SPEAKING FREELY Iran confronts core contradictions
By Ardeshir Ommani
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please
click hereif you are interested in contributing.
How the political leadership of Iran deals with the deepest political crisis
following the 10th presidential election could be an important test for the
Islamic Republic in its three-decade history. At the center of the crisis,
apparently, lies the allegation of fraud by one of the presidential candidates,
Mir Hossein Mousavi, with 11.71 million votes or 34.07% of the total ballots
cast against the
incumbent winner President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who, according to Iran’s
electoral commission, received 21.78 million votes or 63.36% of the votes cast
by a total 34.38 million, or 84% of the country’s eligible voters.
In the six months after the election, Mousavi has not provided the Guardian
Council, in charge of validating the election results, with any evidence of
fraud or even significant irregularities. On the contrary, Mousavi periodically
put his stamp of approval on the ongoing riots, which were gaining dangerous
momentum, wasting lives and destroying properties in its path. His newly
elevated popularity among the upper strata of the middle class with diverse
political visions - pro-Western monarchists, members of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq
terrorist organization, Freedom Movement of Iran, an old pro-Western
organization, and a majority of the unorganized masses with socio-economic and
cultural demands – made him overzealous.
With a cue from its leadership on the sidelines, the actual organizers were
using every occasion - religious, or days with politico-historical significance
- to bring about divisions within the working class majority, the government,
the religious hierarchy, academics, the university students, the service sector
workers, the national security forces: the Basij (unarmed militia), the
policemen, and the military forces, and the operatives in the national radio
and television stations.
But more than any other audience, the leaders and the activists in the
demonstrations, carrying signs and banners professionally made, with
English-language slogans asking "Where is my vote?" and "Ahmadinejad is a
Dictator" were trying to attract the attention of foreign media, the ideologues
and the statesmen and women in Western countries, particularly in London, Paris
and Washington, rather than the consideration of common Iranian citizens.
With eyes on Obama
To fan the flames of unrest in Iran, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain,
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and President Barack Hussein Obama of the
United States, on several occasions declared their support for the riotous
activities of the opposition in Iran and expressed their intentions of taking
advantage of the Iranian government’s politically weakened position to pressure
Iran to cease supporting the Palestinian liberation struggle, to abandon its
nuclear enrichment program aimed at the production of electricity, and to
impose more stringent trade and economic sanctions on the country.
One of the key speakers for the Iranian opposition in Europe, Mohsen
Makhmalbaf, and others in the US, pleaded with European heads of states and the
US State Department to break their diplomatic negotiations aimed at dealing
with the differences between Iran and the US, Britain and France.
As the protests in Iran intensified, and as a majority of the people,
pro-Ahmadinejad and even those in the Mousavi camp, realized that the true
objective of the opposition went far beyond the presidential election results,
and as the core of the protestors turned ever-more violent, the liberal leaders
of the mobs, Mousavi himself and Mehdi Karoubi, removed themselves from the
daily activities of the protesters.
The greatest damage that Mousavi and Karoubi inflicted was not on the so-called
Principalist, an ideological trend that Ahmadinejad represents, but ironically
on the ideals of the reform movement, which was years in the making. Such a
bourgeois-liberal movement, if it had the chance to mature, and follow the path
of reform as they preached, would have been able to strengthen the republican
side of the state and soften its side of theocracy.
The negative feature of the reform movement, should it ever succeed, would be
its strong belief in the tenets of neo-liberal economic theories and believing
in free market concepts and US rhetoric about democracy at its face value.
Time to retreat
Belatedly realizing the strong opposition of a great majority of the Iranian
people to the damages inflicted on Iran’s international and domestic
credibility, Mousavi and his sympathizers have come up with the idea of
"national unity" to avoid facing prosecution for their role in the
destabilization, that was demanded by some key clerical, political and military
figures of the Islamic system.
Given that the security forces have arrested and charged hundreds of
individuals from stratas below the leadership with violations of civil and
criminal codes, it remains to be seen if any meaningful charges will be leveled
against Mousavi, Karoubi and their backer, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, who were the
ideologues and the strategists of the civil unrest that resulted in deaths and
injury of tens of people.
