Most Reformists Rejected From Running For Parliament In Iran

[bozorgmehr]

Here we go again.... The fossilized brains want to keep anybody who can effect any kind of change out of power. The result is that our country remains backward, poor and with an incompetent management. I wonder how much longer people will put up with this....


Most Reformists Rejected From Running For Parliament In Iran
Source: RFE/RL

State media reports from Iran say about 60 percent of the people who have applied to be candidates in Iran's February parliamentary elections have been rejected -- with most of those rejections involving reformists.

Siamak Rah-Peyk, a spokesman for Iran's Central Elections Supervising Committee, said on January 18 that only 4,700 of 12,000 registered candidates -- about 40 percent of the applicants -- had been approved.

The election committee depends upon the ruling of Iran's Guardians Council, a panel of conservative clerics and jurists, to determine which registered candidates are eligible.

Reformist parties are protesting against the rejections.

Reformist Hossein Marashi said 3,000 registered reformist candidates around the country had been rejected and only 30 had been approved to run for one of the 290 parliamentary seats.

He said that in Tehran, which sends 30 representatives to the parliament, only four reformist candidates had been approved.

Reformists reaction: We are protesting, but won't leave the arena.
Read related reports by Shargh and Ghanoon dailies

Most Reformists Rejected From Running For Parliament In Iran

 

[bozorgmehr]

Removing my message. Issue has been resolved.

 

[That Guy]

I, long ago, came to the conclusion that right wingers in most countries are the most idiotic, bigoted, racist, dumbasses. They'll keep anyone out of power, if that anyone is capable of bringing real positive change. To me, right wingers care more about right wing politics, than they do about their own nation and people.

 

[Madali]

4700 have have been approved. Thats not a small number. Do you know most dont get approved because they dont meet the criteria which is not about some anti-reformisr agenda but about simple things like not having the necessary education qualifications.

This anti-reformist agenda is bullshit. Which are the current most recognized "reformist" faces?

Rouhani, Rafsanjani, and Khatami. They are 3 out of the last 4 presidents. Mousavi was also prime minister and karoubi was head of majlis. The so called reformists always act like they are the victims even though throughout the history of the IRI, most top positions have been held by the same guys who play the poor victims. Only once did the presidency leave the comfortable elite group, and the reformists claimed fraud on both of Ahmadenijad's terms. That is, as long as 3 out of the 4 last presidents from these guys won, everything was fair and squate. But the second they lost, they nearly brought the systen down

Also, what about the so called "conservatives"? Well, if Ahmadenijad is on the supposed right and rouhani is on the supposed left, and ali larijani, the head of majlis, is supposed to also be a conservative, why was he anti-ahmadenijad and pro-rohani?

Iran is not a simple democratic /republican system. Such terms rarely mean much in iran.

Please don't feed reformist trolls, buddy. Its the same propaganda from these guys every frigging election and wont stop until they Akbar Shah sits at the topof the throne.

Also, here is something else. Approved list of 4700 for 290 seats is an average of 16.2 candidates per seat. Now, please compare to an example like US Senate elections. Do you think they have more candidates per seat up for election? Or much less?

Oh, anothet thing i noticed. The person that is quoted is named "Reformist Hossein Marashi" who i did a quick wiki search on. So apparently he held atop position in Radsanjani's 8 years and in Kahatami's years and he is the cousin of Rafsanjani 's wife. wow, sounds like such a poor victim of the system.

 

[bozorgmehr]

4700 have have been approved. Thats not a small number. Do you know most dont get approved because they dont meet the criteria which is not about some anti-reformisr agenda but about simple things like not having the necessary education qualifications.

This anti-reformist agenda is bullshit. Which are the current most recognized "reformist" faces?

Rouhani, Rafsanjani, and Khatami. They are 3 out of the last 4 presidents. Mousavi was also prime minister and karoubi was head of majlis. The so called reformists always act like they are the victims even though throughout the history of the IRI, most top positions have been held by the same guys who play the poor victims. Only once did the presidency leave the comfortable elite group, and the reformists claimed fraud on both of Ahmadenijad's terms. That is, as long as 3 out of the 4 last presidents from these guys won, everything was fair and squate. But the second they lost, they nearly brought the systen down

Also, what about the so called "conservatives"? Well, if Ahmadenijad is on the supposed right and rouhani is on the supposed left, and ali larijani, the head of majlis, is supposed to also be a conservative, why was he anti-ahmadenijad and pro-rohani?

Iran is not a simple democratic /republican system. Such terms rarely mean much in iran.

Please don't feed reformist trolls, buddy. Its the same propaganda from these guys every frigging election and wont stop until they Akbar Shah sits at the topof the throne.

