The Influence of Elections on States’ International Standing

(Case Study: Islamic Republic of Iran)

Abstract

This paper tries to explain how holding general elections can promote the state’s international standing and authority. This paper is also trying to explain four effective elements, including democratic peace, the importance of international legitimacy, public diplomacy, and clean slate doctrine to help the researchers to find out the prominent role of holding elections in stabilizing and improving the state’s standing in the international arena. A free general election, in fact, establishes the state’s international interactions, in part, because such elections make other states receive specific signs and concepts, paving the way for the intended states to carry out desired reactions. The elections use both techniques of representing democratic norms and paving the way for changing policies to help the countries reconstruct their international standing. This way of tangible influence has been witnessed several times in the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran, mainly in presidential elections. For instance, while Iran’s international relations with certain nations had been pushed towards tensions, what restored stability to the country’s diplomatic interactions with other nations on that hard time, was actually holding elections.

Keywords: Democracy, Elections, International Standing, Islamic Republic of Iran.

 

1. Introduction

Every official election includes a series of lawful measures through which people will be capable of electing their own representatives to manage certain defined affairs; to wit, general elections are mechanisms that can materialize democratic and peaceful political power interchange. While experiencing such process, some new ideas and policies will emerge that may seriously contradict former representatives’ mentality and plans.

General elections can create dramatic changes in society’s political and social arena. When a considerable majority of people have become disapproved of society’s current political and social atmosphere, holding general elections to vote for fresh representatives will lead to a satisfactory change in situation.

In fact, replacing old decision-makers and politicians with fresh ones will enable the government to reestablish the path of international relations and standing.

General elections are not only able to replace peacefully the old high-ranking decision-makers with the new ones but also are able to assist governments to improve their national and international legitimacy.

It is noteworthy that political legitimacy protects the stability and survival of political system against domestic and foreign threats; however, the legitimacy of any political establishment is not merely a result of elections. Other elements, including efficiency, are also important to gain legitimacy. Some political establishments find their legitimacy through non-electoral mechanisms, but in the contemporary world, the importance of holding general elections, as a definite factor for gaining legitimacy, has significantly increased. Democratic legitimacy, on one hand, will result in domestic prosperity and, on the other hand, will affect positively on the international authority and standing of the government.

This paper is supposed to answer some questions about the method through which general elections can lead a government towards higher international liability and standing. It should be mentioned that democratic political establishments do not necessarily enjoy more sustainable security and stability in comparison with authoritarian regimes.

Even there are certain authoritarian governments in the contemporary world that enjoy strong international influence and domestic stability, but it seems that general elections as a democratic mechanism are capable of reestablishing a government’s standing in international spheres and in the meantime lessen its vulnerability against foreign threats. The cause and effect relationship between these two concepts (general elections and a rise in international relations) is more tangible in today’s world.

There is another valuable point which is the dependence of governments’ international liability and standing on different factors, including the economic system, military strength, cultural values, and political system.

This paper concentrates on the role of general elections, particularly the influence of general elections on the governments’ international interactions through affecting foreign governments’ perception of the origin of the government based on the topic. It will briefly point to the influence of the general elections system on the international liability of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2, theoretical frameworks will be discussed. Section 3 discusses the relationship between elections and democratic peace, and Section 4 studies elections in relation to international legitimacy. In Section 5, the influence of elections on public diplomacy is discussed, and Section 6 explains the relationship between elections and clean slate doctrine. Finally, Section 7 concludes the paper.

 

2. Theoretical Frameworks

The interactions between governments or response-to-action measures in the real world is not merely through formal-informal or direct-indirect diplomatic ways. The hostility between the two governments might be so deep and severe that prevents them from shaping any diplomatic relations even in its indirect or confidential form, but this situation does not mean that they lack any level of interaction. One of the most prominent mechanisms of keeping interactions between the two governments is sending bilateral signals. The signals which are presented in politicians’ statements or even in a government performance are not necessarily rational.

Normally, some governments begin to adopt certain measures or political positions that force the opposite side (intended government) to react. The reaction of the later may cause the former to react in return.

Nowadays, government’s perception play an important role in choosing ways of interactions with other governments. This have encouraged experts to introduce some influential theories to regulate international relations among governments. Alexander Wendt, a well known theorist in social constructivism, and among the theorists defending moral structures against materialistic ones.

Certain items in international relations are likened to the fire in a hotel, in both there is no significant role between its causes and effects. But in most cases, the ideas (ideologies) can gift understandable meaning to materialist structures while the latter cannot do the same for the former.

Instead of following neorealists who emphasize materialist structures, I believe that if we are to offer a few but very important advice in the international political field. It should be more useful to put priority on the government’s ideas and the interests that might be achievable through those ideas, and then, as the second priority, we could ask that who owns more weapons.

Those states that intend to regulate their interactions should firstly have a good understanding of each other? They must try to deeply understand the other side’s logic or the logic based on which the target side behaves.

It should be noted that the states’ perception of each other are not necessarily based on realities, because at first, they usually do not have perfect information about each other, and secondly, their perception of each other’s policies, measures, aims, and interests are mainly affected by domestic values and norms.

At this stage, what can lead the states to complete or improve their understandings of each other. Diplomacy and dialogue can pave the way for the states or states to grasp a common understanding of values and norms of one another. Diplomacy, meantime, helps the states improve their positions and behaviors towards each other.

How to understand a state is mainly based on how it introduces itself to the audience, therefore, how it is introduced, plays a very important role in regulating a state’s relations with others.

Reviewing China’s case, as a good sample, can help us have a better understanding of the above-mentioned subject. At the beginning of the 1950s, the communist party of China was trying to express itself as an ally of the communist encampment, therefore, Beijing prioritized certain policies that attracted the former Soviet Union and meantime abandoned the United States. The consequences of China’s political approach, emerged in the Korean War, but Beijing changed its policy from the second half of the 1950s. Since then, China tried to improve its political influence in the third world nations, and simultaneously tried to keep a distance from the Soviet Union. Late in the 1960s, in order to attract western nations, Chinese tried to introduce and express themselves differently. In line with its new policy, China promoted its relations with the US and Western states during 1970s. Beijing, in the 1980s, started reconstructing its relations with the Soviet Union while keeping firmly its improving interactions with the West. The Chinese, who had pessimistic views toward the United Nations’ Organization and termed it as an instrument in the hands of imperialism in the 1950s, changed its idea completely, and began to support the UN and other international institutions so firmly. So this shift in approach became a fundamental principle in the country’s foreign policy.

Whenever Chinese decided to disclose a new figure in the international arena, they mainly materialized it through adopting unique political positions and putting those new approaches atop of their political agenda. Of course, some unpleasant incidents, including the Tiananmen Square massacre, dissatisfied the Chinese leaders. While Beijing was trying to present a popular peaceful appearance from itself with a deep commitment to the game’s rules, the mentioned incident destroyed China’s appearance in the international arenas, especially in the West.

Totally, developments in China during the last 65 years caused the US and its Western allies to gradually accept that China, regardless of its closed political climate, was a reliable country to start mutual strategic collaboration with.

In addition to China, some other countries tried to present a new perception of their policies in the international arena. For instance, the former Soviet Union decided to create a new understanding of the nature and way of thinking of its own in the late 1980s. In line with Moscow’s new approach and based on the new way of thinking, the Russians began to create fundamental economic and political reforms in the Soviet Union.

The Russians knew that Western states considered them as an anti-peace, unreliable and expansionist power. So, Western nations were to try to weaken Moscow and change it forcefully. The new thinking that covered the Soviet Union was reflecting this message that Moscow was keeping a distance from military expansionist policy, and was resolved to establish a form of coexistence between socialism and capitalism. Russians, also, decided to show openly their retreatment from principles of communism. The Soviet Union state under Mikhail Gorbachev, former General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, tried hard to indicate a peaceful appearance of the Soviet Union which believed in bilateral dependency in the world, and was resolved to collaborate with other states to settle international human problems.

Moscow’s measures were, in fact, signals which were nothing but their intention to put an end to the Cold War. The message was welcomed by the West.

There are many cases proving that such a change of signals can be materialized after holding general elections. For instance, based on historical records, presidential elections in the US can result in a significant change in country’s international image. The main Slogan of Barack Obama was “change” in the 2008 presidential election. Obama’s slogan was announced when the United States’ international credibility was undermined severely by the Bush administration’s intervening and aggressive policies.

Obama started the practical policy of making peace with international community as soon as he came into power. Peaceful interactions with Russia, shut down of Guantanamo prison, withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, and insisting on negotiations and diplomacy as the priorities of the US Secretary of State were some examples of such changes. Thereafter, Obama administration stopped lobbies to enter Syrian War. Then He welcomed diplomatic negotiations with Iran and Cuba. These signals played an important role in reinvigorating the United States’ credibility and hegemony. In 2009, Noble Peace Committee granted its prize to Obama due to his (as the committee named) extraordinary attempts to strengthen international diplomacy and encouraging nations to collaborate. Receiving peace prize in the first year of the presidency, despite of some cases of criticisms, was vastly backed up worldwide.

The above mentioned examples, testify that signals, based on their role in transferring certain meanings, comprise basic importance in demarcating among the states.

States depended on their own exclusive conditions and identity, recognize receiving signals, and then react to them.

It should be seriously mentioned that nowadays the public opinion’s understanding and reactions to the signals significantly matter.

The states’ behavior or understating may maintain harmony with domestic public opinion or may not. Harmony between the state and public opinion in democratic countries is stronger than the one in non-democratic nations. For instance, the Israeli army’s bombing of civilian targets in Gaza caused public opinion across the globe to show disgust against Tel Aviv. Political pressures against Tel Aviv were intensified. The trend was understood by Israeli civilians in two main forms. The first understanding was their country’s military operations had harmed Israel’s creditability and interests in the international arenas, and, the second was, the state of Benyamin Netanyahu conducted a military operation against enemies to protect his people, but some Gazans were killed or wounded unintentionally. Based on the above explanations, a form of misunderstanding was shaped in other nations’ public opinion because there was no comprehensive conception from Israel’s interest and affairs.

The aforementioned comments can help us grasp better knowledge and understanding about the role of democracy and general elections in the states’ international standing. Simply saying, states try to define intentionally or unintentionally other states’ general elections regarding the nature of the done elections. Free and fair elections will certainly enjoy different influences in comparison with altered and theatre-like elections. One of the important indicators used to assess the efficiency of a general election is nothing but assessment by the losers in the elections.

Frankly saying, more participation can result in more creditability of an election, but the dissatisfaction of the losers can affect oppositely.

Unclearness of an election will harm the legality of an electoral system and the meantime will affect other states’ explanations from such election. Therefore, the main matter we seek from holding general elections can be reinvigorating a state’s international creditability which in turn can only be materialized via a lawful election with enough creditability and meantime, the losers’ satisfaction.

Now, we go on with explaining the influence of elections on states’ international creditability and standing within the framework of four chapters, including democratic peace, international legitimacy, general diplomacy, and clean slate principle.

 

3. Elections and Democratic Peace

Democratic peace or absence of war is a deeply rooted well-known theory in international relations. Based on the theory, democratic establishments enjoy certain mechanisms that prevent waging wars between them.

Immanuel Kant, in his book, “the eternal peace” published in the late 18^th century, developed the theory of democratic peace or liberal internationalism. According to Kant, peace among democracies can be achieved through three principles: 1. The political system should be in a Republic, in which private ownership, the market economy, civilians’ equality of rights, power distinction, and other complementary principles should be observed. 2. The democratic republic manages the relations by restoring a form of “pro-peace union”. If more democratic republics emerge and then join the union, more peace will be achieved. 3. There is “an international law” based on which the states respect each other, and guarantee the rights of residents of all member states of the union for free entry and exit from geographical boundaries and free trade.

Based on the historical data in the 19^th and 20^th centuries, democratic states usually avoided entering destructive wars. The above-mentioned theory found gradually more followers along with the development of a vast theoretical literature.

In the meantime, some theorists tried to expand the scope of the theory of peace among democracies from liberal democracies to other political establishments which were depended on popular will. According to this point of view, two principles of limiting or making political power conditional as well as rule of law will be key bases of democratic peace.

However, there is strong evidence for absence of war among liberal democracies, which does not mean that international democratic order must merely be materialized by liberal democracies. A large number of states have taken a giant stride towards democratization but not in liberal form. The non-liberal democracies have some characteristics that enable them to avoid hostility and war, and meantime pave the way for coexistence.

Zeev Maoz and Bruce Russett, two professors of political science, have specified two structural and normal causes to explain peace among democracies. Structural factors mostly cover decision-making and policy-making systems that will lessen the possibility of waging war against other democracies, but among them what is more related to this paper is the role of norms in preventing wars. The interfering role of norms will be only appearing when the states intend to transmit domestic political norms to out of their national borders. Democracies are inclined to political norms, and they emphasize political competition through peaceful avenues. Such norms are briefed in a simple sentence “live and leave the others to live too”, while in non-democratic establishments, authorities are winners and the remaining pockets of the society are losers. Political power transition in totalitarian establishments cannot be carried out without bloody and destructive clashes, but democratic systems turn the win-lose game into the win-win game. When democratic establishments confront each other to protect their interests, they comply with democratic norms and avoid violence. On the other hand, as the democracies do not trust non-democratic regimes or possibly are convinced by their lack of efficiency in using democratic norms, the norms used by democracies should be varied. Non-democratic states, in confrontation with other democratic or non-democratic states, are more susceptible to wage wars than democratic states which do the same while facing only a non-democratic establishment.

Based on the abovementioned framework, the countries with democratic and electoral systems enjoy more security and fewer foreign threats in comparison with non-democratic countries. Non-democratic nations usually encounter other aggressive behavior of other states but democratic nations receive such threats from non- democrat ones. Democracies may somehow engage in certain forms of political arguments but they rarely wage war against each other.

According to simplicity school analysis, friendships and animosities are not based on the natural characteristics of global power distribution, nor are they the result of domestic political structure in the contemporary world.

Friendships and hostilities are based on social structures. The peaceful behavior that democracies express while interacting with each other are the fruits of certain rules they have learned through the interaction process. If the rival nations have democratic structure, then the internal structure of democracy leads democratic establishments not considering them as a threat. Leaders of democratic states refer to peaceful settlement instruments that are concealed in their structure, and assure each other about their pro-peace intentions.

Hence, if a state accepts democratic norms and free election system for making decision, then it will whether or not transmit this signal to other democratic nations. So if superpowers enjoy a democratic system, they will basically welcome holding elections and democratization within the framework of democratic peace, as following this way of interaction will help them to restore more sustainable security, and meanwhile will enhance international system. In the meantime, the democratized nations will also enjoy more security and global credibility.

 

4. Elections and International Legitimacy

The legitimacy importance is valuable based on two dimensions of a state’s authority: a source of authority and exercising the authority. The legitimacy of the authority source can be assessed by using the method of seizing power, including revolution, military coup, heritage, elections and so on, but the legitimacy of exercising the authority focuses on the methods of applying that authority.

Meanwhile, confirmation and rejection the legitimacy of a state can be evaluated by internal and external sources. The internal source is a fruit of assessment and perception of civilians and inter-governmental parties, while the external source comes from foreign states’ assessment and perception. Superpowers play a more important role in an external source.

national legitimacy will result in strength and stability of a state, and will guarantee civilians; steadfastness to their state, while international legitimacy will end in stabilizing and reinvigorating the state’s status in the international community, paving the way for expanding collaboration with other states. There are different factors by which other states confirm the international legitimacy of the state. The popularity of a state, in the contemporary world, is an important factor for confirming the international legitimacy. In other words, the factors that confirm national legitimacy are now more coordinated with those factors assuring the international one. Determining the role of popular will in defining national and international legitimacy of states reflected in the human rights declaration (1948) is the result of democracy-seeking thoughts and movements associated with it in our modern era.

The United Nations Charter which was compiled and ratified late in the World War II possesses a basic conservative approach to form political establishments. The Charter has approved states’ equal principle, and prohibited the states from interfering in others’ internal affairs, but investigating international law documents in the last six months proves that the popularity of the states in the international law has grown significantly. The establishment method of certain states, including Timor-Leste, Southern Sudan, and Kosovo are reflecting the importance of popularity but in different ways. The international community grants legitimacy to the states that have seized power through democratic mechanisms, including revolutions or elections, than those which have taken power by force, more easily. This specialty became more tangible after the Cold War.

The international law has not introduced exact and detailed standards for granting legitimacy to states, because, paying more attention to details will lead to more tensions. In practice, two components of democratic legitimacy are essential. With regard to the legitimacy of source, the reliance of a state on people’s will is prominent and particularly when their mechanism has been holding a fair and free election. With regard to exercising legitimacy, rule of law and respecting human rights are key choices. Although, desired conditions for granting legitimacy to a state might not be met in a theoretical field, but in a contemporary world’s international law, it is reluctant to admit non-democratic changes in the countries.

Since the end of the Cold War, states have mostly refused to recognize the states which took the power by ousting a democratic administration, for instance, in Haiti, Sierra Leone, Burundi, Niger, Ivory Coast, Guinea-Bissau and Togo, states seized power following a coup, but in Pakistan and Nigeria was different as the military coups in the two latter cases were against non-democratic states or the coup promised holding democratic elections in due date.

Of course, the states’ actions have always been affected by political considerations which in some cases have led to diversion from providing support for democratic changes.

Most of the international community states recognized the states of Abdul Fatah Assisi after he staged a military coup against legal state of Mohammad Morsi in Egypt due to two reasons, firstly, Morsi’s state was weak to restore a stable administration to please opposition political parties and meanwhile, the coup states vowed to transit power by holding a democratic free election.

Stabilizing the international standing of the elected states is not limited to recognizing them when they are established, but these states will found themselves supported by more powerful foreign states while they are in trouble, including engagement in a civil war.

Refusing intervention in domestic affairs of the world nations, is considered as a forgotten principle. In recent decades, new interpretation has been presented for the this principle, explaining the necessity of intervention or avoiding interference in favor of democracy-seeking movements or against non-democratic states.

During the last three decades, some African states, including the Central African Republic, Chad and Ivory Coast demanded France to intervene in their countries’ affairs to face domestic militants, and provide support for the state. Of course, Paris mostly refused to interfere in the African nations, by asserting that the ruling states have been opposed to democratic principles, but in some cases, the French state militarily engaged in some countries under the pretext of protecting human rights and democracy. The same military interference was carried out by the US army in Balkan and Haiti under the same pretext.

Some experts in the international law sphere, including Michael Risman, suggested that in modern international law, a popular ruling has overcome the state ruling, saying that any interference which tried to reinvigorate popular ruling is acceptable, especially the newly-born democracies that might face civil war or a coup. This explanation will definitely keep stabilizing democratic states’ position in the international arena.

 

5. Elections and Public Diplomacy

In the contemporary world, people’s perception and analyzing affairs, either based on true information or alarming information, as one of the characteristics of the international policy, play an important role in directing the states’ decisions. Even non-democratic states have somehow to respect and consider national public opinion. Ignoring public opinion causes traditional diplomacy not to meet the states’ demands. Therefore, a new branch of diplomacy of states known as public diplomacy appeared to affect in directing public opinion in given countries. Media industry, mainly TV and news networks, shoulder a very important role in such diplomacy. Public diplomacy have an open and public figure, and its audience are ordinary people or raw target groups.

Public diplomacy is closely associated with soft power. Soft power, generally, is a form of power through which we make others to behave as our will in a satisfactory manner. By using soft power, we will be capable of affecting choices and preferences of the opposite side, and then changing them as we like so skillfully that the opposite side does not feel any compulsion. According to Joseph Nye’s definition, soft power, higher than persuasion, is an ability to provoke others to do something by reasoning. Such power also includes the ability to attract and captivate.

If we consider general diplomacy as a tool, soft power can be one of its objectives. Meanwhile, soft power paves the way for a continuity and stability of public diplomacy. Weakness and inefficiency of a state will undermine its soft power and in tandem, weakness of the soft power will affect negatively the influence and effectiveness of the public diplomacy.

States can choose the public opinion of one or more intended countries as the audience of their propaganda by using public diplomacy. An innovative state tries to manifest its policies and plans reasonable and attractive to other countries’ public opinion in order to change the intended state’s decisions in accordance with the innovative state. Applying propaganda measures about values, norms, and democratic institutions is one of the current propaganda techniques in today’s world. Since democracy is an important value for public opinion worldwide, so democratic states have a suitable instrument and better opportunity to influence other nations’ public opinion by applying public diplomacy. Therefore, democratic norms and institutions, in addition to their natural value in the country, are also used as a suitable instrument to influence other nations’ public opinion.

Public diplomacy of the United States is one of the most elegant samples of this kind in which usage of democratic values is prevalent for permeating public opinion worldwide. The Americans have tried to introduce their democracy as the most attractive one around the globe. A presidential election is one of the foundations that comprise a key role in US public diplomacy.

The US presidential election, apart from being a mechanism for a peaceful transition of power, is very attractive for observers due to the weak presence of the US armed forces in the streets. The US officials invite international media and news networks to cover the presidential election trend. The international news networks and other media sources cover the election process for their section, and meantime, contact to the world’s pro-democracy figures and activists, and later reflect their views towards the election.

Based on Philip Seab, a public diplomacy researcher, the US propaganda attempts in presidential election is not merely aimed at pretending greatness of the country’s democracy, but their more important aim is introducing new ways to other nations to lead them towards democracy. According to Seab, the US presidential campaign and election are more inspiring for foreigners than the Americans themselves.

We should not forget that there is a bilateral relationship between the sender and receiver of a message in public diplomacy. The sender of the message cannot be indifferent to the values and sensitivity of the receiver of the message. During Gorge W. Bush era we witnessed that circulation of American democracy without trying to achieve deep understating about the audiences’ sensitivity brought about destructive effects on the country’s public diplomacy and the US soft power.

Bush administration was supporting democracy in the Middle East while the Muslims were under the American media’s waves of attacks. An axiom which has been considered as a golden basis in public diplomacy, says “what we must account for is not the sender’s speech but its function.”

Therefore, if the assessment of intended countries’ public opinion from the innovative state’s uprightness and sincerity is satisfactory and positive, propaganda over democratic foundations especially presidential elections can be used as an instrument for public diplomacy.

Nowadays, a large number of countries, even those who oppose the US hegemony, have reached to this conclusion that they must use public diplomacy as an instrument for manifesting a positive, rightful and reliable image of them to other nations’ public opinion. It is evident that attracting public opinion through the abovementioned technique will effectively assist the satisfying country’s national interests abroad.

 

6. Elections and Clean Slate Doctrine

In the science of international law, there is a doctrine named “clean slate” based on which a newly independent country or a new state that has replaced the old one is not committed or obliged to the predecessor states’ private treaties, unless the new state itself announces freely its commitment to that treaty. Of course, this doctrine does not cover objective treaties, including territorial or law-making treaties, but there are some exceptions, including hosting military bases of foreign countries, renting a part of a country to other nations and donating a country’s national resources to foreigners. Such exceptional treaties can be canceled by the successor state.

The clean slate is a principle to protect interests of newly-born weak states based on a specific logic, suggesting that newly-independent states are not committed to treaties which were concluded by the predecessor state. Therefore, world nations must consider the new state differently, and avoid putting it under pressure due to policies of the former state.

