Who are the candidates for President?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: the current President is associated with the right wing, he would hold the Presidency for a second four-year period, the maximum period allowed according to the Iranian constitution.

Mir Hossein Mussavi: a reformist candidate, painter and former Prime Minister (1981-1989, before the constitutional amendments of 1989, which abolished the office of the Prime Minister, allocating the power of that office to the Presidency). His wife Zahra Rahnevard, who has always been by his side during the campaign, is a prominent political scientist and an Islamic feminist.

Mehdi Karroubi: a progressive cleric, former speaker of the Iranian parliament who is unlikely to muster enough votes to win.

Mohsen Rezai: a conservative, ex-commander of the revolutionary guards who also ran for the last elections in 2005 withdrawing after it became clear that he couldn’t organise much support amongst the right wing constituency. [AA]

How important are these elections for Iran?

These elections are important because they decide who will lead the government for the next four years, not only in its day to day business but also and to a considerable extent in setting the government’s more general policies, both in style and substance. [AG]

How important are they for the rest of the world?

Iran is at the heart of everything in the region. It can not be divorced from what is happening in Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Central Asia in general and of course Iraq. The country has also forged close relations with “leftist” governments in Latin America (Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, the Castros in Cuba and, albeit to a lesser extent, Lula in Brazil).
Apart from its immense oil and gas resources the Islamic-revolutionary model in Iran continues to project the country’s ideological power throug out the Islamic worlds. [AA]

What is the President’s role in Iranian politics?

The President has both legislative and executive powers. Formally, all constitutional organs in Iran (the Parliament, Municipal Councils, Guardian Council, Assembly of Experts, Council for the Discernment of the Interest of the System and the Presidency) are enveloped by the office of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei the successor to the late founder of the Islamic Republic Ayatollah Khomeini.
The Supreme Leader has veto powers over all the other institutions, but it is the informal power of the President, emanating from his election by popular vote, that gives him a powerful mandate to follow an independent agenda, even if it would be opposed by the Supreme Leader. [AA]

Which candidate would the USA and Europe like to see as President?

Interestingly enough all four candidates have indicated that they would welcome a better relationship with the West in general and the US in particular. Although individual style has always been an influential variable in diplomatic relations there are more fundamental issues of national interest which will ultimately decide the pace and direction of such negotiations. However, given the current changes in tone and approach, particularly in the US, there are potential prospects for improved relations. [AG]

Most diplomats that I talk to would like to see the back of the current President Ahmadinejad. [AA]

Dr Adib-Moghaddam is a SOAS Academic and author of, most recently, ‘Iran in World Politics: the Question of the Islamic Republic’.

Dr Ali Gheissari is an academic at the University of San Diego and Visiting Fellow at St Anthony’s College.

Why are the Supreme Court nominations important?

Just look at the Bush vs Gore (2000) decision or the murder of Dr George Tiller last weekend. The Supreme Court has carved out a very significant role (not given to it explicitly in the constitution of 1787), and decides many (but by no means all) political questions in the US – the constitutionality of abortion restrictions, the death penalty, affirmative action and presidential privilege to name just a few. Nominating a middle aged judge to the Court (with no retirement age) therefore provides presidents the potential to indirectly shape policy beyond their term in the White House and even beyond the grave. Nominations must also however be seen as a hurdle over which a president must stride. Part of the importance of this nomination stems from the delicate point of his presidency that Barack Obama finds himself at. A failed nomination would affect his personal prestige and therefore his chances of passing healthcare reforms and bank regulatory changes.

What has been Sonia Sotomayor’s track as a judge?

Her most famous case to date involved issuing the preliminary injunction to break the 1994 Major League Baseball Strike. In doing so Sotomayor came down on the side of players (and fans) over owners winning instant, if short lived, public recognition. More recently she decided in Ricci vs DeStefano (2008) on the very sensitive issue of affirmative action. The ruling in DeStefano went against a white fire-fighter who claimed that he had been passed up for promotion on grounds of race. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals (which, if successfully confirmed, Sotomayor is leaving) ruled that the fire department was in fact fulfilling its obligations under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Will she be confirmed by the Senate?