Reformist trolls! Can you argue your points without childish labels and worn out cliches? From the article published in a newspaper in the Islamic Republic of Iran:

حســین مرعشی، رئیــس کارگروه اســتان ها، بعــد از پایــان نشســت کارگروه به میان خبرنگاران آمد و در پاسخ به این سؤال که نتیجه تأیید صالحیت ها چه شــد؟ با خنــده گفت: «در مجموع اصالح طلبان و حامیــان دولت می توانند بــرای کل کشــور ۳۰ نامزد معرفی کنند!» مرعشــی با اشــاره به اینکه از مجموع ســه هزار نامزد اصالح طلــب ثبت نام کننده در انتخابــات مجلــس، ۳۰ نفر در کل کشــور تأیید صالحیت شــده اند که از این تعــداد پنج نفر از اســتان تهران و ۲۵ نفر سهم سایر استان ها شده اســت

http://sharghdaily.ir/1394/10/28/Main/PDF/13941028-2498-2-2.pdf

It is wrong for authorities to arbitrarily ban people from running for elections. That is a way of controlling the elections. Who represents the people is for for them to decide. Do you have a problem with that idea?

 

[Madali]

Reformist trolls! Can you argue your points without childish labels and worn out cliches? From the article published in a newspaper in the Islamic Republic of Iran:

حســین مرعشی، رئیــس کارگروه اســتان ها، بعــد از پایــان نشســت کارگروه به میان خبرنگاران آمد و در پاسخ به این سؤال که نتیجه تأیید صالحیت ها چه شــد؟ با خنــده گفت: «در مجموع اصالح طلبان و حامیــان دولت می توانند بــرای کل کشــور ۳۰ نامزد معرفی کنند!» مرعشــی با اشــاره به اینکه از مجموع ســه هزار نامزد اصالح طلــب ثبت نام کننده در انتخابــات مجلــس، ۳۰ نفر در کل کشــور تأیید صالحیت شــده اند که از این تعــداد پنج نفر از اســتان تهران و ۲۵ نفر سهم سایر استان ها شده اســت

http://sharghdaily.ir/1394/10/28/Main/PDF/13941028-2498-2-2.pdf

It is wrong for authorities to arbitrarily ban people from running for elections. That is a way of controlling the elections. Who represents the people is for for them to decide. Do you have a problem with that idea?

I'm not going to automatically trust a group that constantly claims victimhood but constantly get their way anyway. Its political trickery. I repeat, 3 out of 4 of the last presidencies were in the hands of this group. The only time they lost, they tried to annul the results (both times). The head of the majlis is pro-rouhani and pro-Rafsanjani. I also repeat, iran does not have a simple democratic/republican two-party system.

Enough of the fake victimhood. They do it every time.

Also, bozorgmehr aziz, compare this election to last one. In 2012, we had 11.7 candidates per seat, this time we have 16.1 candidates per seat.

 

[bozorgmehr]

I'm not going to automatically trust a group that constantly claims victimhood but constantly get their way anyway. Its political trickery. I repeat, 3 out of 4 of the last presidencies were in the hands of this group. The only time they lost, they tried to annul the results (both times). The head of the majlis is pro-rouhani and pro-Rafsanjani. I also repeat, iran does not have a simple democratic/republican two-party system.

Enough of the fake victimhood. They do it every time.

Your opinion about 'reformists', 'conservatives' or the color blue is not the subject of debate here. You don't like reformists, you don't trust them, you don't like their principles... that's your business. But it is wrong for the authorities to ban the vast majority or indeed a single potential candidate of any political stripe from running, due to their own arbitrary criteria. Do you agree with that or not?

 

[Madali]

Your opinion about 'reformists', 'conservatives' or the color blue is not the subject of debate here. You don't like reformists, you don't trust them, you don't like their principles... that's your business. But it is wrong for the authorities to ban the vast majority or indeed a single potential candidate of any political stripe from running, due to their own arbitrary criteria. Do you agree with that or not?

But that's not what happens. There are no clear two party system. Its not like we have one group called "Reformists" and one group called "Principalists" and candidates put their name under either group, and then we see the ones under "Reformists" getting disqualified. That's not how it works in iran.

Let me explain my previous point again. If Ahmadenijad was supossed to be a Principalist and Ali Larijanj was a Principalist and Rouhani was a Reformist, then how can Larijani is more closely allied to Rouhani than Ahmadenijad? In a clear cut two party system, that won't happen. A republican controlled US senate with the senate leader being republican wont be anti-goerge bush and pro-obama would they?

 

[bozorgmehr]

But that's not what happens. There are no clear two party system. Its not like we have one group called "Reformists" and one group called "Principalists" and candidates put their name under either group, and then we see the ones under "Reformists" getting disqualified. That's not how it works in iran.

Let me explain my previous point again. If Ahmadenijad was supossed to be a Principalist and Ali Larijanj was a Principalist and Rouhani was a Reformist, then how can Larijani is more closely allied to Rouhani than Ahmadenijad? In a clear cut two party system, that won't happen. A republican controlled US senate with the senate leader being republican wont be anti-goerge bush and pro-obama would they?