The clean slate doctrine is rooted in the “the school of voluntarism in law”, in which the will of a state plays a fundamental role in determining legal relations. As legal relations are the product of the will of the states, the termination of a state and the birth of a new state will create new legal relations. So, the former state’s obligations will not be handed over to the new one, and the new state is free to redefine its obligations and legal relations with other states.

As previously mentioned, there are some exceptions in violating the former state’s obligations, including territorial treaties because granting a hundred percent of authority to the newly formed state may harm the international community. In practice, successor states will usually be committed to the treaties related to the interests and security of the country. Refusal to fulfil former state’s commitments occur when those commitments damage drastically the new state’s interests, as a clear instance, the Caspian Sea newly –independent littoral states refused to follow Soviet Union’s commitments to Iran regarding the Caspian Sea Legal Regime, after the collapse of Soviet Union.

Apart from legal effects, replacing a new state will have important political implications too. The former state had its own foreign policy and regulated its foreign relations within its own framework, but the new state can change its priorities to make new decisions and set up new plans. The former state, form its relations with other nations based to its own policies. It also categorizes some states as friends, some as rivals, and some others as enemies. Following the emergence of the new state, the old perceptions gradually disappear, and pave the way for the establishment of new structures and interactions. The new state has the chance of minimizing hostilities and maximizing friendships. A nation that had been pushed into isolation under international pressures will find a perfect opportunity to change the atmosphere to lift the isolation. Of course, a vice versa scenario is also possible. But since the new state has not still gotten strength, and other countries have not defined their assessment of the new state’s policies, there will remain good opportunities for better choices.

The abovementioned comment seems to be available in regard to changes in the following elections. It is evident that elections happen within the framework of a state, and will not result in the appearance of a new one. In international law, the clean slate doctrine does not apply changes that have been occurred as a result of an election. Change in shape and form of state does not have anything to do with the state authority, and does not affect the state’s international character. In contrast with replacement which needs to be recognized by the international community, the replacement of elites or governmental institutions does not need any form of recognition by other states. Therefore, interstate elections will not end in replacement, but in a handful of cases, including the independency referendum, replacement through election will be accessible.

A basic point should not be forgotten that elections, regardless of their ineffectiveness in replacement of states, can somehow create political effects of a replacement. Elections are mechanisms by which the way will be paved for a possible change of elites as well as dramatic changes in policies. Foreign policy will naturally be affected by the change in the arrangement of the elites.

Broken foreign relations may be reestablished only by a change in elites arrangement. Those politicians that have been involved in annihilation of their state’s international relations may have not a possibility of settling crisis and reconstructing international relations due to their resistance against any form of change or may be due to their counterparts’ distrust towards them. The said possibility will appear by the replacement of elites. In fact, a new arrangement in the decision-making system will somehow create a clean slate situation for a state. So, a state will be capable of reorganizing the situation following an election to set up stronger standing for the country in the international arena.

 

6.1 The 5^th Round of Presidential Election

Iraq-Iran War had been ended shortly before the fifth round of the presidential election. International support to Iran was completely weaker than to Iraq during the eight years of war. Lack of suitable interactions with foreign nations had affected negatively the Iranian state’s capability in the procurement of arms and ammunition. Of course, the situation became better for Iran, during the middle of the war. Robert McFarlane’s affair (the Iran–Contra affair) was rooted in the so-called change of Iran’s situation in the international arena during the wartime. McFarlane’s affair happened in a way that ended in intensifying international pressures on Iran. In the last years of war, Iran’s relations with regional countries, including Saudi Arabia, deteriorated and Ronald Reagan administration applied more hostile measures against Iran. Iran’s refusal to comply with Resolution 598 by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) increased international tension. In the summer of 1998, the US navy missile targeted an Iranian passenger flight over the Persian Gulf which left 131 passengers and crew, including 46 non-Iranians, dead. Later, Iran’s approval to the UNSC resolution 598 slowed down foreign pressures on Tehran, but did not bring about dramatic change in the country’s international relations. As soon as the war ended, Salman Rushdie’s book confronted Iran with Western countries again.

Following the presidential elections in 1989, the Iranian state, within the framework of a targeted policy, chose the détente approach in its foreign relations.

Hashemi Rafsanjani’s administration believed that for reorganization of the country it is necessary to stage economic reforms inside the country and simultaneously normalize international relations.

Iran took détente approach in both regional and trans-regional levels which balanced Iran’s relationship with Arab nations and resumption of critical negotiations between Tehran and Europe.

During the first years of the 1990s when the former Soviet Union’s collapse had brought about tribal disputes and the US and its allies were engaged in an operation against Iraq to liberate Kuwait, Iran appeared as a pro-peace and benevolent state, and used the opportunity to reconstruct its international standing.

