Did Khomeini Deceive Iranians Before the Revolution? »« Human Rights Watch: “Iran: Halt Execution of 33 Sunnis”

History Can’t Wait: What Is The Significance of Rouhani’s Election?

A year has passed since Rouhani was elected. Many people are using this to evaluate Rouhani’s year, but I will hold off of that for now ans wait until his inauguration anniversary two months from now. In this post I want to explain something else, why Rouhani’s election is significant? Why did his win reshape the political atmosphere of Iran, not necessarily by the merit of what he did but because of its meaning and significance? And why his election – the very fact that he was elected, nothing more – was a major victory for the pro-democracy movement in Iran?

IRAN-VOTE-REGISTRATION-ROWHANI

For this, you need to track back and see what was the political climate in the four years before the election, and what is the very struggle lying at the heart of Islamic Republic.

The Historical Background

The revolutionaries who brought about the 1979 Iranian Revolution were a pluralistic group of people. They included leftist Islamists, rightist Islamists, liberals, Marxists, and nationalists. All of these people had only two things in common, their hatred of the Shah, and their loyalty to Ayatollah Khomeini, who was a very ambivalent figure at the time.

These revolutionaries wanted to reconcile two inherently contradictory causes: democracy and Islamic theocracy. This contradiction goes way back. The clergies and the western intellectuals who led the Constitutional Revolution wanted a constitutionalist monarchy similar to England, and yet they wanted to implement the Sharia law. The intellectual mind behind behind 1979 revolution, Ali Shariati, also embedded this contradiction in his writings and speeches. On the one hand he was zealously Muslim, on the other he wanted to incorporate the revolutionary spirit of Marx and Sartre’s existentialist concept of freedom into Muslim Shiite myths and mentality.

This contradiction finally led to Islamic Republic, a chimera regime with an unelected theocrat as the head of the regime and an elected president as the head of the executive branch, with a constitution which includes a chapter 3 which is extremely progressive and protects various freedoms from freedom of speech to assembly to a right to privacy, and a chapter 10 which includes an absolute religious autocrat who can practically undo all of these rights.

Of course, Islamic Republic has never been a remotely democratic regime. But it has never been completely totalitarian either, it has always had some breathing place and some space for maneuvers, and the potential for reform has always been there.

And therefore there are two branches inside the Islamic Republic: those who want to strengthen the (weak, faint) democratic aspect, and those who want to conserve (the strong, dominant) autocratic aspect. This has been the root cause of all fights inside the regime.

This was what Kahatami, the first reformist candidate, wanted to do, and he did, and he actually succeeded in many aspects, his presidency brought about the golden age of Iranian press and student movements, and although people were disillusioned and unsatisfied with him at the end of his presidency, he started a movement that is alive until today, and he created some irreversible changes as well. This is what Mir-Hossein Mousavi wanted in his 2009 campaign – his slogan was “reviving the neglected potentials of our constitutions”.

And while Iran’s constitution is by no means democratic, if it is fully applied, Iran would be much much more democratic than now, and therefore such a position would greatly improve the situation. Mousavi even went beyond this. He acknowledged that the constitution is flawed and needs to change, but he believed that the first step to this would be fully implementing it. And this is a position which can bring about all the different opposition and once again create a pluralist movement – we may have different ideas, but implementing the legal rights of Iranian people as mentioned in this constitution is beneficial to all of us, and for this minimum of our demands, we unite and fight.

2009 Protests: The Fight Over the Democratic Aspect

When the regime declared the false results for the 2009 elections, the democratic forces called this a “coup d’tat”. This was not a rhetorical attack – this was something real. At 5:00 AM in the morning when it was clear that Ahmadinejad would remain president I wrote on my Facebook wall that “The Islamic Republic was overthrown today, and a military theocratic dictatorship took its place”. And tomorrow I could hear all pundits from all different striped of the political spectrum echoing exactly this sentiment.

