two weeks leading up to elections, believed to be a tactic to boost voter turnout.

The report also details that 14 people were executed for security and ideological reasons, including five who were hanged on charges of spying for Israel. Additionally, it was noted that 35 of the executed individuals were Baluchis, who, despite making up only 2-6% of Iran's population, accounted for 14% of all executions.

In December, the UN Special Rapporteur on Iran highlighted the "shocking" levels of killings, torture, and brutality against the Baluch minority, noting that Baluchis are disproportionately targeted and executed within the Iranian criminal justice system.

In Iran's eastern Sistan-Baluchistan province, the predominantly Sunni Baluch community has faced severe persecution over the past 44 years, enduring the highest execution rate in the country.

First, the two finalists engaged in serious mudslinging toward the end of their campaigns, damaging each other's credibility. Second, at least 60 percent of voters refused to go to the polls, exposing a significant rupture in the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic.

The relatively moderate Masoud Pezeshkian and hardliner Saeed Jalili have accused each other of lying, hypocrisy, inefficiency and corruption several times during this week’s debates. Neither had even the chance to respond to the allegations because of the chaotic nature of the debates aired on Iran's state television.

All the candidates, particularly the final two, have seriously undermined the status of Iranian Presidents, both past and future. They repeatedly emphasized that presidents are unable to bring about any change in the country's rigid political system. They also pointed out that there are areas, such as hijab enforcement and internet filtering, where Iranian presidents have no influence.

The debates aired on national TV revealed to voters that the two men, one of whom will certainly be the country's next president, are incapable of engaging in a healthy dialogue. They frequently interrupted each other and displayed visible irritation, undermining their credibility.

Numerous programs aired on state TV showed that both politicians, along with their aides and supporters, were unable to control their anger. They proved incapable of handling challenges and disputes diplomatically and calmly. None of their interactions could be characterized as civilized debate, often ending in unresolved conflict.

All that said, the winner has to face serious international challenges starting with the saber rattling in the Middle East and the prospects of political changes in Europe and the United States that are likely to affect Iran's place in the international equilibrium.

There is also the ongoing war in Ukraine and allegations about Iran's involvement in the conflict. Tough decisions and compromises are needed to balance Tehran's interests, especially considering China’s and Russia's interactions with Iran's southern neighbors.

Hard decisions in terms of foreign policy need to be made to lift crippling sanctions on the country’s oil exports imposed by the United States to rein in its nuclear program. Tehran is in desperate need of dollars to finance its essential imports and make at least minimal investments in its aging oil and gas industry.

Responding to allegations about Iran's regional ambitions and its involvement in international terrorism may be even more challenging than routine diplomatic transactions. Additionally, these challenges are compounded by a significant portion of the population that chose not to vote in the first round, driven by lingering resentment from the violent crackdown on the 2022 protests and ongoing financial problems that have worsened over the past three years under an ultraconservative government.

Addressing hunger, providing jobs to the unemployed, and pacifying disgruntled youths and women should be the new president's priorities within the country. Achieving these goals requires overcoming the ideological barriers between the people and the state.

Beyond these immediate concerns are the systemic challenges that have hindered the country's development since 1979. Regardless of who wins the election on Saturday, the pressing question remains: Given the significant damage to both candidates' reputations during the debates and the diminished status of the presidency, will either be able to accomplish even half of what is expected?