January 12, 2004
Future of Iran
What is going on in Iran these days has largely remained below radars with limited coverage in mainstream media. Perhaps rightly so. The fictional or real struggle between the "hardliners" and "reformers" is way past its expiry date and is neither news nor even interesting anymore.
Sadly so, it's not only the media that feels this way. Majority of Iranians are also tired of the games and have no patience for another round of the same back and forth contest played over the last 7 years.
The faction considered to be more liberal, came to power with a large movement of popular support. Of course, with the present structure, "power" is not the appropriate term as most of that is ceded to one unelected person with the title of "Supreme Leader".
Iranians elected President Khatami (twice) and then a new Parliament in challenging the wishes of this exact "leader". What they wanted was change and a vote for so-called "reformers" was more a vote against what they had as oppose to what they wanted.
There has been little doubt that what they ultimately want, is far beyond what these "moderates" are willing or able to deliver. And they have had over 7 years to prove it over and over again. In every mass movement towards more freedoms in these years, people have been abandoned by their elected representatives.
In the student 
uprising and then again in multiple nights of unrest in Tehran, these "reformers" chose the wrong side. Khatami was mostly absent in both occasions and even classified the protestors as "hooligans".
So, now that it's their turn to be scolded by the same "extremists", they seek a popular support that is non-existent. I am sure images of a velvet revolution went through the heads of many protesting MP's as they started their sit-in. But as they kept a lookout for the masses that will come in, take over the building and carry them on their shoulders to victory, nobody showed up.
They are too late. Their credibility with the masses evaporated the minute they chose to hang on to their offices, instead of backing the popular dissent movement. Iranians trusted yet another group one more time and once again they were defrauded.
Where will this go now is unclear. An old Persian proverb says "give them death, so they'll be happy with a fever." This may just be the strategy chosen by the leader's team. Disqualify everyone, then bend a bit and allow some in to keep everyone quiet. On the other hand, If reformers boycott the upcoming elections, the provincial governors resign and no changes are made, it may also cause some cabinet members and the President himself to also resign. Something he should?ve done the minute it became apparent his office is without any real power, years ago. This may create an opening for the great savior to enter the foyer once again with his own team and take over with the image of the great conciliator. This will of course be the role of former president Rafsanjani, the man many believe is still the real source of influence in Iran.
Regardless of the outcome, it is safe to expect that in the short-term, no major changes will be delivered by either side of this current tussle. This will only be yet another step, another experience in the long road to the destination most Iranians have chosen as their final objective; a free and democratic Iran.
Posted by Pedram at January 12, 2004 07:02 PMThe path of incramentalism to too narrow. The apathy comes because the reformers haven't tackeled the structure. The dynamic is between the divinity of the council and the collective divinty of the citizens.
Posted by: Jane at January 12, 2004 08:23 PMjust wondering Jane did you mean incrementalism?
if that is the degree of change your are referring to, there has been changes, but not enough.
I truly have hard time to understand your last sentence. Do you mean citizen rights and government right? by "The dynamic is between the divinity of the council and the collective divinty of the citizens."
regards,
Khatami and the reformers should resign at once. They have lost much credibility, and the only way they can bring drastic change is to take more drastic measures. With the reformers out of the picture, the stage is set for another revolution, which is not the best way to go about it, but our "reformers" have given the people little choice.
Posted by: guest at January 13, 2004 08:31 AMYou mention a 'great savior' in your post. Forgive my ignorance, but is this litteral? The words 'great savior' sound rather ominous. Is Rafsanjani a good guy?
You mention a 'great savior' in your post. Forgive my ignorance, but is this litteral? The words 'great savior' sound rather ominous. Is Rafsanjani a good guy?
A.H., I believe Pedram meant 'savior' for the regime and not the savior for people.
Posted by: Coward at January 13, 2004 09:12 AMI would like to raise this debate: "Could right-winged mullahs and their ellites start solving the problems with the West and US,bring economic growth with the price of worsening Human Rights records in short term when they get rid of the so called reformists,who were not able to deliver their promises and bragged a lot? Could they finish this aweful period of suspension and blocked political progress?" If the answer is yes;then let them do it! Why you mourn for the corrupt reformists which did too little and too late?!
Posted by: Visitor at January 13, 2004 09:58 AMAHHHHHHHH, that kind of savior, thank you. Now I understand.
Posted by: A.H> at January 13, 2004 11:12 AMI just searched "the eyeranian" and here's Pedram's not very favorable view of Rafsanjani:
http://www.eyeranian.net/2003/05/18,88.shtml
I think its safe to say, he is being sarcastic in calling him a savior or as somebody else put it, a savior for the regime and not people.
Posted by: Jerry in Jersey at January 13, 2004 11:16 AMAlireza, I'm lost without spell check. What I meant was the political structure itself generates friction between the requirements of a theocracy (where sovereignty is divinely bestowed on the leaders) and of a democracy (where legitimacy is derived from the assent and collective wisdom of the citizens). Combining a representitive parliamentary system with an overruling religious council, each with legitimate bases of empowerment, seems like it would necessarily generate friction, just as a political model. Not really saying much but thats what I meant.
Posted by: Jane at January 13, 2004 07:53 PMNice photo. I loved the idea of putting the THREE right in the middle.(Just count 5 faces from each side).
In the other hand, it's a shame that we can't have HAKIM's comment of whole this latest DINO CRISIS of elections. He would have been rejected too if he could be running as a candidate hypothetically. Since he was busy getting very close to be so called the Islamic world's most powerful SHI'A Leader. Undermining some fellows' POSITION.
Sorry I couldn't stop myself adding this. What people like Hoder
http://i.hoder.com/archives/2004/01/040113_009562.shtml
can't understand is that Khatami has never hesitated (and never will) to legitimize his Boss's position (the other 2 of the THREE sitting right next to his right)
Here is the proof, help yourself:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/story/2004/01/040113_mj-si-khatami-majlis.shtml
I just believe there is no reason (never has been) to compromise.
Posted by: Stunt at January 13, 2004 08:02 PMINteresting article in New York Post today 1/15/04
by Amir Taheri saying that the reformers have not challenged the system (and authority of the council) but are only challenging the disqualification of their candidates, not the ability to disqualify. He also states Irans long term goal, as the only pure Islamic state, is to "replace all other regimes in the Muslim world with truly Islamic ones." And next to convert the "whole of mankind to the Khomeninist version of Islam, if necessary, by war."
I ask you all to join us here at http://www.freerepublic.com/~doctorzin
You can get an ID and give your comments out to our thread which is dedicated to Iran's affair.
Please join us today, Thank You!