What to do. I
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.eyeranian.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.eyeranian.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.eyeranian.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.eyeranian.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Reddit]](http://www.eyeranian.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.eyeranian.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.eyeranian.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Email]](http://www.eyeranian.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
One of the major hurdles for Iranian opposition groups abroad is an atmosphere of mistrust and caution that prevents them from even having a discussion, never mind co-operating on any common goals. There are many valid and false reasons for this phenomenon and this will not be the proper forum to properly address those. However it is even more clear now that without building bridges between various factions and starting a constructive and plural environment of at least limited collaboration, building a true united front against the tyranny of the regime is impossible.
Having said that, I don’t believe we are at that stage yet. Before providing the conditions for each group and personality to talk to one another, we need to provide a situation for each to talk alone. This may sound silly but over the last 20 years, most groups, organizations and individual activists within the political spectrum in Iran, have had very little opportunity to simply talk, present a platform, paint a picture, and address their constituents. Most, if any work in this area has been limited to small gatherings of mostly die-hard fans, plus articles and announcements in partisan newsletters and publications, and with almost no reflection and coverage in the main stream media.
The situation is so bad that even political activists within the community have a difficult time discussing various factions’ positions at any particular time. This is even more relevant during the dynamic periods of critical change or when a spirited new event is taking place. In short, we need a more accurate picture of where each outfit is standing and what their current view entails to use that information in making some calculated decisions about our future actions.
I believe this is also important from a historical documentation perspective. One of the major problems with the revolution of 1979 was this lack of having solid plans and commitments by various “leaders” to hold them accountable to at a future date. This was particularly key as it related to Ayatollah Khomeini’s positions and platform. Most such statements were only transferred to the masses on very poor quality audio-tapes of his speeches in Paris. Almost no record of most of those speeches are widely available today and I am even told that people have been harassed for having such material in their possession. We all remember Ayatollah’s promise to not interfere in politics, return to seminary, turn the future of the country to the votes of its people, provide utilities for free and even deliver a monthly stipend to each citizen for their share of oil revenues. However, very little historical documentation of such commitments are available today.
This time we need some solid answers and particular plans. Nothing like the hodge-podge answers of “we’ll let the people decide” or “let’s unite for now and plan later” that we hear often. Solid commitments to critical questions; type of government, women’s rights, rights of ownership, separation of government and religion, and many more. These statements can also be the building blocks of a democratic coalition, based on transparency and complete disclosure. A, B and C may agree on issues 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 but wish to compromise on 3 and decide that 4 is not significant enough to hinder further collaborations. Or decide once and for all that their views are too diverse to ever merge on certain points and be forced to find other partners or work in isolation.
In that front, I propose a monthly or bi-monthly convention type of gathering, with ALL parties invited. Let’s call it Iranian National Convention for now, held each time in a center, resort or gathering place in various parts of the globe. A weekend of speeches and Q&A periods, with particular questions for each gathering. Each group sends delegates to deliver their agenda and answer media questions. Public is not invited as security is a major concern. However, every minute of the meetings is recorded and “democratic” TV stations can broadcast the events live to Iran and abroad, with print media following with their versions. Let them all come and record their answers, the monarchist, MKO, national front, anarchists of the left, small and large parties, important and not-so-important personalities.
First one is held in a small hotel in Northern Ontario. The topic is “It is ten years after the fall of this regime and you are elected president, what are your plans?” The next one is at a small chalet in Black Forest area of Germany and the topic is “Your views on the most fundamental points of Iran’s last 100 year history”. Then comes the meeting at a resort outside Sidney and the discussions turn to “Women’s Rights” and so on.
It is vital to have the meetings in one place and within a short period in diverse locations for multiple reasons;
1- Focuses media’s attention to one event, maximizing coverage. 2- Mobilizes Iranians of various corners of the globe in their local “event” and it’s side effects 3- Gives everyone a chance to see other’s presentations live and unfiltered, 4- Causes further publicity and coverage by non-Irani media. 5- Introduces various personalities to one another and 6- Who knows if X and Y may meet in the hallway between two meetings and strike up a conversation that may lead to much more.
The “conventions” must be sponsored by an entity such as the European Union or even some member parties and coalitions. U.S. sponsorship will cause further negative reactions and the U.N. has no mandate to facilitate the fall of it’s member governments. The process continues for the next year or until other steps are taken by majority of participants to decide on collaborating on some common ambitions. After the original series and if need be, other sets of meetings to facilitate “dialogue” are planned. This time inviting different parties to sit around the table and debate certain issues.
This may all seem simplistic in approach. I agree. However we need answers to some very simple needs at this point and simple solutions are better than no solutions. What do you think?
