Details for Iran's televised presidential debates have been announced. There will be three televised debates held on May 31, June 5 and June 7, involving all candidates. The previous person-to-person format has been dropped in favor of the group approach.
Hosting the debates will be Kamran Najafzadeh, a well known TV news personality in Iran. Najafzadeh recently made a name for himself in France by attempting to expose the hypocricy of France retaining Iranian antiquities (while at the same time maintaining the role of victim in the seizure of artworks by the Nazis in World War II). For that and his attempted expose on the French failure to deliver on Iran's shares of the Eurodif nuclear plant (10 percent of its stocks belong to Iran), he was recently forced to leave France.
IRIB will also offer a variety of presidential election programming. In contrast to the American approach where big money donations from a variety of sources and special interests buys each of the two candidates competing levels of exposure on television and radio, in Iran each of the eight candidates are provided a level playing field of 420 minutes of television programming and 216 minutes on radio (including two slots of 30 minute programming on television Channel 1). In total, IRIB will have more than 2,000 hours of programming dedicated to the election.
TV debate details sourced from Wikipedia
File photo: PressTV
23 comments:
This year's debates will be mainly held between different shades of gray, from traditional conservatives to ultraconservatives, as 75% of the approved candidates fall somewhere within the established conservative orthodoxy. I wish strong candidates were present on the approved list of the Guardian Council who could seriously debate the most critical issues facing the country during these critical times. But Ayatollah Jannati and his gang at the GC probably didn’t want the country gets involved in a real debate. Too bad, the country needs it.
This is great for the Iranian electorate as it will give the candidates a chance to give a clear idea about their policies. Most of the focus should be on economic management or lack of it. I also hope there is some focus on corruption and lack of transparency. It would be good to see a shift from Ahmadinejad's unnecessary bombast which has damaged Iran's international reputation for no apparent gain.
Except most of these chosen candidates, probably with the exception of Qalibaf, will not have a clue on how to restart the Iranian economy and how to manage it, which is in its worst shape in recent memory. These candidates are hand-picked by Jannati and his colleagues at the Guardian Council, who are all old clerics with no hands-on experience of running anything, who had to choose which candidate was best to manage the country in these difficult times. It is a sad story, and you are hearing this from a born optimist! This Guardian Council should go, and replaced by political parties introducing their candidates who run on their party's defined platforms. Time has come for this change. The GC is making a mockery of the electoral process.
Your and enemy's wishes, that there will be an attempt for "a revolution", have faded away and there will not be any pink, blue, white or red shades of your colours here.
Iran doesn't need advisors, who would be happy to see a bloodshed, as a price for their delusions.
Nader, your sound argument will have no argument from me. I agree with your analysis and have been posting for years that Iran deserves a multi-party and transparent democratic process based on its historical cultural and societal values. Unfortunately, mullahs have hijacked the system for various reasons and a viable civil society has not been able to assert itself. US polices of continued pressure have only played into the mullahs hands. As I have said many times before, imagine what a bright future Iran would have if it was an open inclusive system?. I also agree that in the current crop of vetted candidates, only Qalibaf has some idea what the massive economic problems are!
United States Congress has stepped closer to a full trade embargo on Iran with legislation intended to increase support for AIPAC and Zionists. If this counter-productive measure is passed into law, Obama or future Presidents would lose the waiver rights that ensure countries with historic trade and financial relations with Tehran continue cooperating with Western efforts to pressure Iran over its nuclear program. This untimely measure will also result in hardliners consolidate Iranian politics and further encourage Iran's nuclear ambitions at a time when the whole region is being dragged into an abyss by US/Zionist support for cannibalistic Wahabbi terrorists in Syria.
Even the strongest supporters of largely impotent US sanctions have conceded that the economic pressure they've exerted on the regime to date has not produced the desired result and may even have strengthened regime hardliners who are convinced that Washington's ultimate aim is "regime change" and destruction of Iran - a conviction that is likely to be strengthened by a review of Wednesday's warmongering senate debate and its AIPAC dominated agenda.