In the four years spanning from 2009 to 2013 the regime pursued a rigorous scheme to completely destroy the democratic aspect of the regime, to strangle the breathing place, to close maneuver space, to silence the already hushed dissent, to make the already extremely flawed elections completely meaningless.

Every element of a classic coup was there: an illegitimate president backed by the military seized power from the democratically elected president, communications for the reformists were cut, many were arrested the same night, more than 2000 people were arrested during the four years, show trials went underway, fake confessions and harsh prison sentences.

The project was clear.

But then this happened:

iran-protests

People took the streets, and resisted. Mousavi and Karroubi stood firm. The regime lost many of its supporters. Many defected and took asylum outside Iran. Many extremists became moderates, many conservatives became reformists. Chief among them was Hashemi Rafsanjani, once the symbol of Iranian conservative movement, the arch-nemesis of the reformists, one of the main founders of the regime, and once the most powerful figure of the regime. He used the medium of Friday Prayers and stood by the protesters, lost his position as the head of the Assembly of Experts (a body responsible for choosing the Supreme Leader), and was targeted by endless insults from the right, and his sons and daughter were arrested. A man who a symbolized the Islamic Republic was opposing the emergence of this new regime, and he himself became a reformist in this process.

Of course, the battle seemed to be lost after that. Mousavi and Karroubi were put under house arrest, Khatami was forbidden to leave the country, and Hashemi Rafsanjani seemed to be completely isolated, the protests ended, there was dead silence in the press, the universities were completely controlled with an iron fist, and a completely meaningless and fake parliamentary election was held. It seemed that the military regime had won.

But the military regime couldn’t run the country properly. The relationship with the west soured, sanctions after sanctions were passed against Iran, the economy completely tanked and an era of stagflation began, Iranian currency lost 300% of its value, inflation sky-rocketed to 70%, and the growth fell under -5%. They faced rips within their own fractions; Ahmadinejad wanted a bigger slice of the pie and was not content with being a figurehead, so he was soon dropped out of favor. In addition to completely destroying the economy, he also headed the most corrupt government in the history of Iran, with billions and billions of bank loans given through illegal means and billions and billion of dollars embezzled. In addition to all of these, the shadow of war, civil or invasion from foreign countries, loomed large and scary.

Objectively speaking, 2010-2013 were not the darkest years in the history of Iran. That dubious honor goes to the early years of the 80s, when Khomeini became a complete tyrant. But the vast majority of Iranians were not born back then, and the political massacres and horrifying tortures were successfully kept hidden from most people. So in the collective subjectivity of Iranians, those years were the darkest years of despair.

How the Project Was Defeated

Many people claim that the regime gave up on the project to destroy the democratic aspect and create a monophonic regime before the election, since they accepted Aref and Rouhani to become candidates. I disagree. The regime wanted to make sure that a conservative gets elected, and Aref and Rouhani were face-saving candidates.

The reformists originally wanted Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani to run for president. Khatami, ever the most timid and cautious among the reformist leaders, didn’t register as a candidate. Hashemi Rafsanjani did, but the Guardian Council barred him from running. This was a shocker to most, but it was clear that they don’t want a candidate who is capable of creating a great movement, like Mousavi, and makes them cheat again.

Aref was Khatami’s Vice President, but he was a very low profile figure, and he had chosen silence during the Green Movement. Rouhani was even worse. He refused to call himself a reformist outright, he used to be a conservative, and many doubted if he was still one. (Of course, the signs were all there – Rouhani was responsible for the first round of nuclear talks that could end in a real agreement, he was extremely close to Hashemi Rafsanjani, and had pledged to drop out if he is accepted by Guardian Council).

But the regime had made a huge miscalculation. In Iran, figures don’t make movements, movements make  figures. Mousavi was Khomeini’s Prime Minister, but he became the national figure all Iranians could rally behind. He acknowledged that he follows the people, not the other way around.

Until a week before the election it seemed that everything would go as planned, but then Aref dropped out, and Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani endorsed Rouhani. The sleeping movement was reawakened.

