It's refreshing to think how banal Jamaican elections have become when compared to some other countries. After all, we used to bemoan that we were the bad boy of democratic politics. Today, we hardly draw notice abroad.
Not so for Iran, whose recent election drew an unusual amount of international attention. Even before the weekend poll, the upsurge of opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was attracting interest from across the globe. Iran is a curious hybrid of a political system: an authoritarian regime with tightly controlled, but sometimes lively elections; a theocracy in which the Internet thrives; a repressive regime with periodic outbursts of protest.
The weekend election just seemed to continue the strange character of Iranian politics. After a vigorous opposition campaign that looked like it would unseat President Ahmadinejad, the official results announced a landslide for the incumbent. The opposition cried foul, filled the streets, and have been there since, demanding a new poll.
It is hard to say just what has happened. On the face of it, the stench of fraud is rich. Iran's electoral office broke with customary practice and announced the result in a matter of hours, rather than waiting the few days it normally takes to count all ballots. The repetitive pattern of Ahmadinejad's margin of victory - he led by large margins even in areas he would not normally be expected to have done well - raised suspicions that the vote results had been centrally dictated. Meanwhile, the leading opposition candidate insists that officials told him, soon after the election, that he had won, asking him to postpone an announcement. Events then overtook him.
However, some independent commentators are suggesting that the scale of Ahmadinejad's victory may not be impossible. They contend that the opposition read too much into its popularity in Tehran and underestimated the degree of the president's support in the provinces. Some analyses also suggest that opinion polls done before the election augured for an Ahmadinejad victory.
Ultimate reins
In any event, the regime quickly threw its weight behind the result. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the appointed cleric who holds the ultimate reins of power in Iran, quickly gave his approval to the result. But then, faced with public anger, he quickly back-pedalled and announced that some votes would be recounted.
Whether this is just a time-buying tactic, few expect the regime will allow its will to be overturned. Nonetheless, the volte face by the Supreme Leader may herald a split in the ranks of Iran's ruling elite. The tension is therefore high. The enforcers of the Iranian Revolution, the largely voluntary Islamic militia called the basij, are standing by awaiting orders from the Supreme Leader. The opposition protests may well end in bloodshed.
But if the stand-off is not resolved soon, it may confirm a divide in the regime (something about which we can only speculate, given the regime's opacity). In the meantime, United States President Barack Obama's plan to open negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programme have just been complicated. Unable to openly condemn a president with which he may yet have to hold talks, he has been left to express ambiguous discomfort.
The biggest winner of this stand-off may be Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Under pressure from the White House to open negotiations with the Palestinians, he has felt a welcome reprieve due to the rising anxiety over Iran. It underpins his claim that the biggest threat to regional stability is not war with his neighbours, but the threat from Tehran.
It is a fascinating time, but I'm happy not to be spending it in Tehran.
John Rapley is president of the Caribbean Research Institute (CaPRI), an independent research think tank affiliated to the University of the West Indies, Mona. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.