Polling in Iran Shows Real Support for Ahmadinejad - A Month Ago
Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty - The Iranian People Speak - The Washington Post
Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty of Terror Free Tomorrow wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that has attracted a lot of attention. They report that the claim of very substantial electoral support for Ahmadinejad is not as far-fetched as it might appear. They cite their own public opinion survey showing him leading by more than a 2-1 margin.
This polling, which is done by long distance telephone is an immense service to our understanding of long-term trends in Iran. As it turns out, people in Iran are remarkably willing to discuss even sensitive political issues over the phone.
My colleague Juan Cole has provided an analysis of their very important survey, showing that the numbers they collected were extemely soft since more than a quarter of the respondents said they were undecided, and a large majority of those said they favored reform. 52 percent of those surveyed either had no opinion or refused to answer.
The other crucial fact is that the survey was done on May 11-20 and the election was on June 12. When they started the survey, former president Khatami was a candidate. He withdrew on May 17 in favor of Mir Hossein Musavi, who had just announced his candidacy.
So during most of the period of the phone survey, Mousavi was not even a declared candidate. His "green wave," that inspired so much excitement among Iranian voters had not even been invented.
The Iranian campaign period mercifully lasts less than a month. A poll at the beginning of that period, while no doubt accurate when taken, ignores everything that happened thereafter. A poll taken among US voters in the week when Barack Obama first declared his candidacy would have showed him far behind Hillary Clinton.
There is no doubt that Ahmadinejad has substantial support among some constituencies in Iran. But campaigns matter. The Ballen/Doherty poll was no doubt accurate when taken, but it cannot reflect all the green ribbons and massive rallies for Mousavi that had not yet happened.
I hope you're wearing your fire suit. You're about to be napalmed.
June 16, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That survey was conducted one month prior to the election. The election process in Iran lasts two weeks prior to voting. The best that can be said that outside of an independent agency recounting the votes, we really cannot know.
The only people who should wear a fire-suit are those replied to from the fire-breathing dragon Mr. ordinary.
June 16, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Ordinary has nothing of import to say ever - not that I have ever read.
June 16, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to surveys taken in Iran in early 2008 by WorldPublicOpinion.org and Terror Free Tomorrow:
66% approved of "the way President Ahmadinejad is handling his job as president"
“Most Iranians support a number of democratic principles, including the long-run goals of "ensuring free elections" (82% important, including 55% very important) and "ensuring a free press" (78% important, including 50% very important). Iranians express much greater support for a government in which "the Supreme Leader, along with all leaders, can be chosen and replaced by a free and direct vote of the people" (86% support, including 71% strongly support) than for a government in which "the Supreme Leader rules according to religious principles and cannot be chosen or replaced by a direct vote of the people" (38% support, including 19% strongly support). [TFT, QQ 14e-f, 23a-b]
Nevertheless, on separate questions a clear majority of Iranians express satisfaction with the "process by which the authorities are elected in this country" (62%, including 18% very satisfied and 44% somewhat satisfied) [WPO, QQ 40, 45] These approval ratings lie roughly midway between Iranian support for the "ideal" of a free and direct popular vote for political leaders (86% support - see paragraph above) and support for a religious autocracy (38%). While many observers characterize the present Iranian political system as a religious autocracy, evidently many Iranians do not see it that way."
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/527.php
Most people were too young to have a fix on Mousavi, and at any rate, his 20 year hiatus from politics made him an unknown.
Regardless of the MSM's herd-like affixing a "stolen election" narrative to this popular uprising, the real battle is not about who occupies the essentially impotent office of the president. The real battle is to modify the system in a way that can satisfactorily represent both the majority unassuming religious working class, as well as the urban middle class. Ahmadinejad is a symptom of a system that ill represents a nation as whole.
I would like to thank other countries' intelligence services, and MSM for not attempting to cause destabilization of Iran for the simple goal of putting that nation under foot once again.
Also, a huge debt of gratitude is due to "bomb Iran" contingent for their new found concern for the people of Iran. Thanks.
http://www.chartingstocks.net/2009/06/proof-israeli-effort-to-destabilize-iran-via-twitter/
June 16, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the post, IMO, you might want to change the title of your post, G.
"Poll showing support for Ahmadinejad taken before Musavi declared candidacy."
June 16, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was my first thought as well. Why perpetuate the misinformation.
I don't know that the poll is at all helpful. I think it is somewhat irresponsble to take such a poll before an election when the challengers that will be approved to run are yet unknown. Certainly it is a system that makes it most likely that the incumbent will serve two terms.
What is evident is that many Iranian people believe that they have been cheated and lied to and it is their government.
I had heard that some ballot boxes were burnt on Friday so I am curiuos as to how a recount could even be possible.
I was most troubled that on the same day that the supreme leader publicly announced that there would be an investigation into the election by the council... he also authorized the use of live bullets? That just seemed ridiculous and certain to lead to some unnecessary deaths.
