Question: What does it mean to be of the people? Does it hint at political superficiality? Does it mean to be poor or illiterate? To be "of the people" won many votes in the 9th Presidential Elections. I fail, however, to define this clause for myself. I feel that there is something wrong here. On the one hand, we have SHAHRVAN Chain of Stores cropping up everywhere around the city, with ads that baptize it a sign of national prosperity and comfort, and, on the other hand, we have a motto that is antithetical to a lavish and comfort-seeking lifestyle.

A candidate who comes with socialistic promises of comfort is akin to a street musician who sets up shop in poor neighborhoods to gather the money from those who don't have it. And it is bad news if a government focuses on prosperity only in financial terms. We have managed to make a consumer of every citizen of this country in recent years and we have publicized the mindset that supports this consumption, as if citizens are but digestive organs. And, of course, the State demands of its subjects to thread the moral path, to become virtuous and otherworldly. Are we to endure the difficulty of becoming morally upright only to be rewarded with material comfort?

Now, if we choose to see things positively, we need to acknowledge the need to pay attention to people's economic hardships, to the problem of poverty, to the elimination of corruption and favoritism that oil money has blessed us with, and this is something that president-elect {Mahmud Ahmadinejad} did in his campaign. But then, the question is: Did all those "legitimate" administrations of the past usurp people's money and step on their rights?

The election of Ahmadinejad, whether by direct vote from the people or, as rumors have it, a ploy by a circle of extremists, is much like a legitimatised coup in which a man so different in his beliefs from progressive, moderate, and even conservative ideologies within the State has managed to turn the table on everyone.

It is through using anti-capitalist slogans and garnering the votes of the dispossessed who have suffered the blight of "progress" in the past 16 years that the president-elect has succeeded in his campaign. Several questions, however, impose themselves on us:

1/ Will the financial apparatus stop on its track while the soon-to-take-office administration deals with poverty? How then can we both promise prosperity and helping the poor?

2/ Is it possible to "move ahead," to develop the country, to be in step with global trends, and, at the same time, feed the poor? Isn't this akin to miracles performed by prophets?

3/ Will money-mongering companies like Sony, BMW, and Coca Cola leave this country at once?

4/ Can such slogans carry any weight in a progressive society?