Home

Pre-cooked Elections

12 June 2005

Human Rights Watch published a report today citing significant flaws in Iran's electoral laws. Most significant of HRW's finding is that the Guardian Council only approved those candidates which were in some way or form associated with the ruling elite, or termed in Persian

 "khodi," or insiders. The news comes on the heels of a recent poll conducted by the Iranian Students Opinion Poll Center finding that only 45.5 to 51.4% of the electorate countrywide and 37.1 to 39.7% in Tehran will participate in the election. The low turnout rate ought to be advantageous to conservative and moderate political candidates such an Rafsanjani and Qalibaf, who subsequently lead in the polls as well.

 As Hossein himself has duly noted, the majority of those unlikely to vote are those who would generally vote for reformist candidate Moein. The most pertinent part of HRW's paper is its finding that Article 28 of the Parliamentary Election Law of 1995 which requires the candidate to demonstrate observance to Islam as well as express loyalty to the velayat faqih, and is generally used to vet out unfavorable candidates, are not requirements in Shi'a Islam accepted by most theologians and constituents.HRW's analysis is parter of a greater movement to enact political change in Iran, particularly electoral laws, by attacking the Islamic justifications that guard them. Because the precondition for denying or accepting candidates falls upon Islamic perspectives held by the elite, only by attacking that base will true reform take place. To that extent the nature of political reform in Iran is coterminous with Islamic reform in general.

Stop the secrecy: Publish the NHS COVID data deals


To: Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

We’re calling on you to immediately release details of the secret NHS data deals struck with private companies, to deliver the NHS COVID-19 datastore.

We, the public, deserve to know exactly how our personal information has been traded in this ‘unprecedented’ deal with US tech giants like Google, and firms linked to Donald Trump (Palantir) and Vote Leave (Faculty AI).

The COVID-19 datastore will hold private, personal information about every single one of us who relies on the NHS. We don’t want our personal data falling into the wrong hands.

And we don’t want private companies – many with poor reputations for protecting privacy – using it for their own commercial purposes, or to undermine the NHS.

The datastore could be an important tool in tackling the pandemic. But for it to be a success, the public has to be able to trust it.

Today, we urgently call on you to publish all the data-sharing agreements, data-impact assessments, and details of how the private companies stand to profit from their involvement.

The NHS is a precious public institution. Any involvement from private companies should be open to public scrutiny and debate. We need more transparency during this pandemic – not less.


By adding my name to this campaign, I authorise openDemocracy and Foxglove to keep me updated about their important work.

Had enough of ‘alternative facts’? openDemocracy is different Join the conversation: get our weekly email

Comments

We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData