The Electoral Fallacies of Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf

The Electoral Fallacies of Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf

The Fallacy of the 4-Percent Enemy

Mr. Ghalibaf, both in his first special television program and in the televised debate, repeatedly referred to a 4-percent segment of the population that possesses immense power, wealth, media influence, and clout, and is the root of all the country's problems. The first question we can ask ourselves in this regard is what the absolute number of this 4-percent population is. With a simple calculation, we realize that 4 percent of the country's total population of 80 million is 3,200,000 people. Now, if each of these agents of corruption and ruin is a member of a household, considering the 18 million households residing in urban areas, one out of every six urban households is directly the root cause of the nation's issues! The second question that can be raised here is: what is Mr. Ghalibaf's plan to confront this hypothetical enemy? Assuming this analysis is correct, confronting this massive population requires a plan, which Mr. Ghalibaf does not provide. The third question can be framed as follows: what necessity was there to raise this issue in the short time of a television program or debate? The answer, psychologically, is simple: the general audience seeks a culprit for all their problems, and by pointing to this vague and small enemy (note the 4 percent figure), Mr. Ghalibaf both exonerates the audience and, by pretending to claim the 96 percent majority as his own, tries to present himself as powerful.

The Fallacy of Recruiting from the Third Person

One of Ghalibaf's electoral techniques is to try to present his claims in the third person, saying

Mr. Ghalibaf argues that our country's resources and capacity are five times its population, implicitly suggesting that there is a treasury overflowing with national wealth and that it suffices to place me, who am trustworthy and just, in charge of that treasury so that I may distribute to each of you your share of subsidies and workfare equally. We might ask ourselves why Mr. Ghalibaf did not mention the mechanism for actualizing those capacities, or why, alongside those immense capacities and resources, he did not mention the even greater threats and dangers such as the water scarcity crisis, the risk of drought, and environmental threats, confronting which consumes a major portion of that very capacity and will deplete the treasury's holdings.

The Fish Fallacy

Instead of trying to empower society and, as the saying goes, teach them to fish, Mr. Ghalibaf intends to distribute the fish of subsidies and workfare among them, oblivious to the fact that, firstly, both of these, like the 45,000-toman subsidy of the compassionate government, will seem negligible after a short while, and secondly, he does not explain what his plan is for securing the financial resources for the subsidy and workfare, nor, more importantly, for preventing their inflationary effects.

The Wishful Thinking Fallacy

Instead of presenting a concrete plan in his first televised program, Mr. Ghalibaf resorted to phrases such as "we will make taxation fair," "we will prevent tax evasion," "let us utilize capacities," "let us work well and do good work," "we will reform the banking systems," "we must reform customs policies," "let us employ young forces," thereby outlining his political wishes and ideals without providing a clear roadmap for operationalizing them.

.

---

.

The Electoral Fallacies of Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf

Author: Majid Heidari Charoudeh

.

---

.