Initially in the polls Rouhani was ranked 7th among 8 candidates. He steadily rose in the polls. Only one day before the elections, the latest polls showed that he would go to the second round with Ghalibaf. But then he won the election in the first one. And what changed with Rouhani’s rank was the number of people who said they would actually vote. So the turn-out meant the candidate the regime didn’t want to win, won.

And why they didn’t cheat again? Simple, they weren’t going to go through all the crisis one more time. The sacrifices of the people paid back.

When Obama became president in 2008, Time selected him as the person of the year. The title on that issue of the magazine was “History Can’t Wait”.

History is even more impatient when it comes to Iran. Rouhani had already played a historic role the second his name was announced the winner of the election. His election meant that the project destroy the democratic aspect was defeated, as the election was real albeit deeply flawed, that monophony had not conquered, as the opposition and the reformists had managed to install their candidate in power, and had once again managed to create fractures within the regime, that the good old contradiction was back. It meant that the military juntas were defeated, and the Islamic Republic was restored one again.

And I always said Rouhani would prove to be a complete reformist soon. Rouhani’s only political investment was people’s support for him. Democracy is a magnetic force that seems to attract the allies of Ayatollah Khomeini to itself with a deterministic force, I knew as Mousavi and Karroubi and Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani all became reformists, so would Rouhani.

But it happened even sooner than I expected. Rouhani is now a president standing firmly against the forces of conservatism, advocating reformist policies and reformist values. He is indisputably a reformist and anyone challenging that is not paying attention and has outdated information.

The Green Movement was a coalition, a polyphony of different voices. It included moderate conservatives, reformists, and opposition members. They all had one common cause, “Where is my vote?” was their slogan. They chanted “Mousavi, Mousavi, take back our votes”. They all wanted preserve the democratic aspect. They all wanted to make sure this small window to the light is not closed. And they succeeded. When Rouhani was elected, they chanted “Mousavi, Mousavi, we took back your vote”.

Will Rouhani be able to implement real reforms and bargain enough with the regime and create enough pressure? I don’t know. No one does. But a day before 2013 election Iran was a different country. Iran is not in a perfect situation, or a good one, or a not-bad one. But the darkest hour has passed and we already have regained the most precious thing we had lost: hope. Iran is already transformed, as it was already many times, this unpredictable country, with its love for surprises and sudden changes and contradictions.

History can’t wait, indeed.

Comments

  1. abear says

    Here in Canada and even more so in the US the business class, particularly those in big business have a lot of influence in politics. My understanding is that many of those sort of people left Iran in the years after the Islamic Revolution.
    Are business leaders influential in Iran presently?
    If so, one would think reform, improved relations with the west and the subsequent easing of sanctions would benefit them greatly and would be an incentive to support the Moderates.
    OT, but how do you, and the average Iranian view the current crisis in Iraq?

    .

    • Kaveh Mousavi says

      There is no real business going on. A huge chunk of business is under the monopoly of the Revolutionary Guard, another chunk is under the monopoly of the institutions that are controlled by the Office of the Supreme Leader, and then there is the great portion that are under the direct employment of the administration. You have to be connected to some power if you want to invest on a large scale, and you have to be corrupt. Recently a billionaire who was responsible for the largest embezzlement case in the history of Iran (three hundred billion tomans) was executed, but everyone knows he wasn’t the main person in charge, and he was sacrificed to ease the tension. And this has happened a lot. So you can be a puppet of someone in the higher echelons of the regimes and get filthy rich, but then there’s always the chance that either that person loses the ability to protect you (as happened in this case with Ahmadinejad’s loss of influence) or uses you as human shield. Ordinary people can get rich only in two ways, either in some kinds of service business ventures like opening coffee shops and restaurants, or in becoming the middle-person in business transactions of things like houses or cars or gold or dollars. Economy is really sick.

      Rouhani certainly wishes to bring investment, from Iranians inside, Iranians abroad, and foreigners. I think foreign investment in oil and gas is likely to happen if the nuclear deal is successful, but I don’t think he has the power to fix these ails that I mentioned.