Tehran, meantime, expanded its relationship with the main heir of the former Soviet Union, Russia, to use Moscow as a tool to fulfil Tehran’s security concerns.

The then-president of Iran believed that restoration of economy and revival of Iran’s power and international standing would be materialized based on three basic pre-conditions: 1. détente and expansion of diplomatic and peaceful relations with foreign nations, 2. facilitating Iran’s access to the world’s new technologies, and 3. Iran’s active interaction with global economic networks.

To achieve the former situation, Iran had to take the necessary steps to improve its position, and present an authentic image of the country to public opinion and other countries around the world.

Heshemi Rafsanjani believed that the Islamic Republic of Iran must not remain indifferent to the foreigners’ considerations and perceptions while promoting the revolution’s ideals. He believed that Iran must try to express a positive reliable image. Hashemi’s policies were successful, and ultimately enhanced Iran’s international influence and credibility gradually.

 

6.2 The 7^th Round of Presidential Election

In the last years of Hashemi Rafsanjani administration, Iran’s vulnerable relations with the West deteriorated again. Iran’s regional policies, especially towards Israel, caused US President, Bill Clinton’s administration, to impose fresh phase of sanctions against Tehran.

According to D’Amato law which came into force in 1996, the president of the US was obliged to punish those companies that tried to invest more than $40 million yearly in Iran’s energy sector. A year later the amount of investment was decreased by $20 million. The new sanctions were accompanied by severe propaganda measures against Iran, including accusing Iran of providing support for terrorists and trying to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Iran was registered among outlaw nations, and the US has set its policy to deal with these nations.

In the meantime, Mykonos restaurant incident led to a new diplomatic crisis for Iran. So, the country’s international standing sustained more damage again.

Following the 1997 presidential election and appearance of a reformist state in Tehran, détente policy and normalizing relations got priority again in foreign affairs’ agenda. The reformist states chose approximately the same policy that Hashemi’s administration followed during the first years of ruling.

The reformist president who developed the slogan of “dialogue among civilizations”, tried to deal with aggressive and unilateral policies of the Western powers against Iran.

He further tried to demonstrate Iran as a pro-peace country that also believed in peaceful coexistence. Leaders of the reformist state opined that the former administration had not been successful in applying détente approach, and urged to carry on the policy of détente seriously, otherwise the country’s interests would be threatened. The reformist state later laid specific emphasis on the necessity of building confidence between Iran and the West.

The international community welcomed vastly the reformist state’s policies. Iran’s relations with the regional nations became warmer, specialty after hosting the heads of the states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

Iran and Europe managed to solve their disputes. Tehran and London agreed on reproaching after they cut relations over Salman Rushdie in 1988. In the meantime, effective steps were taken along with controlling tensions between Iran and the US. Sanctions against Iran were in place, but the mutual understanding atmosphere was improving in a way that the US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright confirmed that Iran, due to its geopolitical importance, was exposed to the Western powers’ interference in the past. Albright’s comment was actually a form of confession to the United States’ interference in Iran’s domestic affairs during the last decades. Iran’s international standing was reinvigorated again.

Hashemi administration had laid emphasis on investing on the hardware infrastructures of national strength, but the reformist administration paid more attention to soft dimensions of power which finally resulted in enhancement of the country’s international influence.

 

6.3 The 11^th Round of Presidential Election

Iran’s international relations had narrowed down again over the last years of the reformist state, but the policies of the next administration was completely different from the 5^th and the 7^th administrations. The head of the 9^th and 10^th administrations challenged ruling logic in the international policies, especially the Western powers’ policies toward Iran. Iran’s relations with regional countries became unstable and international pressures against Iran became intense. A fresh unprecedented wave of sanctions, which in some cases were supported by Russia and China, pushed the country’s economy into an unpleasant situation. During the last years of the 9^th and 10^th administrations, Iran’s relations with foreign nations were completely tumultuous and tempestuous that finally ended in cutting relations with some countries, including Britain and Canada. Iran’s most controversial issue in those years was the country’s nuclear program. Iran’s collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the UN Security Council decreased to the lowest possible level. Meanwhile, certain policies of the 9^th and 10^th administrations, including casting doubt on the Holocaust and demanding investigation about realities behind 9/11attacks in 2001, deteriorated Iran’s conflicts with the international community, especially with the West. The then-president announced his administration’s intention to conduct constructive interactions with the West in the last years of the 10^th administration but it was not welcomed warmly by the audience. Continuous deterioration of Iran’s foreign interactions turned foreign policy into one of the most controversial discussions in the 11^th round of presidential election’s campaign.

The winner of the 11^th presidential election was the one who more than others had laid emphasis on the necessity of taking confidence-building measures and expansion of collaboration with the international community.

