Hardliners consider 'by-passing' Ahmadinejad

Resalat published an article last week that discussed the notion of by-passing Ahmadinejad in the 2009 election. The news site, which is aligned with conservative clergy in Qom, compared the idea of moving past Ahmadinejad with what some reformists attempted to do under Khatami.

Resalat's article is addressing the current debate in hardline politics which is questioning the viability Ahmadinejad as a candidate in 2009. While leading hardline politicians have not offcicially announced their candidacy for 2009, there remains a strong push for new leadership of the conservative coalition.

However, as Resalat shows, there is also a segment that recognizes the strength that a unity candidate brings to hardline interests. Resalat does not attempt to answer the question definitively, but they do try to keep both options on the table. This is standard political protocal, of course, but it also shows that Ahmadinejad remains an unattractive figure for many in the hardliner (or principlist) movement.

OSC has translated the article. Here's the section of interest:

Now, in the special circumstances which have come about after the 2nd Khordad and following the rise of Ahmadinezhad's principle-ist government the question is, do the principle-ists, in a historical similarity, intend to bypass Ahmadinezhad on the threshold of the tenth elections as the reformists say they do? In order to answer this question, a few facts need to be considered:

1. Ahmadinezhad is one of the principle-ists; logically the whole principle-ist ideology cannot be said to equal the person of Ahmadinezhad.

2. Ahmadinezhad's cabinet is made up of principle-ist forces, but it is not a reflection of all the principle-ists, just as the government too does not claim to be. Put simply, Ahmadinezhad and his cabinet are only a part of the full principle-ist capacity.

3. The principle-ists endorse the principle-ist aspirations of Ahmadinezhad and his cabinet and praise them for their unremitting efforts in advancing these ideals.

4. With reference to the stances published in the media, the principle-ists do not see Ahmadinezhad and his cabinet as being without fault and without cause for criticism, and they have challenged them with their constructive criticism.

5. What is important for the principle-ists is the principle-ist doctrine or ideals, not people. So the ultimate aim is the independence of this viewpoint, not the uncontested sovereignty of individuals, and for this reason they will not hold back for anyone when it comes to strengthening the principle-ist ideology which comes from their religious beliefs.

This is why, based on the concepts described above, the principle-ists will never bypass Ahmadinezhad. However, since principle-ism is constantly evolving, moving on beyond Ahmadinezhad, or in other words arriving at choices which will materialise the ideas of principle-ism with the least amount of damage, is not only possible, it is, logically, a necessity. So, on taking up the seat of leadership, a principle-ist, in being a principle-ist, should never resist the republic of the believers in a way that will bring his righteousness and integrity into question. For this reason, bypassing has no logical meaning amongst the principle-ists because remaining in a post is meaningful only if aspirations are realised and nothing else. The test of principle-ism is at this sensitive stage.