No doubt, MKO is the most hated group among other opposition currents struggling against the current Iranian regime. Still it desperately insists to change the nation’s perspective on the country’s ruling system and the 
qualified personalities to lead. The delivered messages of the group’s leaders addressed to Iranian people just at the threshold of coming presidential elections indirectly suggest that MKO believes its guidelines are the sole solution to tackle with the looming crises in Iran. While MKO is calling for the boycott of elections, it considers itself to be the distinct alternative to the ruling regime. However, MKO has also failed so far to win the Western countries’ trust, and the US in particular, to be recognized as a legitimate alternative despite of many attempts to curry favor with them.
What is of considerable importance to be discussed is the unspoken consensus of Western countries on the least probability of recognizing MKO as an alternative for Iranian government as they have come to know the futility of instrumental use of the organization against Iran. It remains a question that the European countries, despite their fundamental fraction with Iran on issues like nuclear issues and the propagation of Islam in the world, still avoid close approach to MKO. They just try to impose Mojahedin on others like Iraqi government and then benefit from the organization whenever necessary. Anyway, the reason why no country consents to legitimize MKO is to be elaborated on. The reason may be the notorious history of organization that is full of hostile reactions against their host countries and also misusing the facilities provided by these countries for them against national interests of governments and nations. It has the notorious reputation for being a violator of law and principles of democracy.
Highly influenced by Marxism, MKO has been long accused of ideological inclination toward a totalitarian government and supremacy of the minority, that is to say, the ruling of minority over majority. In fact, MKO neither recognizes legitimacy for democracy nor an election for choosing the type of government. More importantly, in contrast to the group’s propagation on the separation of the state and religion, it fundamentally believes in an ideological system rooted in the religion and considers religion and government as two inseparable issues in opposition to the belief of capitalism and modern societies. As seen in its present model of leading the organization, the leaders believe in the ruling of a particular group rather than being chosen through a free election according to the principles of democracy and reject any ruling based on the vote of majority of people; the leading cadre, a husband-wife circle, takes its very legitimate authority from the dominant organizational ideology.
The only difference between the ideology of MKO and Marxism is the substitution of common terminology of Marxism with popular democratic ones. In contrast to its propaganda broadcasts, MKO has no respect for any election, social and individual freedom, rationale, reason, consensus, civil law, and other principles of democracy. A brief look at the history of Marxism in recent decades may give us a better understanding of the belief system of MKO in which modern concepts like separation of government and religion, election and democracy, respecting social and individual rights, freedom and other democratic concepts are considered superstition and nothing more. Regardless of the catchy words in the delivered messages of MKO, the Iranian people know something for certain; to follow MKO’s model of government is equal to falling out of the frying pan into the fire.
