Power cannot be shared

Can a balance ever be found (see Roger Cohen‘s My Name Is Iran)?
Either the will of God is paramount, and elections do not matter, or they do, and the clerics must return to their seminaries and holy books.
In essence, is such a system, a theocracy where people vote, even viable?
Can there be two distinct sources of legitimacy in any polity?
The regime always lacked coherence. If the clerics who rule the nation are divinely inspired, then their legitimacy is derived from their status as God’s representatives on Earth. To question it is to commit both blasphemy and treason.
To inject electoral politics in a theocracy is to create, inevitably, another center of legitimate power, based on popular consent.
The regime believed that there would never be any antagonisms between the two centers, since the clerics would dominate both.
If and when conflicts did arise, the theocrats had the final say: the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council would see to that., as former President Mohammad Khatami’s two mandates aptly demonstrate.
No attempts to loosen the clergy’s tight grip on power were ever tolerated.
Elections were superfluous, except in the sense that they gave a veneer of legitimacy to an authoritarian system, and also provided a valuable safety valve:
Candidates (albeit vetted by the Guardian Council to ensure that only the orthodox could participate) campaigned, and the people did have a choice, however limited.
It did not matter who won, because power resided, not in the Iranian White House, but in the unelected Supreme Leader’s palace…
What happened this time?
Why did they not allow another Khatami, this time called Mousavi, to preside over a nation that they dominate?
That is the real question, and I suggest the following answer:
They lost control of the pseudo-democratic process. Once the people are allowed to participate, no matter how limited their choices may be; once they are able, and even encouraged, to participate in an election campaign; allowed to express themselves; attend rallies, then the entire process become theirs. Green Waves develop, and no one knows exactly where they will break. A chilling prospect indeed for the autocrats who have no intention of relinquishing what they consider is theirs by divine right.
The election was not about the diffident and unassuming Mousavi.
He is no longer just a 67-year-old former prime minister, the consummate insider who was close to the founder of the regime, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei, and who came out of retirement to challenge the incumbent, embarrassed by his confrontational style and philistinism.
The magic of electoral politics has transformed him into a symbol of change.
He is the repository of the hopes and dreams of a generation that longs to connect with the outside world, and that was not even born when the Shah was overthrown, and has known no other regime but the theocrats’.
The last few days of massive demonstrations have clearly demonstrated that they are not ready to give up their vision of a modern, democratic Iran.
Can the Islamic Republic of Iran survive in its present format?
It is unlikely, for power cannot be shared. Either the Mullahs will muster the will and ruthlessness to conserve it whatever the cost, or the Iranians will take what is rightfully theirs.
Who will prevail?
Those who hold the guns always have an edge…