This unwise move also encourages a Zionist war against Iran, even though considering their military weakness and entanglement in Syria, the Zionists are hardly in a position to engage in a suicidal war against Iran as Russia and China are no longer silent bystanders to US/Zionist aggression.
Iran's election process is ,much more democratic than US in which no independent candidate is allowed to participate. Also in US the election is determined by money and advertisement, while in Iran the effect of big money is limited.
USKOWI playing a Hillary!
'except most of these chosen candidates, probably with the exception of Qalibaf,will not have a clue o how to restart the Iranian economy and how to manage it, which is in its worst shape in recent memory!'
-YOU are just repeating what Hillary Clinton said during her days as a favorite in the duel with President Obama for the nominations on their party-HILLARY kept hitting the then ILLINOIS senator That-HE is all talk but has no residue!.
And your Argument that they were hand picked blindly by GC is also misplaced.DO YOU seriously mean that JANNATI and His team wishes the country to go for the dogs by disqualifying HASHEMI?.
YOU always get it wrong in IRAN and time will prove you wrong once more like your position and predictions on SYRIA !.
Mark will you be watching the debates in fear, ie in Iran, or comfortably in the US?
Jannati is an old fundamentalist who doesn’t care much about the process, only the results. And he and his gang did not want Rafsanjani on the ballot; their guy would have lost to him, and not having him as president was more important to them than the integrity of the country’s electoral process.
I have not made a prediction on the election, I leave that to those with direct ties to the Hidden Imam. My analysis is the GC’s action and the grab for power by the ultraconservatives (adding the executive branch to their many other portfolios), at the expense of pushing out Rafsanjani and the moderates, is very costly for the country and its future.
@10:16 PM,
The discussion here was on the Guardian Council’s decision to disqualify Rafsanjani, a founder of the Islamic Republic, and a former president, as unfit to run. It is interesting that you associate this remark to a call for revolution; is Rafsanjani now a revolutionary figure?
The fundamentalists in their power grab to add the presidency to their other bastions of power are ready to accuse anyone to achieve their goal. Even a founding father of the Iran’s Islamic revolution becomes unfit to run. But why am I not surprised! These fundamentalists have much more in common with Taliban’s understanding of an Islamic government, albeit its Shia version, than with a democratically-inclined republic. After all they get their guidance from their guide Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, the chief proponent of an authoritarian Islamic government, fashioned after the Taliban, but with Shia terminologies.
@1:12 AM
With that logic, wasn’t it even better if the Guardian Council could have picked just one person to be anointed as president? Less costly and more convenient to the extreme right!
@ Nader Uskowi: I am not sure how your response to 1:12AM aims its logic. S/he is making a comparison, which seems to be fair enough, and your response doesn't address that. While it is not quite right that independent candidates are not allowed to run for presidency, it is not hard to see that that is de facto a given. Privatization of TV in the US has led to the exclusion of independent candidates even from TV debates. So, by just saying that the discussion here is on the Guardian Council, one should not ward off relevant criticism. If there is no GC in the US, there is the Supreme Court with lifetime members, there is the Senate which is occupied by the two parties. So, at least please don't represent Iran as an aberrant state, by whose lack of democracy people of the world are surprised.
Uskowi at 9:56AM
In the 2009, Rafsanjani's children were part of the misguided "revolt" inspired clandestinely by the West.
Today enemies have assumed that Rafsanjani candidacy will bring a division to society and they could repeat their 2009 strategy, by attaching their conspirators to the other divisive candidates, including Rafsanjani's supporters.
Rafsanjani's move not to contest that disqualifications, and the Guardian Council set of candidates, prevented those conspiracies to divide Iranian society in that important stage of Iran's history.
