Generally speaking, the boycotting of elections by opposition groups tends to backfire on those groups (e.g., the Sunnis in Iraq), however that tends to only be the case in circumstances in which the elections in question are free and fair (at least in large measure). If there is an actual chance that the participation of a given segment of society in an election will result in at least some post-election influence (even if small), then the boycott tends to be a bad idea.
‘
However, in the context of pseudodemocratic and authoritarian regime, and when voter turnout is used for other purposes by the regime, then a boycott could have a positive effect for anti-regime forces. The question always becomes, however, will the boycott be dramatic enough in size to make the point needed?
Such is the case in Iran at the moment: Iran’s Giant Question Mark: To Vote or Not? (via the NYT).
Given the failure of the reformist Khatami after his 1997 victory, and the clear fact that the Mullahs appear interested in democratic activities solely for the purpose of legitimzing their own authoritarianism, then a boycott in this situation makes sense:
Ever since the Islamic revolution in 1979, the mullahs have used high turnouts at everything from Friday Prayer to elections to signal the public’s support for clerical rule. Attendance at Prayer grows ever more sparse, but turnout in elections for president has remained high.
Given that power ultimately redounds to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it is clear that these are not real elections anyway.:
The loudest, most influential voice calling for an election boycott has been that of Akbar Ganji, a crusading writer imprisoned for, among other things, exposing the killing of dissidents by government death squads in the 1990′s.In a 20-page manifesto written from jail, Mr. Ganji states in strikingly blunt terms that basic civil rights are nonexistent in Iran because they would obstruct the absolute power of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme religious leader. Mr. Ganji urges Iranians to avoid voting on June 17 to signal their rejection of a system that grants to just one man sweeping powers over the military, judiciary, key appointed bodies and the state-controlled media.
“The path that the reformers have picked for reform will not lead to democracy,” reads the manifesto, which electrified student activists because it suggested a strategy for moving the reform movement ahead. “The transition requires taking legitimacy away from the ruler and not cooperating with him. The despotic system will be weakened and undermined if there is no continuous cooperation with it.”
The problem with this situation for the opposition is that there does not appear to be one view as to how to address the issue. While many appear to be disillusioned with trying to work from within the system, others are still willing to do so.
At any rate, the turnout numbers will be most interesting, and revealing.