It is not clear whether Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and
Ahmadinejad, after a long period of solemnity and deliberation, have reached a
point where they will bring Mousavi and Karoubi to justice, or whether they
will exercise leniency with regard to opposition leaders and put the blame on
groups that the clerical leadership of the Islamic Republic consider its
ideological nemesis.
For example, on January 10, a lawmaker from parliament’s National Security and
Foreign Policy Commission, Kazem Jalali, told Fars News Agency, "Those who were
on the streets on Ashoura to foment unrest and riots were typical enemies of
the country, including ... Marxists and those who historically feel hostile
towards the revolution and the ruling system." But it would be hard for Jalali
to prove that under the rules of the Islamic Republic in the past three
decades, tens of thousands of Marxists have been nurtured and survived the
periodic state investigations.
It is not hard to see that the Iranian lawmaker is deflecting the guilt from
members of the ruling authorities and directing the charges at the easy targets
of "Marxists and socialists". After all, the leaders of the revolt were the old
"family members" of the leadership and seemingly remain above the law.
Forces shaping the events
The current unrest was the result of three forces joining hands: the most
visible of which was the role of the foreign powers and the financial and
logistical support they provided to the pro-Western and well-to-do strata in
Iran who received their ideological, political and practical directions from
foreign, particularly US and British intelligence, operatives -Iranian
counter-revolutionaries acting as the long arm of the US-UK organizations that
channel funds into the accounts of anti-government forces.
One of the critical components of the foreign factor is the $400 million that
the US has provided for broadcasting anti-government and anti-Islamic
propaganda through dozens of TV and radio stations beamed into Iran. Although
imperialists and their partners need no excuses to intervene in the domestic
affairs of Iran or any other country, weaknesses in the outcome of the 1979
revolution and the character of the state that emerged from it have been
exploited by the foreign and domestic forces that were the direct targets of
the revolution.
The 1979 revolution had two general objectives: independence from foreign
control and establishing a democratic society. The revolution accomplished the
first aspiration and freed Iran from foreign domination over the economy, the
direction of foreign policy and the political organs of the state by removing
the shah, who was a major link with Washington and London. With regard to
establishing democracy, the abolishment of the rule of monarchy was the
greatest achievement of the revolution.
But the biggest weakness was the establishment of a type of republic that is
overshadowed by the preponderance of theocracy. Although the president of the
country, the representatives of the parliament (Majlis) and the administrations
in cities and towns are elected directly by the people, the most vital
institutions of the country and their policies, including the supreme command
of defense forces, the intelligence apparatus, the foreign policy direction
-and even the character of the economy - are the sole domain of the theocracy,
formally headed by Khamenei.
As a result, the republican component of the state is undermined by the
theocratic circles of power that dominate the organs of the state and the
economy. This contradiction is a sore spot in the system, which periodically
erupts, giving rise to factions within the state apparatus and causing schisms
in society.
As far as political power is concerned, the resolution of schisms in favor of
the republican side of the state, and at the expense of the theocracy, is
necessary for avoiding another upheaval in the near future that may threaten
the revolution itself and the country’s independence.
The third factor is an ever-increasing gap between the rich, those in the key
positions of foreign and domestic trade, in the top layers of the government
and theocratic circles, on one hand, and the majority of the population,
workers in the private and public sectors and the small farmers in the rural
areas, on the other.
In other words, the third factor in destabilization is the problem inherent in
capitalist development, particularly manifested in high rates of unemployment
among the young people (college educated or otherwise), the high cost of
shelter and a government bureaucracy that generally disregards the rule of law.
The low rate of labor productivity in both the private and state sectors, not
to mention corruption and lack of transparency in government projects (contract
auctions, and issuance of import-export licenses) no doubt diminishes the trust
and confidence of the masses with regards to the character of the state.
In other words, the laboring classes in Iran are doubly burdened by the
theocracy on one hand and capitalist development on the other.
Ardeshir Ommani is a co-founder of the American Iranian Friendship
Committee.
(Copyright 2010, Ardeshir Ommani)
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please
click hereif you are interested in contributing.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