June 16, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
BiBiJon,
The msm is not guilt of 'affixing a "stolen election" narrative' to the election as you say. The losing candidate and his supporters made that claim on the day of the election.
You also fail to address the entire point of the article: a portion of the polling data was taken before Mousavi declared he was even running.
If the Iranian people are so satisfied with the political situation there, why did they vote overwelmingly for the reform candidate Khatami in 97 and 01? In 05 the guardian council didn't let any serious reformer on the ballot.
June 16, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
As candidates, Mousavi, et al, are entitled to claim, demand, and protest. Our MSM's reporting of this without so much as mentioning the plausibility of MA actually winning, hot on the heels of demonizing MA for the past 4 years, is the bias I take issue with.
As for the central point: "a portion of the polling data was taken before Mousavi declared he was even running", all I know is that no one knows. These things work in mysterious ways. Why did we reelect Bush? What was so predictable about Obama's victory? How on earth did Ahmadinejad win in 2005? Rather than answer these questions any sensible person looks for independent, scientific polls, rather than ignore those polls, or poo-poo those polls. When you discount the hard data, you are very much affixing your desired (destablizing) narrative to a popular uprising.
Consider the sweet little nothing reformists have been allowed to acheive in the past given the power of the expediency council. What hope was there for yet another regime-loyalist to affect any real changes?
The real story here is as I said before, a sizable minority is registering their disgust with being utterly unrepresented by MA.
June 16, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could be he actually won. Not that our elections are all that clean (Bush v. Gore) or honest (Kennedy v. Nixon) or transparent or fast (Franken)
Americans seem to get a charge about being the agent for freedom and democracy in the world. ("But not in my backyard") Maybe it's because we feel guilty about killing off our indigenous population and bringing in 10 million slaves to do the heavy lifting or the wars that got us California, Cuba and the Philippines.
We were supposed to be a shining light, a city on the hill for all the world to admire our goodness. But we fell short. So we tell the world how to act right: no nukes for Iran and North Korea ,yet nukes for Israel and India; free and fair elections for Iran , yet we don't respect the outcomes when Hamas wins in a free and fair election.
So, Americans, how about a new ethic: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone...
June 16, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do think more Americans are taking note of our own hypocrisy. But I agree, a majority of politicians and 99.9% of our corporate-owned media fail to recognize our own culpability. Our own widespread corruption and war crimes and ethnic cleansing and other unspeakable atrocities that have plagued this country from the start.
Not to mention the atrocities we've committed in the Middle East and elsewhere.
We can and have done great things in this country and have defended good in the face of evil. But we have also been on the wrong side of that equation.
President Obama has at least spoke publicly about America's own failures. He projects a sense of strength and humility that I have rarely seen in a President.
June 16, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The subject of this post is the legitimacy of the recent Iranian elections.
It seems impossible for posters to get through a single god damned thread without blaming America or Israel for as much as possible.
Are you listening PTroub?
June 16, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks ordinary, I'll respect your comment even knowing it's not mutual.
June 16, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If any other country had spent as much money trying to influence our elections as we've spent on others there'd be a problem.
If the Swedish government gave 8 million to Move On?
Remember the Georgia fiasco with S Ossetia, and US support for the attempted coup against the democratically elected Palestinian leadership in 2006.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804
Israel is the more than the subtext for all of the attention this election is getting. It's not the elephant in the room that's being ignored it's the room itself, the frame for the whole debate, on this site and in the US media.
"Of course, there is so much hypocrisy in the Western coverage and official reactions to the developments. Most glaring for me was the statement by the secretary-general of the UN who insisted on the respect of the will of the Iranian people. Would that US designate utter such words, say, about Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and other dictatorships that are approved by the US?"
June 16, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really believe that what you've said has anything to do with the current dispute in Iran? Anything at all?
June 16, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has everything to do with the debate about Iran in this country.
But do I think the Iranian popular interest in nuclear power and the somewhat less popular interest in nuclear has something to do with what is perceived very reasonably as the Israeli threat?
Sure I do.
There were offers to Israel for securing a fully de-nuclearized middle east but Israel has dismissed them out of hand.
June 16, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Iranians are in turmoil over a disputed election. It's so bitterly disputed because Iranians are having trouble adapting to modernity - urban middle-class professionals and students have one set of interests and values, farmers and the uneducated working class have another. Every country in the world has, and has to, face similar problems. If the Obama administration's desperate fixes don't solve our financial problems our situation will soon be much worse (California ain't dreaming any more. It's in the middle of a terrible nightmare - which is NOT the fault of the Iranians).
All this plays out against a historical backdrop. ALWAYS. No country is completely isolated. Every country worries about how its neighbors, enemies, friends, and competitors will react...and all those worry about what will happen as well.
Despite that, Iran's disputed election is an INTERNAL problem. Virtually all credible analysts have so viewed it. BibiJon explained it very well on this thread.