President Hassan Rouhani embarked on applying détente and normalizing foreign relations which was similar to the 5^th and 7^th states’ plans. Rouhani’s administration underscored that reconstruction of the country’s broken economy depends on the powerful return of Iran to the international community.

Foreign policy must serve the country’s progress and welfare which can only be materialized by constructive international interactions. In practice, shortly after the moderate administration took power, Iran’s interactions with the world nations improved considerably. Nuclear negotiations resulted in inking a deal between Iran and the six world powers and afterwards lifting sanctions against Tehran began.

The atmosphere of collaboration and understanding was simply tangible after the first three years of moderate state, although Iran’s regional disputes were in place and the country’s relationship with Sandi Arabia was experiencing a form of deadlocked.

Iran has also expanded its relations with Russia and China. De-escalation with the US administration was one of the important fruits of Rouhani’s administration that paved the way for the first time since 1979 for an Iranian foreign minister and his American counterpart to enter direct negotiations over bilateral concerns and intentions. Barak Obama’s administration that played a crucial role in forming an international alliance to impose comprehensive sanctions against Iran, in the first years of Rouhani’s state became one of the most serious defenders of lifting embargos against Iran, and even Obama himself confronted the US congress to persuade them to follow his new policies toward Tehran.

 

7. Conclusion

Elections pave the way towards reconstructing and strengthening a country’s international standing through two ways: by manifesting democratic norms, including holding free and fair elections, and also through the peaceful transition of power from a party to another one to enable the new party to implement different and constructive policies.

In some conditions, the international influence and standing of a nation may decline due to some reasons, so to cover the defections, we need new plans and ideas. Even in democratic states, it is possible that executive officials resist changes in inefficient policies due to some prestige considerations. Also, other nations may refuse to renovate collaborating with these states based on distrust. If so, the only way out of the stalemate can be a change in policies through peaceful replacement of decision makers. The US presidential election in 2008 is an actual example of such cases when aggressive policies of Gorge W. Bush undermined the US international prestige and hegemony. The 2008 election paved the way for rebuilding US foreign policy.

Similar cases have occurred in the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This paper pointed to three presidential elections in Iran in 1989, 1997, and 2003. In years before the three mentioned presidential elections, Iran’s international relations, especially with the West had been involved in tensions and disputes.

The then-administrations’ measures to normalize the situation were unsuccessful, and only changed in the arrangement of executive officials following the said three elections organized a more suitable situation for the reconstruction of Iran’s international credibility and standing. It should be mentioned that reconstructing a country’s international credibility will result in reinvigorating the mentioned country’s security infrastructures.

Those countries that lack the election system also are deprived of applying the abovementioned mechanisms to correct their defections and mistakes. Of course, China, as a rare example, managed to conduct reforms without elections. The Communist Party of China conducted fundamental reforms in the country’s economic and foreign policy management, in the meantime, it did not lose its authority, but it should be warned that the required intention for reforms of this kind is not always achievable, therefore, it seems that there is no any effective alternative for election.

 

References

Anderson, C. (2005). Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Craven, M. C. R. (1998). The Problem of State Succession and the Identity of States under International Law. European Journal of International Law, 9(1), 142-162.

Cull, N. J. (2010). Public Diplomacy: Seven Lessons for Its Future and Its Past. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6(1), 11-17.

Friedman, B. (2010). The Principles and Practices of Iran's Post-Revolutionary Foreign Policy. YIISA Working Paper Series, Retrieved October 20, 2012, from http://isgap.org/wp-content/.../ISGAP-Working-Papers-Booklet-Friedman.pdf.

Hunter, S. T. (2010). Iran's Foreign Policy in the Post-Soviet Era: Resisting the New International Order. Santa Barbara: Praeger.

Kant, I. (1983). To Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (Trans. by Ted Humphrey). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

Lanteigne, M. (2009). Chinese Foreign Policy: An Introduction. London & NewYork: Rutledge.

Nye, J. S. (2004). Hard Power, Soft Power, and the War on Terrorism. In D. Held, M. Koeng-Archibugi (Eds.), American Power in the 21^st Century. Cambridge and Malden: Polity.

Rakel, E. P. (2007). Iranian Foreign Policy since the Iranian Islamic Revolution: 1979- 2006. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 6(1), 159- 187.

Resiman, W. M. (1995). Humanitarian Intervention and Fledgling Democracies. Fordham International Law Journal, 18(3), 794-805.

---------- (1984). Coercion and Self-Determination: Constructing. American Journal of International Law, 78(3), 642-645.

Seib, P. (2012, January 3). US Presidential Politics as Public Diplomacy. Huffington Post [Interview transcript], Retrieved January 7, 2016, from www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-seib/uspresidential-politics-abroad_b_1178779.html.

Stein, E. (2001). International Integration and Democracy: No Love at First Sight. American Journal of International Law, 95(3