Referendum For Iran

What Ali Khamenenei, the so-called Supreme Leader, and his little group of reactionary mullahs did during last year's presidential election in Iran and the ensuing street-protests by millions of disgruntled Iranians was a clear indication of the urgent need to assess the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic system of governance, which can be done only by consulting the Iranian people in a referendum.

Ali Khameneei, with the assistance of his few appointed, unelected clerics and his Revolutionary Guard buddies, executed a plan, that signaled Ahmadi Nejad to set his government's policy for the next five years; a year before the election. This act constituted a coup against the will of close to 25 million of Iran's 40 million eligible voters.  

Last year, Ali Khamenei and his billionaire generals and disciples basically had only two choices. They either could give up their lucrative business deals, which amounted to over 80% of the country's economy, and relinquished their political powers in the short or medium term, or stand against the people with their guns drawn. They opted for the latter because they very well knew that their political and ideological views were, and are, at odds with those of the new generation of Iranians. They also knew that the former option entailed the prospect of being investigated for any crimes committed against humanity. What they didn't know, however, or perhaps knew but proceeded anyway, was that doing so fundamentally changed the election's character from a simple presidential election to a significant referendum on the Islamic Republic's legitimacy.

What actually happened was, in essence, a clash between the people's will and the Supreme Leader's power and authority granted by the Islamic Republic Constitution. Khamenei and his appointed few have always maintained that they merely are exercising their constitutional power and authority, but we now know that millions of Iranians were in the streets last year chanting against his authority, tearing his posters down and burning them in disgust. Those actions were a consequence of his still asserting his distorted powers under the constitution and leading the coup against the people's sovereign right to elect their president, despite his control over the candidates' vetting through his appointed Guardian Council. People felt insulted by his arrogance. The following national protests by the Iranian people have dislodged him already, in a sense; he has lost his legitimacy. And because he derives his authority from the Islamic Republic's constitution, the protests also have rendered that constitution illegitimate.

I should say here that I am not a fancy person, nor are these claims bold and fanciful. Iranian's 80% participation in the election, the highest in recent history, was an astute political move on their part. They did it on purpose because they wanted a change, mainly constitutional, in the powers of their leader and his unelected appointees. Their unprecedentedly high turnout cornered that leader and his gangs, forcing them to make a difficult decision. The result completely disenfranchised the Supreme Leader and his unelected appointees under the Islamic Republic's constitution.

The message for us is that the new Iranian generation does not recognise the Islamic Republic's constitution or this guy as its sole powerful tyrant. The referendum was the mean by which the new generation of Iranians desperately tried to get rid of this little guy, Ali Khameneei, and his reactionary followers and generals. In other words, the people are telling us that the constitution is where the real problem lies. They also are telling us the 98% support for the constitution, which this group claimed from the old Iranian generation over 31 years ago, is now irrelevant. This new generation of Iranians is now in charge of its destiny and a new official referendum is a must for the country to both rectify and ratify its highest legal document, the constitution, by its sovereign people.
  
But we know very well that Khamenei and his colleagues have no intention to respect the people's sovereign right - they proved this by the election coup last year. Therefore, I like to believe that the international community has a moral duty to assist Iran's people with their attempt to regain their sovereignty. The alternative is a civil-war somewhere along the way. The French fought one, Americans did it; and I am sure that the Iranian people are also capable of doing it for their freedom. The international community has an opportunity at the nuclear negotiation table to demand a referendum as a requirement for establishing the regime's legitimacy. I am not sure how realistic this would be, but I can only say that the timing is right and such referendum would serve the best interests of both the Iranian people and the West. After all, whom does the West really want to negotiate with, and what guarantees can it get from them? Can this little guy and his associates really offer the West assurances? I really doubt it. Iran, as a unified nation, must give these sort of guarantees; no one can offer them except Iran's sovereign people.

After a clear majority of Iran's eligible voters demonstrated their dissatisfaction by rejecting this guy and his Guardian Council's authority, he and his disciples cannot, and must not be allowed to, make the absurd claim of representing Iranians and their country on the international stage. Iran's new generation has registered unequivocally its 'No' vote on the Islamic Republic's constitution. If Khameneei and his conspirators are to repudiate this claim, there is only one way to settle the dispute, there must be a real referendum, observed by independent international observers, on the Islamic Republic constitution's content.