Special thanks to our reporter inside Iran who wishes to remain anonymous for the purpose of this post. The circumstances for true democracy has become increasingly dire in the Islamic Republic, and the guest author lays with astute insight, just what this means for the people, the country and the international community. Without further ado...

Every time I hear the Supreme Leader’s sermon I realise just how much the Islamic Republic put the ‘IR’ into irony and last week was no different. Threats, lies and the ‘enemies’ dominated the Friday prayers. Surprised much? Not really.

The Iranian people are taking to the streets everyday in numbers unprecedented since the Islamic Revolution with lives lost in the process, yet all the Supreme Leader could do was point his finger around while ignoring the needs and grievances of the overwhelming majority. In Iran, you need not look too far to hear the rage of the people. In the evenings at around 10pm you can hear people chanting “Down with the dictator,” and “God is great,” from their own homes. This is considered to be a ‘safer’ way of demonstrating your discontent with the election outcome.

To begin with, the votes were rigged. No doubt about it. In some parts of the country the voter turnout was above 100 per cent. Now I am not saying that this is impossible, what I am saying is that it is only possible through cheating! The paramilitary wing of the IR used expired identification cards to add votes to the ballot box; this is, however, just one way in which the votes were fixed.

So the elections are unfair, the system is corrupted, the figurehead is not impartial and therefore democracy in Iran is a sham, but what does all this mean about the Iranian system of governance and the future of the Iranian people?

To put it simply, the Iranian people feel that their voices mean nothing, which is a sound analysis given the current system. The immediate cause that triggered the protests was the ‘rigging’ of votes however the underlying causes are structural. Ultimate power lies with the Ayatollah (The Supreme Leader) who congratulated Ahmadinejad’s election victory before the results were even announced. Monkey business (and I’m not just talking about Ahmadinejad’s caricature). The hardliners in the country are not representative of the Iranian nation therefore nor is Ahmadinejad. Essentially, just like the British National Party should not and cannot be representative of the wider British public nor should the Islamist, hardliners in Iran.

Ultimately, the overwhelming majority of Iranians want freedom, liberty and opportunity. For the moment their closest alternative is Mousavi but can he deliver given the current set up of the Iranian system? In short, no and the outcome of the elections spell that out. Mousavi and the reformists in Iran need to decide whether they will side with the people or with the system and since the latter has let them down; it is likely that they will side with the former. This is, however, the BIG question and maybe the determinant factor of how successful the freedom fighters in Iran will be.

Another factor to consider here is the role of the free world. What role will other democracies play in order to support the Iranian cause? Speaking to some Iranians in this country and seeing the situation closely really supports the neoconservative argument. The free world must separate the Iranian people from their government and resist any negotiation with the regime.

To hit the nail on the head, any real progress in the Iranian system can only be achieved once politicians are elected to serve the people in a secular democracy. When the government has its own agenda, naturally, the people are ignored. The Islamic Republic has its own religious agenda and therefore can never be representative of the people.