Khosrow Behdin: When we take a general look at the Zoroastrian community in Tehran, we notice that this respected religious minority is home to many skilled and distinguished individuals across various fields, each of whom has repeatedly made significant contributions to the pride of this intellectual community. One of the most striking differences between the Zoroastrian minority and other communities in the country is the number of achievers it has relative to its small population.
Throughout different terms of the Zoroastrian Association of Tehran, we’ve seen that the presence of some of these talented managers has contributed to relatively successful outcomes during those periods. However, most of these capable individuals have never shown an interest in joining the Board of Directors of the Zoroastrian Association of Tehran.
In reality, one of the biggest challenges for the Zoroastrian Association of Tehran—being the central organization for Zoroastrians in Tehran and even in Iran—has been the entry of certain members into its Board of Directors who have never been able to live up to the institution’s esteemed reputation. These less-qualified individuals, due to the reluctance of skilled managers to participate in elections, have occasionally managed to find their way into the Board of Directors. On several occasions, their presence has harmed the reputation of the Zoroastrian Association of Tehran among the general Zoroastrian public. Their inefficiency has also undermined the positive efforts and achievements of the Association in a harsh manner.
Even with the most optimistic perspective, it is undeniable that the members of the Zoroastrian Association of Tehran, particularly after the revolution, have lost their popularity among the Zoroastrian community. One of the earliest factors contributing to this loss of popularity was the controversy surrounding the large legal fees related to the ownership of Qasr-e Firouzeh lands in the early years after the Iran-Iraq War.
This issue led to a significant rift among the members of the Zoroastrian Association of Tehran at the time, and it became particularly evident during the fourth parliamentary election for Zoroastrians, where both main contenders had prior leadership experience within the association. It is clear that the lack of popularity is not due to the performance of the current members, but rather stems from a deeper issue that started at least from the 35th term of the association. With each term, this dissatisfaction grew, creating a domino effect, and it continued into the 45th term of the Zoroastrian Association of Tehran.
The unpopularity of the 46th term, regardless of its composition or performance, is already predictable. It remains uncertain when or through what actions this discontent will be resolved among the general Zoroastrian public in Tehran. This unpopularity has led many capable managers within the community to lose interest in registering for the association’s elections.
This was especially noticeable in the current (45th) election cycle, where the insufficient number of candidates caused delays in the election process. The situation has worsened to the point where some members who initially joined the Board of Directors with great enthusiasm no longer wish to remain involved after a short period.
The 40th term election of the Zoroastrian Association of Tehran is a clear example of this trend. In that election, only a few individuals with previous experience in the association registered, and in the absence of competition, a term began with members who, despite their impressive track record in social work, had no prior membership in the association.
In any case, the 40th term of the Zoroastrian Association of Tehran was unique, and in the absence of many competitors, it could be considered the term of the newcomers. The term was led by Engineer Elahyar Daneshmand, who is recognized as one of the distinguished leaders in the Zoroastrian community.
One possible scenario for the 46th term of the Zoroastrian Association of Tehran is the repetition of the structure seen in the 40th term.
However, during the last meeting of the 42nd term, the chairman was able, in a strategic manner, to secure more than half of the votes, using Article 11, Clause 1 of the association’s bylaws to nominate himself for the 43rd term for the fourth consecutive time.
At that meeting, the then-chairman of the Tehran Mobeds Association and the chairman of the Zoroastrian Association of Yazd and surrounding areas, who is now the spokesperson for the current term, spoke in opposition.
Considering that several current members of the Zoroastrian Association of Tehran, having served three consecutive terms, are ineligible to run for the 46th term, there is a strong possibility that the events of the 42nd assembly will be repeated in the 45th assembly.
As the crucial election for the 46th term of the Zoroastrian Association of Tehran approaches, it remains to be seen which era of the association’s history the Zoroastrians of Tehran will choose to repeat this time.