A-F
Aref actually the most qualified one: 1- He has been the first vice president for many years and actually managed Khatamies government 2- Have been a minster 3-University president 4- He is very intelligent (I have classes with him and I think he is one of the most intelligent individual I ever saw) 5-He is one of architect of Iran's higher educational system
The only problem is he is not popular
@ 3:23 PM
We were not discussing the U.S. electoral system. There are many sites, on all sides of American political spectrum, which do that very well. The subject is outside the focus of this blog. This is the problem: whenever there is a serious criticism of Iranian political systems, such as criticism of the Guardian Council’s decision to eliminate one of the founding fathers of the Islamic Republic, then some commentators come in and instead of speaking to the issue will try to deflect the discussion by comparing Iran to other countries and other times. Anything but discussing the issue on hand.
@ 6:10 PM,
Please tell us what YOU think about the issue and not what the enemies think: do you agree with the Guardian Council’s decision disqualifying a founding father of the Islamic Republic? Do you agree they should so openly tell the people and the world that a former president, commander-in-chief of armed forces during the war, speaker of Majlis, who was reappointed as head of the Expediency Council by the supreme leader last year, is not fit to run? This is a joke, isn’t it? What they did was power grab. They knew their guy would lose to Rafsanjani, and they ruthlessly and without any shame wanted to eliminate him now, not letting the people decide if Rafsanjani was fit or not at the ballot box. Do you (notwithstanding what the enemies think or like) agree with GC’s move? Is this good for the political development of the country?
USKOWI-
your apraisal of Rafsanjani is empty unless you run some serious facts about him which will give readers some judgement to see the unjustifications on his disqualifiacation!-you are only sruggling to show HE is a good choice for the Nation JUST FOR being a founding father,a former head of state etc.GIVE us something tangible,run his archievements as a president and other state positions and tell us why you think SOMEONE ELSE can'nt acoumplish those fetes in His shoes!.
- from there, we shall JOIN you in the MOURNING over his disqualificatios!!.
If all those accomplishments you have mentioned still not enough to let someone to run in an election, and let the people decide, then what is?
But no need to mourn over Rafsanjani’s disqualification, he’s political position has actually been strengthened; people otherwise opposing him would now support him for what has been done. He’s in best position ever to unite the moderates on both sides of political spectrum, reformists as well as principlists. And he can gather him around reform to electoral system, including the abolition of the Guardian Council. Don’t mourn him, just watch him!
If you want to mourn something, and you care about the country, not just global Islamic movement, then mourn over the power grab by Shia fundamentalists in Iran. Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi and his followers, like Rahpouyan Nour, who already control the Judiciary, the Guardian Council, and strong presence at the Assembly of Experts, now want to add presidency and in two years the Majlis to their portfolio. Problem with their political thinking is their belief that the republic part of the Islamic Republic is not key, can be sacrificed for the sake of Islam and prefer a Shia-version of Taliban type government in Iran. Rafsanjani had the clout to stop them, and that’s why they used the Guardian Council to “disqualify” him. But you might even prefer Mesbah’s ideology, I don’t know, and then you should rejoice at what happened.
I don't know about Mr. Pyruz, but as someone who agrees with his positions on almost everything published here, I am happy to tell you that I'll be watching them in Iran, and let me reassure you there will be no fear. Fear belongs to those citizens under US PATRIOT Act and Obama drones!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3eGpqi_Yac --- Is Iran going offline?
I am sure you are writing this from the IRI. That is entirely believable, Mr. Mark ;-)
Uskowi at 8:25PM
The country, at this important and sensitive stage, needs to concentrate on economical and defensive tasks and look for candidates who showed their innovative action as well as commitment to seek national unity.
Mr. Rafsanjani had time and ideas in the past, today; by your information, he states that Iran is not "at war with israel"....when iranian scientists are assasinated and computer viruses installed...
A-F
I'm stunned that you didn't approve my comment in accord with BMA, perhaps because I said you are wrong about Iran. You did accept another comment I posted at the same time.
KM
Post a Comment