Latest Articles

Current scholarship on elections in authoritarian regimes has focused on exploring the relationship between elections and democratization, and it has generally used analytical frameworks and methods imported from the study of genuinely democratic elections to do so. These tendencies have kept scholars from asking a wide range of questions about the micro-level dynamics of authoritarian elections and the systematic differences among them. With these issues in mind, this review examines literature that investigates the purpose of elections in dictatorships; the electoral behavior of voters, candidates, and incumbents in these elections; and the link between elections and democratization. The review ends with a call to redirect the study of authoritarian elections toward uncovering and explaining the important differences among them.

This study provides a reading of the implications and significance of the most recent Iranian presidential election results in light of the available numerical data. It analyses the cultural, political, and economic factors that shaped Iranian mentality within both opposition and loyalist circles. The study discusses the challenges facing the new president, Hassan Rouhani, and examines part of the political struggle over the concept of “moderation” chosen by Rouhani as a motto for his term in office. The study finds that the election results confirm the Iranian political arena’s continued reliance on the old approach in the management of its conflicts. It expects the debate over moderation to be settled in practical terms through the new government’s political performance. Settling this debate will have a huge impact on Rouhani’s relationship with Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei and influential forces in the regime, on one hand, and with loyalist and opposition political currents on the other. As such, the practical answer to the question of “moderation” will remain the determining factor for the course and outcome of Rouhani’s presidential experiment.

Despite the sharp and often uncompromising rhetoric that accompanies it, Iran's foreign policy is deeply pragmatic and is guided by practical, strategic considerations and objectives. Especially after the end of the war with Iraq in 1989 , successive administrations in Tehran have pursued foreign policies that have been largely nonideological, guided more by the logic of national interests as dictated by evolving circumstances rather than by the principles of the 1978 - 79 revolution. Constitutionally, while the Supreme Leader is technically in overall charge of the country's international relations, Ayatollah Khamenei's guiding principles for conducting foreign policy – dignity, wisdom, and expediency – are broad enough to include a wide range of potential policy options. With the Islamic Republic seemingly embroiled in one regional and international crisis after another, pragmatism has become its default backup policy. A legacy of the war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988 , this hard realism is only likely to be reinforced as the lingering consequences of the Twelve-Day War shape Iranian foreign and security policies in the years to come.