      As for ISIS, there are two ways to answer. First, of course I’m very worried that there might be an attack or a war with Iran, and generally these are the worst types of Muslim extremists, so it’s worrying. The nightmare scenario is that Iraq becomes another Syria. But on the other hand if Iran and US work together against ISIS might bring around Revolutionary Guard to support normalizing relationships. Ghassem Soleimani supported normalizing after working together in Afghanistan, Bush’s “axis of evil” undid that. Now Iraqi army can easily defeat ISIS and internal political strife has prevented them so far. There’s no need for USA and Iran to get involved on a large scale, the main thing they should do is pressure Maliki to find a political solution, and they can help each other a lot. So this might turn out to be a blessing in disguise, for Iran at least. OF course if the nightmare scenario doesn’t happen.

      This is my opinion though – I have no way to know average Iranian opinion for now.

      • colnago80 says

        I have commented on the current situation in Iraq on Brayton’s and Singham’s blogs, as well as Jerry Coyne’s blog. The problem is that the US has been telling al-Maliki for several years that his policy of forming a government consisting only of Shiites, will lead to trouble. Thus far, he has ignored that advice. Hopefully, the US administration will inform him that it will only provide support for his regime of he cleans up his act. Despite everything you read or hear, the fault for the current situation fall at the feet of al-Maliki. See attached link.

        http://goo.gl/7hwLCN

        • Kaveh Mousavi says

          the fault for the current situation fall at the feet of al-Maliki. See attached link.”

          I agree. That is actually what all Iranian pundits say.

          • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

            I think the ISIS / ISIL Jihadists have most blame for the current Iraq crisis don’t they surely?

            http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-12/explainer-islamic-state-of-iraq-and-syria-the-levant/5519404

            To be too extreme for Al Quaida is .. wow .. breath-taking really.

            I don’t know.

            I’m sure there’s plenty of blame to go around as usual (& apportioning it out is generally pretty unhelpful anyhow ain’t it?)

            Sure there’s plenty of “coulda , shoulda, woulda” contributing factors.

            But the barbaric, menacing actions and behaviour and attacks of ISIL / ISIS are what';s behind all this isn’t it?

          • Kaveh Mousavi says

            No, this is actually quite very important, and the bets are larger than ISIS, this is a prelude to whole scale civil war. There needs to be a political solution in Iraq, and the only political situation is to make sure that Maliki stops governing in a sectarian manner. Iraq will not be better, unless a truly coalition government is formed, and Sunnis are satisfied. If ISIS is defeated (which is not big of a challenge), there will be other Sunni uprisings. Also remember that Mosul and Tikrit are not the first cities to fall, months ago ISIS took Felujah and Ramadi, and Maliki couldn’t muster enough fuck to do something about it.

            Colnago80 is 100% right about his assessment of Maliki here.

          • colnago80 says

            This is also the opinion being express on the OPED pages in several Arab newspapers. The frightening part of this is that, despite having a massive numerical advantage and firepower advantage, the Iraqi forces threw away their arms and fled the field before the advancing ISIS forces. Say what you will about Hizbollah but those guys stood and fought back hard during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, despite the massive Israeli advantage in firepower. They earned a lot of respect from the grunts in the Israeli army. Hizbollah fighters are also responsible for the recovery of Assad’s forces in Syria. Hizbollah fighters are not to be taken lightly.

  2. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Thanks for this Kaveh Mousavi. Very informative and well explained.

    ut the darkest hour has passed and we already have regained the most precious thing we had lost: hope. Iran is already transformed, as it was already many times, this unpredictable country, with its love for surprises and sudden changes and contradictions.

    I hope.

    I hope your’e right.

    I hope a transformation for the better happens not just in Iran but everywhere incl. my own country which badly needs it right now too.

    Maybe not as much as Iran needs transforming but also.

    I do believe for all the messed up things in the world, for all the negative trends and overwhelmingness of evil sometimes – there is hope.

    And we can be and deliver and enable that hope.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>