Action through inaction?

It is almost impressive how the Iranian government always finds a way to poison that which should be good. The struggle for the vote has been central to almost all revolutionary movements, from the Suffragettes that brought a voice to women, to the Apartheid struggle that ended 19 years ago. Now Iran has managed, quite remarkably, to turn its own population against voting in the upcoming elections as a way of protesting the regime.

It's hard for me to imagine how anyone could be motivated not to go out and vote, but the opposition movement in Iran has decided that this is the necessary move. The regime needs a higher voter turnout in order for the elections to seem legitimate, it is therefore understandable that the opposition prefers to stay away. However voting carries heavy weight within Iran. while the vote may remain anonymous (at least we are lead to believe), whether one voted is certainly not, those who vote get a stamp in their passport which often proves to be crucial in trying to find work, something which is hard come by these days in Iran as a result of the sanctions. So on the one hand not voting is not legitimising the elections, but on the other hand not voting is not having your voice heard. It's six of the one and half a dozen of the other and it doesn't matter how you count them, all the eggs are rotten.

Take the university exams as an example. They were initially scheduled to coincide with the elections. One would think this is an almost genius idea one the part of the incumbent government as students would be far too preoccupied with studying and sitting their exams to go out and vote. Students are traditionally exceptionally politically active and in Iran (for the most part) they are pro the opposition. However the government moved exams a month earlier so that the population of students would indeed be able to make it to the polls. Initially this was puzzling. Why would the government encourage an entire group of voters that are going to vote against the regime to vote at all? It serves as proof that the regime is desperately seeking legitimisation through these elections

The legitimacy however appears to be only for their outside appearance. As much as Iran claims to be running a free democratic election, why then do candidates still need the approval of the Ayatollah to run?On that line, does the president really ever get a say or will he always just be a puppet of the Supreme Leader? If this is the case is it even worth electing a reformist leader- because the supreme leader will then receive legitimacy for the entire process while still pulling the strings behind the scenes.

In a place that so desperately needs a government that will bring reform and grant the human rights and respect that are missing one would hope for action through election. Yet such action could only be achieved through free and fair elections, which will not be the case in Iran in June. Could the election stay-away thus be seen as the right move? Or should the pro opposition still go out and attempt to have their voices heard?