Ahmadinejad Gone, Ahmadinejadism Stays

Members of Iran’s parliament, the Majlis, are very busy these days. Ministerial nominees for President Rouhani’s cabinet have been introduced and now MPs is considering their credentials. The debate has attracted attention. It is colorful, lively and the government’s opponents frequently refer to unrests after the 2009 presidential electios. They accuse most of the nominated ministers of either assisting the uprising or welcoming it "by their silence".

Some smile on the outrageous comments by some MPs in their radical approach to the cabinet. Some are concerned by yet another decline in social standards and moral values. And there are some who wonder what these interactions and public exchange of insults mean for the political horizon in Iran. However, few have commented on the economic incentives behind such outbursts.  Rouhani’s harshest critics are not without interests of their own and it seems they are drawing lines to protect them. The truth is men such as Mehrdad Bazrpash and Hamid Rasaie, who both attacked the new cabinet without any restraint, represent interest groups and parties whose members had been benefiting from government resources and oil revenues for the past eight years. Their attacks on the proposed cabinet were so harsh that it prompted criticism from their conservative friends. While the government’s opponents appear ideologically aligned with the conservatives, they owe their political career to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Mimicking the revolutionary fervor of early days of Islamic Republic, Ahmadinejad propelled many inexperienced individuals who did not  have revolutionary credentials. Now they have to create their own political identity without him.

Tehran MP Mehrdad Bazrpash is a good example of these newcomers. He was born two years after the 1979 Revolution. He joined the Basij militia in his sophomore year at Sharif University of Technology.  When Ahmadinejad became mayor of Tehran he appointed Bazarpash as his advisor and head of the “Young Advisors Group”. Bazrpash followed his patron to the presidential office as a top advisor. His loyalty was rewarded again when he was appointed as the CEO of Pars Khodro and then SAIPA -- two giant auto manufactures -- while only 28-years old.  One of Bazrpash’s first acts was to offer preferential prices to members of Ahmadinejad’s staff. His next move was to launch “Khorshid” (Sun) a daily newspaper in color dedicated to Ahmadinejad’s cause. Many believe he used SAIPA resources and took advantage of government subsidies to start his newspaper. He was a candidate in Tehran city council elections but failed to secure a seat. Still Ahmadinejad appointed him Vice President and head of the Youth National Organization. Bazrpash fell out of favor when he criticized Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie, Ahmadinejad’s closest confidant, but ran as part of the pro-Ahmadinejad faction in parliamentary elections and won a seat from Tehran. 

Bazrpash is but one example. In the last eight years several others, especially those with family ties to Ahmadinejad and his close associates, have risen rapidly to power and accumulated massive wealth. The pattern seems to be the same for most of them. They were initially appointed to government offices or executive positions within public enterprises. They had the highest priority when it came to receiving government subsidies and loans with low interest rates. In return they became Ahmadinejad’s supporters and enforcers. Soon a new political entity emerged in Iran formed not just by ideological beliefs but by economic interests. When Iranians see names like Bazrpash and family members of Ahmadinejad, they are reminded that a new group is seeking to establish itself in the political scene. Rouhani’s victory means an end to their privileges and economic advantages. Their patron is out office and the economy cannot afford their excesses. 

That may be the reason behind a new ideology, a new raison d'etre. Maybe that is why the new cabinet has been attacked so recklessly. They want to keep their privileges by appearing as righteous defenders of the regime. Thus they constantly refer to the 2009 incidents to remind the political establishment that it needs them. One should remember that when war was raging with Iraq while, men like Bazrpash were toddlers while those like Hassan Rouhani were in the position of authority. Rouhani is one of the few Iranians who have been awarded both Nasr and Fath first class medals for courage and significant contribution to the war effort. His opponents are addressing their own lack of credentials. They do not have a revolutionary background, they have not been successful as executives and have no achievements on their resume. Thus their stand against the Green Movement has become their only weapon. And they blow it out of proportion.

And this is one of those ironic facts that history loves to remember. When all political groups, reformist and conservative alike, join forces to bridge the gap created by the events of four years ago between the people and the regime, there is this single faction which does the opposite. They emphasize and highlight these events without caring for the cost of such reminders for the political establishment. They are playing with unhealed wounds risking further political volatility. The question is if Ahmadinejad is gone, can the Islamic Republic still afford Ahmadinejadism?