Recent nomination hearings have gone smoothly once it has been established that the candidate is at least qualified for the position of Supreme Court Justice (see Bush 43’s failure to get Harriet Miers confirmed). Sotomayor’s biggest remaining danger is a filibuster from the Republican minority in the Senate (still 59-40 to the Democrats until the Minnesota senatorial election is settled). Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary committee, has indicated that there will not be this kind of filibuster.

What does the nomination of Sotomayor mean for diversity?

This is the tricky issue of whether this is the first nomination of a Latino to the Supreme Court. Republican talking-heads have been trying to put a dampener on the nomination by pointing out that Benjamin Cardozo (a clue is in the name) has a good claim to being the first Latino Supreme Court Justice. Appointed in 1932 by Herbert Hoover, Cardozo had Portuguese grandparents. In any case if Sotomayor is nominated it will mean that the Court has no less than six Catholic Justices. This nomination appears to be a handy way to consolidate Latino votes for the Democrats, in states like Florida, Colorado and New Mexico which swung to the Democrats in the 2008 Presidential Election, or Nevada where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid looks to be in trouble for 2010. However It is worth remembering that Stateside Puerto Ricans (Puerto Rico is part of the US), of which Sotomayor is one, are concentrated on the east coast.

How much would Justice Sotomayor affect the Court’s decisions?

The first question to ask in this situation is who is she nominated to replace? She is replacing David Souter who has been a reliable liberal vote. In this light Bush 43’s last nomination — Samuel Alito to Replace Sandra Day O’Connor — seems much more important. On the all important issue of state abortion restrictions (deemed unconstitutional in Roe vs Wade (1973), a decision which has been slowly rolled back) it looks as if Sotomayor has little form. Her decision in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush (2002) concerns a different constitutional principle. Supreme Court justices also have a habit of going native once appointed. Not least the retiring Souter, who conservatives consider to be Bush 41’s worst mistake, after he turned out to be a liberal stalwart. Most famous is the case of Earl Warren who was a Republican governor of California appointed to the court by Dwight Eisenhower, and who went on to orchestrate, as Chief Justice, the most liberal period of decision making in the court’s history. Only Sonia Sotomayor knows how she will play things.

Tom Lubbock and Andrew Stockley are running a seminar series in Michaelmas Term.
‘Lessons in Government’ has confirmed speakers including Sandra Day O’Connor, Alan Johnson and Lord Phillips (the Lord Chief Justice).

