Those opposed to the establishment of Islamist political parties always say that Islamists “bellow” of democracy and demand it only in order to exploit it to promote themselves and to participate in elections under its banner, and that they will turn against it the moment they come to power. When there are increasing complaints over the measures being taken against Islamists in Egypt for example, when the state refuses to grant the Muslim Brotherhood a political party, and when the refusal of establishing political parties on religious bases has been stated in the Egyptian Constitution, then such a reason would not be among the customary “official” reasons. Indeed, such reasons usually rely on the fact that breaking up society religiously warns of dire consequences, that political conflict in any society should not turn into a religious conflict between sects and men of religion, and that this is always the prelude to the collapse of the state. Certainly the “elections crisis” which recently erupted in Iran has provided support to those so inclined around the world, regardless of whether or not electoral fraud took place. Indeed, resolving the crisis has increased fears of Islamists coming to power in other countries. Political forces opposed to the Islamists have often accused the Egyptian regime of using the Muslim Brotherhood as a “scarecrow” to frighten the people with the assumption that complete democracy would bring the Islamists to power and that it would be a painful fate for everyone. Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sought to end the issue of the protests that have erupted in objection to the falsification of Iran's presidential elections, and moved the matter to the realm of religion. Thus those who protest, raise doubts and object aim to cause injury to Iran's religious institution! The spiritual leader said the following: “the enemies of Iran are targeting the Islamic institution by raising doubt over the results of the presidential elections that took place last week; the enemies have targeted the legitimacy of this institution to cast doubt on the integrity of the elections, before and after the voting process”. Thus Iranians must now either stand in the camp of the enemies of the Muslim faith by continuing to protest or doubt, or must defend against enemies and preserve their faith by agreeing to the veracity of the elections and the soundness of the procedure, and by accepting the result. Yes, it is no secret that Iran and its ruling regime have enemies abroad, and that there are within Iran some who disapprove of the control held by religious clerics and of the nature of the ruling regime, and who hope to change it. It is also true that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's supporters and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's followers are stressing that the issue of the elections is an internal matter. However, the truth is that an extreme media blackout has been imposed on the details of the electoral process and the manner in which the votes are counted and the result announced. Media restrictions have increased after the eruption of the waves of protest that followed the announcement of the result, and the information and images available remain a mere drop in the sea of information and scenes that have disappeared or have been concealed by a call for preserving Islamic forces and defending the Islamic institution as an entity. This institution had become divided over the elections crisis, but the Supreme Leader came and sought to unite it anew by accusing protesters of working for its enemies. When the victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the presidential elections by a wide margin was announced, when his rival Mir-Hossein Mousavi asserted that acts of fraud had taken place, when clashes took place between Mousavi's supporters and security forces, and then the intensity and size of protests grew, Supreme Leader Khamenei ordered an investigation into the claims of fraud, then the Guardian Council of the Constitution announced a partial recount of the votes and refused to repeat the elections. Confusion in resolving the crisis seemed clear and led to increasing the conviction of protesters that the only purpose of the elections for the religious institution was to renew President Ahmadinejad's term, and that a victory of his rival Mousavi was not an option for this institution, even if he had obtained the majority of votes. Indeed, Khamenei himself certified yesterday that his opinion in both foreign and domestic policy was “closer to that of Ahmadinejad than to that of other politicians”, after asserting that “the law of the Islamic Republic absolutely does not permit falsifying the elections”. Is there then a law in any country that permits falsifying elections? Iran's supporters in the region were wagering before and during the elections on the fact that the Islamic state would teach the world a lesson in democracy and present a model of Islamist rule. They have lost their wager, and certainly Islamists in Arab countries who aspire to participate in the political game and come to power have lost the most. Indeed, after the experience of the Hamas movement in Palestine came the “election crisis” in Iran, and between the two the Lebanese elections took place. Hezbollah did not achieve what it had wished in these elections, yet its leader Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah admitted defeat and accepted it, earning appreciation and reducing fears. The Supreme Leader, however, sought to put an end to the crisis in his country and ended up harming all Islamists.
