"Indeed, parliamentary elections in the Islamic Republic rarely produce substantive political and economic change", writes Mr. Mahan Abedin in the Beirut’s leading English-language newspaper "The Daily Star".

"One of the achievements of the 1979 revolution was the creation of a reasonably independent and vibrant legislature. Both in theory, as stipulated in the post-revolutionary constitution, and in practice, the Majlis was a marked improvement over the pre-revolutionary Parliament. Nevertheless, an analysis of the performance of the past six Parliaments shows that despite their relative independence and vibrancy, Parliament, as an institution, does not wield decisive influence over Iran’s destiny", he says.

After a review of the past sessions of the Majles, Mr. Abedin argue that the performance of the Parliament illustrated how Iran’s legislature, "despite its comparative qualities, could be subject to manipulation by powerful factional forces".

"The sixth parliament, elected in February 2000, raised the expectations of millions among Iran’s reform-oriented electorate. It was supposed to work alongside President Mohammad Khatami and the entire reformist-controlled executive to bring about real and substantive changes. Unfortunately, this was not to be. For the umpteenth time, Iranians had forgotten that those who wield decisive power in the Islamic Republic are not subject to elections", he observes, a reference to the present Iranian political system that put all the powers in the hands of the leader.

Analysts could be making the same mistakes as they did in the past. For example, Siamak Namazi, the director of a well-known consulting firm in Tehran, recently warned about the unpredictability of the Iranian electorate. He argued that the outcome of the forthcoming elections, contrary to conservative propaganda, was anything but a foregone conclusion. Namazi may be right, but he did not address the real point: Will a reformist election victory, if it occurs, break the deadlock in Iranian politics?

"The experience of the past is hardly reassuring in this regard", Mr. Abedin himself responds to the question.

Nevertheless the reformists remain upbeat. Arguably, the most important commentary on the elections came from Behzad Nabavi, a leading reformist strategist and chief troubleshooter in the Islamic Republic during the past 24 years. In a recent interview with Iran’s official news agency, Nabavi preconditioned a reformist defeat on low voter turnout. This was classic Nabavi, trying to ensure the smooth running of parliamentary elections through mass participation.

Yet this notion of promoting greater involvement was visible elsewhere. For example, one of the striking features of the election campaign has been the dismissal of the idea of abandoning the Islamic nature of the republic. The plan had initially found resonance among some reformists. But Mostafa Tajzadeh, a leading proponent of reform, set the record straight at a Nov. 18 meeting of the student wing of the main reformist organization, the Islamic Iran Participation Front (IIPF). Tajzadeh told student activists: "Reforms outside the establishment will fail … In our society being outside the establishment means radicalism and passivity".

The success of the reform project in the Islamic Republic rests, to a large extent, on the emergence of a strong leader. Khatami has failed to provide this leadership. Indeed in the words of Sa’id Hajjarian, the chief reformist strategist, Khatami’s greatest talent is for failing to exploit his opportunities.

Editor’s note: Mahan Abedin is a London-based financial consultant and analyst of Iranian politics.

The Daily Star published this commentary on 6 December

Highlights and editing are by IPS