Why did some Iranians say "Death to Potatoes"?
Understanding a 2009 Iranian parody of the chant: "Death to America"
AI Query:
The phrase “Death to Potatoes” (marg bar sibzamini in Farsi) was a satirical protest slogan used during the 2009 Iranian presidential election. It was a parody of the traditional revolutionary chant “Death to America,” repurposed by supporters of reformist candidates to criticize incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for attempting to buy votes by distributing free potatoes to the poor.
Origin of the Slogan
The slogan emerged as a direct response to the Iranian government’s decision to distribute massive quantities of free potatoes to citizens in the months leading up to the June 2009 election.
Parody of Revolutionary Rhetoric: The phrase mimicked the iconic “Death to America” chant, a staple of hardline rallies since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. By substituting “America” with “potatoes,” protesters highlighted the absurdity of the government’s populist tactics.
First Appearances: The chant was first reported at rallies for Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former prime minister and the leading reformist challenger, particularly in cities like Yasouj and Isfahan. Supporters also carried placards reading “Death to Potatoes!” to mock the administration.
Origin of “Death to Potatoes” slogan Iran 2009
Political Context: The 2009 Election
The slogan was a central element of the campaign against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was seeking re-election amidst significant economic dissatisfaction.
Accusations of Vote Buying: Reformist rivals, including Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, accused Ahmadinejad of using state resources to bribe voters. The distribution of 400,000 tons of free potatoes, along with other subsidies like cheap oranges and tomatoes, was characterized as a blatant attempt to secure support from rural and low-income demographics.
Diversion Tactics: Critics argued that the potato giveaways were designed to distract the public from deeper economic issues, such as high inflation, rising unemployment, and the mismanagement of oil wealth. While the government focused on populist handouts, opponents demanded solutions to the “hobbled economy.”
Government Defense: Officials claimed the distribution was necessary to prevent waste from a bumper crop surplus caused by export tariffs. They denied allegations of electoral bribery, stating the choice was between distributing the food or letting it rot.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 2009 election controversy
Economic Implications
The potato controversy underscored the severe economic pressures facing Iran at the time and the government’s reliance on resource distribution to maintain popularity.
Subsidy Strategy: Ahmadinejad’s administration expanded a yearlong program of handing out cash checks (up to 1 million rials) and food staples. This approach leveraged Iran’s status as a “rentier state,” using oil revenue to provide direct aid rather than implementing structural economic reforms.
Cost of Living: Despite the giveaways, the cost of basic food and vegetables had increased significantly during Ahmadinejad’s first term. The irony of receiving free potatoes while struggling with overall food inflation fueled public resentment.
Critique of Value: Advisors to rival candidates pointed out the limited value of the gesture. Abbas Abdi, an adviser to candidate Mehdi Karroubi, notably quipped, “Why not onions? Onions are far more expensive than potatoes. If they really wanted to help, they would give away free onions.”
Iran economy 2009 potato subsidy debate site:reddit.com
Public Reaction and Legacy
The “Death to Potatoes” movement illustrated a shift in Iranian political discourse, where economic grievances temporarily overshadowed foreign policy issues.
Shift in Priorities: For the first time in years, domestic economic competence trumped weightier matters like Iran’s nuclear program or relations with the US as primary campaign issues. The slogan signaled that the electorate was more concerned with their dinner tables than geopolitical posturing.
“We Don’t Want Potato Government”: The sentiment spread beyond a single chant. Supporters of Karroubi in Isfahan expanded the rhetoric to “We don’t want potato government,” rejecting the notion of an administration sustained by temporary handouts rather than sound policy.
Symbol of Populism: The phrase remains a historical symbol of populist demagogy in Iran. It highlighted the tension between the regime’s attempt to “buy allegiance” through oil-funded subsidies and the public’s desire for sustainable economic governance and political reform.
Questions:
Did you notice a theme that is common in politics of political distraction — in this case “temporary handouts rather than sound policy.”
How impoverished must Iranians be to be “bribed” by potatoes? How much of this was due to sanctions?
Are you surprised with the sophistication of Iranian political parody rhetoric?
ELSEWHERE:
The Guardian, Spuds of wrath: potatoes-for-votes protest blights Iranian election, 14 May 2009