AN IRANIAN FOREIGN POLICY EXPERT CRITIQUES U.S.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ISTANBUL 000020 SIPDIS LONDON FOR GAYLE; BERLIN FOR PAETZOLD; BAKU FOR MCCRENSKY; ASHGABAT FOR TANGORN; BAGHDAD FOR BUZBEE; DUBAI FOR IRPO E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/09/2019 TAGS: PGOV PREL PINS KDEM TU IR SUBJECT: AN IRANIAN FOREIGN POLICY EXPERT CRITIQUES U.S. (AND IRANIAN) ELECTION PROCEDURES Classified By: Deputy Principal Officer Sandra Oudkirk; Reason 1.5 (d). ¶1. (C) Summary: An Iranian expert with a regime-affiliated think-tank who participated in a "study tour" observing U.S. presidential elections has written a draft paper comparing and critiquing U.S. and Iranian election procedures. The paper will be published on a Turkish university website in coming weeks. The Turkish professor who sponsored the U.S. study tour hopes that this "rising star" of the Iranian foreign policy establishment and his colleagues may now help push for a process of careful, incremental debate, at least within "moderate academic and establishment circles" in Iran, about practical steps to improve the procedural credibility of Iranian elections. End summary. ¶2. (C) A senior foreign policy researcher at the Tehran-based Center for Strategic Research (CSR) (please strictly protect),the Iranian Expediency Council's think-tank, has written a draft paper comparing and critiquing U.S. and Iranian election procedures. The author was one of five CSR researchers who participated with several Turkish academics in a "study tour" to observe U.S. presidential elections last November. The study tour was co-sponsored by Istanbul's Isik University and a private U.S. NGO. The Isik University professor who organized the study tour shared with us recently the Iranian researcher's draft paper. Isik University plans to publish the paper (in English and Farsi, without attribution),as well as papers from other Iranian participants on the study tour, on a dedicated website in coming weeks. The professor told us that CSR's director, Dr. Hassan Rohani, gave permission to the Iranian researchers to allow their papers to be published on-line by Isik University, as long as the papers offered more criticism than praise of US election procedures. ¶3. (C) In his draft paper, the Iranian researcher offered the following criticisms of the U.S. presidential election system: -- "The system is not friendly to small parties, and decreases their voice in government.... Due to this electoral system, third parties are very weak in America." -- "The pre-election period is very long in America. (During this period),candidates blame each other...and try to decrease the popularity of their rivals....This has a negative impact on the ethics of the elections....Shortening the time of primary elections may have a positive impact." -- "The most palpable weakness of the American electoral system is the indirectness of electing a President. The popular vote is not equal to the electoral vote....This may be regarded as the non-democratic side of U.S. elections." -- "Some scholars believe this system is not well proportional and that it is better to elect the U.S. president by direct vote." -- The U.S. election system is vulnerable in not having a central data gathering and processing office. All election-related activities are done in the states, and sometimes election procedures differ among the states. This may be a source of inefficiency and incompatibility....Having a national election law may be useful in overcoming some vulnerability." ¶4. (C) The same paper, however, also praised aspects of the U.S. presidential elections: -- "Most of the people do not hide who their preferred candidate is, and talk about their choice of candidate publicly." -- "We saw no provocative actions among supporters of both candidates, something that is common in developing countries." -- "We could not see any police within the polling stations, something that is common in many Middle Eastern countries. It was difficult for us to imagine that a polling station can be safe and reliable without police." -- "It was interesting and at the same time strange for us that the volunteers and ordinary citizens were responsible for running the polling stations. I appreciated the sense of responsibility of these American citizens." -- "The important role of the media in the U.S. elections was apparent, in the on-line voting and coverage....It was interesting to see the media report the results so quickly." -- "This night was a historical one for Americans and even for us. The outcome of this historical event was announced as soon as polls closed. There were no clashes, riots, or protests against the final result, something that is rare to see in many developing countries." -- "No party challenged the validity of counting or the voting process. Nobody objected to the result. Free and fair elections in America have made it easy to tolerate its disproportionate electoral system." ¶5. (C) Somewhat surprisingly, given the Iranian researcher's well-placed position in the regime's leading (pragmatic) think-tank, his paper also offers several carefully-worded ISTANBUL 00000020 002 OF 002 critiques of Iran's own election system: -- "Candidates prefer not to talk about their financial resources in Iran, while the sources (of financing) are much more transparent in America." -- "By the day after, many U.S. newspapers had published very elaborate analysis of the votes....Finding reliable open source data about age, ethnicity, race and religion of voters in countries like Iran is too difficult for researchers. The government prefers not to publish detailed information about voters due to some concerns." ¶6. (C) In addition to his paper's critiques of Iran's electoral system, the Iranian expert offered frequent verbal criticisms of Iranian elections to his Turkish colleagues throughout the visit to the U.S. According to the Turkish professor, the researcher kept these out of this paper to protect himself from punishment in Iran, but those critiques focused on: -- Voting registration and procedures: The Iranian researcher admitted to the Turkish professor that voting procedures in the U.S. are much more advanced and effective than in Iran. -- Ballot secrecy: The Iranian researcher was visibly impressed with the steps taken in U.S. polling booths to ensure the secrecy of the ballot. He acknowledged that a secret ballot is a critical element of a free and fair election and bemoaned the utter lack of ballot secrecy in Iranian voting. -- Popular political engagement: The Iranian expert reportedly was impressed by the openness of the U.S. political system, as reflected in the ability of any citizen to run for public office if he or she can secure enough signatures to get on a ballot. He was also taken aback by the "energy level" among students participating in "get out the vote" activities, noting that in Iranian elections, "only the Basiji "get out the vote", and they usually just threaten voters not to vote for reform candidates." Comments -------------- ¶7. (C) According to the Isik University professor, one purpose of bringing the Iranian think-tankers to observe U.S. elections and asking them to write post-election analysis was to prompt at least nascent debate among the group about the Iranian electoral system's serious shortcomings compared to western electoral systems. The professor felt that this Iranian expert's willingness to include some praise of the U.S. system and light critiques of the Iranian system in his paper reflects the group's genuine surprise at how "free and lively and civil" the U.S. electoral process is. According to the Turkish professor, the Iranian researcher, after leaving one polling station, joked to him that "In America, the voting procedures are transparent and the votes are secret. In Iran, the voting procedures are secret and the votes are transparent!" ¶8. (C) The Turkish professor urged us not to focus on the Iranian researcher's criticisms of the U.S. elections, but on the possibility that this "rising star" of the Iranian foreign policy establishment, with the acquiescence of his think-tank, has opened the door to what the professor hopes will be a process of careful, incremental debate, at least within "moderate academic and establishment circles" in Iran, about practical steps to improve the procedural credibility of future Iranian elections. Wiener