Former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhoftstadt wants a United States of Europe. He’s worth paying attention to—not only has he written a book about it, he is a front-runner to become the next president of the European Commission. A major proponent of greater European integration, he believes that a Europe that acts as one body is one that can lead effectively on the world stage. ‘[European governments] are still thinking that they can solve problems on their own. If you look to the problems—climate change, poverty, Africa, financial crisis. What can a nation state do? Nothing at all. They are global challenges and for global challenges you need global political bodies.’ This clear vision of the need for a European parliamentary democracy with executive powers and an elected President signals a radical shift from the conciliatory Lisbon Treaty—yet Verhofstadt would suggest that a shakeup is exactly what Europe needs. Many nations were unsatisfied with the compromise. Chief among Europe’s problems, as Verhofstadt sees them, is that there is no political majority. ‘We have only [a] majority based on topic… What we need is a classical majority of position, like you have in a national parliament.’
To most, Europe is seen as a fruitless maze of bureaucracy, fiddling with the small problems but never actually governing or accomplishing anything. It’s refreshing to see a European politician genuinely understand this frustration. Verhoftstadt highlights a question that many consider when it comes to European legislation—’Is it really necessary when you have an internal market that you prescribe precisely what champagne is, what chocolate is, what marmalade is?’
However, he advocates more regulation in other areas, suggesting a focus on what is important, without letting small, seemingly irrelevant details distract from the major issues. ‘At the other side Europe needs to be more involved in preparing, for example, strategy for a financial crisis and organising the financial markets. You need more regulation on some issues and less regulation on other issues. Europe is not enough a bureaucracy on a number of issues and too much of a bureaucracy on a number of other issues.’
It is clearly possible to disagree in principle with Verhofstadt’s stance on Europe, as many do. Yet he certainly has the evidence to support his case, and is not alone in seeing that greater integration would provide solutions to some of the more serious problems that individual nations within Europe face, as well as the EU as a whole. Throughout my time with him, he made his case clearly and convincingly, especially in his speech to CapitOx, focusing on his solution to the financial crisis.
It was the financial crisis that animated him most; one gets the sense that he views it as having provided an opportunity for drastic reform. Mr Verhofstadt’s fundamental belief is that the EU can only recover from recession with a united approach, and that what is being done currently is nowhere near enough. ‘The Americans are doing their job, I don’t see the same from the European side.’ For Verhofstadt, 27 individual national plans won’t work, and he argues that the current approach poses a major threat to European growth in the long term. ‘We need to be doing the exact opposite from what we’re doing today.’ Within three years he sees most of the rest of the world entering a period of growth again—Europe, without a universal plan, would be left far behind. This belief is also supported by the IMF who currently project a recovery to some degree for most of the rest of the world, with noticeable stagnation projected for Europe.
Small scale recovery plans are often ineffective, result in an unhelpful multiplication of priorities and a lack of international coordination can bring recovery plans into conflict, further limiting their effectiveness. ‘Europe’s success needs to be based on overcoming protectionism.’ He argues that unless we move forward from a determination to protect each nation with minimal regard for our neighbours we will severely limit the extent to which European economies can be strengthened. Central to Verhofstadt’s argument is the need for better regulation, and regulation that applies to an audience broader than just one country.
He concedes that worldwide regulation and organisation is not a realistic prospect. Nonetheless, he suggests that this is what would be most effective, proposing the IMF as the central body, though admitting that this would involve major changes in internal IMF politics. Clearly, Verhofstadt is a critic of regional control. Yet, should he get his United States of Europe, what would he do with it? First, he would develop a single European watchdog with new standards for financial products – ‘not more but better regulation’. Then, stress test all the banks, giving them ratings and with full transparency about their faults. Finally, he would recapitalize banks that need it. Startlingly similar to Obama and Geithner’s action plan in the US. And ‘how would we pay for this?’ being the inevitable question.
With ‘Eurobonds’. Verhofstadt proposes that these should be issued by a central European investment bank, and that by procrastinating on this we are ‘ignoring vast sums of capital’ that could be used to revitalise the European economy. China, for example, has a savings rate among the middle class of 24% (as opposed to Europe’s 15% or the US’s 4.2%), and there is currently little alternative to US Treasury bonds on the international scale. By providing an reliable alternative in which people can invest their savings, Eurobonds have the potential to begin resuscitating the European economy.
Highly critical of Jose Manuel Barosso, current President of the European Commission, Verhofstadt maintains that he has wasted his time in office. This is clearly an indication of what he would have done in office had he been successful in gaining the presidency in 2005, and what he is likely to do should he succeed Barosso. ‘He has not done what was necessary: to come up with one common strategy. He didn’t do it. People are saying now ‘maybe he’ll do it later on.’ He has had 5 years of time to do it. Too weak in my opinion.’
Verhofstadt is nothing if not an optimist. While in no denial about the grim financial state we’re in, he genuinely sees this as an opportunity. It can provide Europe with the impetus to radically change not only its economy but its outlook. He believes we need an increase in trans-European networks – in communication, transport and energy. It is our chance to develop a carbon free economy, an opportunity for Europe to pioneer and become a pioneering group­—and there really is no limit. ‘Bretton Woods [the conference between major world powers following the war] was what in French we call a coup d’etat, by the Americans on the international financial system. Why not a Bretton Woods II for the Europeans where Europe and the European currency is the strongest group in the IMF?’
His optimism is infectious, and Verhofstadt provides, with compelling conviction, a clear plan for restoring long term growth to Europe and preventing another economic crisis similar to the one that we’re experiencing. This lucidity is something of a rarity at the moment. Take or leave his specific European ideals, but you can’t deny that there is an argument to be heard here, and we need to consider it seriously.