I see that you keep sidestepping my question, Madali jan! Please find the courage of your convictions and let me know in no uncertain terms. Do you agree or not, that it is wrong for the authorities to ban the vast majority or indeed a single potential candidate of any political stripe from running, due to their own arbitrary criteria?

I don't care if Iran works that way or not. If it does, it's very likely part of the problem. And that's exactly what I'm criticizing. You see I like to keep things simple and reduce ideas to their bare component elements and build them back up, to see if they have any connection to reality or they're just assumptions and fluff.

And there are a lot of assumptions in your views about the how the American political system works. But we can get to thatl later if we have to.

For now, let's stick to the basic idea of whether people should have the right to choose the representatives of their liking without the ruling power's interference.

 

[Madali]

Do you agree or not, that it is wrong for the authorities to ban the vast majority or indeed a single potential candidate of any political stripe from running, due to their own arbitrary criteria?

I think the biggest gap we have is that I don't think that's how it works or how it happens.

 

[bozorgmehr]

I think the biggest gap we have is that I don't think that's how it works or how it happens.

hmm! But that's not what I'm asking you. The question is very clear. Yet you refuse to commit. Makes me wonder whether you believe in the sovereignty of a poeple over their country. Because you know, islamists don't. And they often use a whole lot of bull to cover their tracks...

The question still stands...

 

[Madali]

hmm! But that's not what I'm asking you. The question is very clear. Yet you refuse to commit. Makes me wonder whether you believe in the sovereignty of a poeple over their country. Because you know, islamists don't. And they often use a whole lot of bull to cover their tracks...

The question still stands...

I'm not sidestepping because I don't believe that's how it works. Let me give you an example to show you why I have an issue with the question.

In western media, sometimes questions are asked as so, "Do you believe Iran should continue to work on its nuclear weapons program?"

The answer to that is not a simple "yes" or "no". The right answer is " but Iran ISN'T working on a nuclear program!" Imagine if the questioner than just repeats, "Don't sidestep the question, yes or no!"

Therefore, if you ask the question, "Do you think it is right for 3000 candidates to be disqualified just because they are Reformists?", my answer is not yes or no, because I don't believe in the accuracy of assumption of the question.

Let me use another example to see if I can better explain my point. Imagine your friend is accused of raping a girl bit you believe the accusation has no basis. Now imagine if someone asks you, " Do you think it is right for your friend to have raped that girl? Please give me a simple yes or no answer." Whichever yes or no answer you give, you are automatically confirming that your friend is a rapist.

Sorry for the long post, and I agree we should strip the debate to the bare minimum to be able to better debate. However, I can't answer a sumple yes or no to a question which I think has a faulty premise.

 

[Hack-Hook]

I'm not going to automatically trust a group that constantly claims victimhood but constantly get their way anyway. Its political trickery. I repeat, 3 out of 4 of the last presidencies were in the hands of this group. The only time they lost, they tried to annul the results (both times). The head of the majlis is pro-rouhani and pro-Rafsanjani. I also repeat, iran does not have a simple democratic/republican two-party system.

Enough of the fake victimhood. They do it every time.

Also, bozorgmehr aziz, compare this election to last one. In 2012, we had 11.7 candidates per seat, this time we have 16.1 candidates per seat.

what's about fake victimhood ? 50 of current Parliament are also rejected. In 3 province there is not even one reformist and in Tehran there is only 4.

 

[Hack-Hook]

But that's not what happens. There are no clear two party system. Its not like we have one group called "Reformists" and one group called "Principalists" and candidates put their name under either group, and then we see the ones under "Reformists" getting disqualified. That's not how it works in iran.

Let me explain my previous point again. If Ahmadenijad was supossed to be a Principalist and Ali Larijanj was a Principalist and Rouhani was a Reformist, then how can Larijani is more closely allied to Rouhani than Ahmadenijad? In a clear cut two party system, that won't happen. A republican controlled US senate with the senate leader being republican wont be anti-goerge bush and pro-obama would they?

because Roohani was not a reformist. The reformists. Candidate was aref who resined in favor of Mr. Roohani .

This approval is just a joke that only made unrest . right now I see what will happen the leader of reformist complain to supreme leader then president will act as mediator and them Mr. Khamenei made an speech and voila another 1000 that guardian council could not find anything against them but because it was not proven to the council that they are such goody goody persons would be approved . its what they always did. Only thing achieved gave foreign media and groups reasons to have a feast at Iran expenses.

 

[Madali]

because Roohani was not a reformist. The reformists. Candidate was aref who resined in favor of Mr. Roohani .

This approval is just a joke that only made unrest . right now I see what will happen the leader of reformist complain to supreme leader then president will act as mediator and them Mr. Khamenei made an speech and voila another 1000 that guardian council could not find anything against them but because it was not proven to the council that they are such goody goody persons would be approved . its what they always did. Only thing achieved gave foreign media and groups reasons to have a feast at Iran expenses.

Why would a reformist resign in favor of a non-reformist?