But still you insist on blaming America and Israel. You are one sick mother. If you think America is really that evil why don't you just leave? I for one will applaud.
June 16, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The outcome of that election is of great interest to us, of course. If Moussavi wins we can expect better relations with Iran, Israel can expect worse. If Ahmadinjad wins our relations with Iran will worsen, which Israel will see as beneficial. If the election dispute is not resolved and Iran descends into turmoil and civil war nobody can predict the outcome.
Your nonsense about a de-nuclearized middle east is pathetic. It is not in Israel's interest. That's why they rejected it. They don't share your completely ridiculous ideas of Arab and/or Muslim good will and magnanimity. Nor your ideas about the worth of international guarantees (with damn good reason. they know about guys like you).
June 16, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I've said before I trust the Iranian leadership to be rational, if not in the pursuit of things I approve of.
I do not trust the Israeli leadership even that much.
Never talk to an isolationist about foreign policy- they take pride in not knowing anything.
June 16, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just plain, flat-out bias. Stupid, too.
June 16, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conversation with Grandma after Iran’s elections
Translated from the Farsi by the granddaughter.
And you might want to read more from that blog before you refer to what "Iranians" want.
You might want to read some here as well
http://djavad.wordpress.com/
June 16, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"-From the outside, Mousavi seemed very popular for the past few weeks.-
But how would a country bumpkin (dehati) know Mousavi? Ahmadinejad worked on himself for four years. His cranium’s been working since the beginning. I was really shocked anyone voted for him four years ago. But this year I wasn’t surprised at all, he showed himself as an honest, simple person, as incredible as that seems. The television images of his house show him growing greenery (sabzi) and tending chickens in his house.
" - from the first link
A one-month campaign is not fair to a challenger.
June 16, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw enough people in the streets of Tehran to raise questions. Plus it has been reported that the protests are nationwide and not limited to Tehran. The world media has not been given adequate enough access to verify what is going on inside Iran other than in Tehran. But this looks like it is much larger and not limited to Tehran.
Old polling data on top of massive nationwide protests on top of a media blackout on top of a low tech election being called almost before the polls closed raises red flags all over the place.
June 16, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nate Silver discusses this poll here. His take focuses on the large numbers of undecided voters (27%) and voters unwilling to state a preference (15%). He doesn't note that the poll is old, so that is more reason to question the conclusion, doubly so when Mousavi hadn't even declared as a candidate when the poll started (although he had before it finished)!
June 16, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes,
someone alluded to the idea that of course the Iranian people 'knew' who they would have to choose from but I wonder if that is true and if they might have concern to affect the decision of the council to approve of a candidate it a public poll demonstrated that they already had a following? The dynamic of this is something I am sure is more complex that we are making it. After all this is a 'poll' we are talking about.
As others have said contrast whatever that poll and other prior information might represent to what is actually going on in Iran, there is clear evidence of dissent if nothing else.
June 16, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are people willing to trust the government of Iran as to who the winner of the election is. Often these are the very same people who don't trust the government of Iran about it's nuclear intentions. These same people care so much about the Iranians that they want to love-bomb them to death.
June 16, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there are reasons for skepticism about how reliable the numbers in the Ballen or Doherty poll were when first collected, and about how well they might have stood up as the election kicked into high gear.
But the crucial point is this: there is no other poll, or any other reliable and comprehensive source of information about Iranian public opinion on the presidential race, that showed Mousavi leading.
The late Western perception that Mousavi might be leading appears to be based mainly on highly subjective feelings about "buzz" and "energy", drawn from rallies and man-on-the-street scuttlebutt, collected by reporters in Tehran or other major cities.
June 16, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is hard to tell if Ahmedinejad won (in the sense of true vote count) or not. I would always be rather hard to tell because theocrats control the election process with no outside observers.
I think that for a semi-dictatorship, Iran had some interesting features. Basically, the true power is in the hands of Supreme Leader who is a theocrat, elected by more junior theocrats and not by a popular vote. However, in an original twist, Supreme Leader is more of an arbiter than a strongman, ruling more indirectly than directly. The matters closer to daily life of the citizen are under the control of more conventional legislative and executive, and elections to those branches are controlled by pre-selection of candidates.
Overall, a mixture of dictatorship by committee, like in China, with democratic elements making it more responsive and flexible. But now Khamenei seemingly broke his own rules. If nothing else, his people made the elections look fishy, with hasty "counting" and annoucement of results, government less legitimate etc. and these points should be scored against Iran. Until last week, Iran was more democratic than any Arab country except for Lebanon.
Now, Russian model of democracy looks more sophisticated. (Bear in mind that our hero Saakashvili, for all his Western education, copied every single trick from Putin's book, imitation being the highest form of flattery. Well, his military adventures were not as successful, but this is zero-sum game to you.)
June 16, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink