May
29, 2003, 9:00 a.m.
What Iranians Want
The work of
freedom.
By Babak Namdar
n
May 21, 127 deputies in Iran's parliament sent an open letter to Supreme
Leader Ali Khamenei. The letter called for the Supreme Leader to end abuse
of power in Iranian institutions directly under Khamenei's control, like
the Council of Guardians, Iranian radio and television, the judiciary,
the Revolutionary Guards, and the all-powerful Expediency Council. Khamenei's
response? He ordered Iran's media to drop all mention of the letter, and
cease criticism of his regime, "the most democratic in the world."
(Ironically, the only other person who agrees that Iran is a democracy
is Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and his advisers in the
State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs).
While it is tempting
to see the parliament deputies' letter as a sign of struggle between the
Islamic Republic's reformists and hardliners, Western officials should abandon
such a lazy dichotomy. After all, it has been years since the Iranian people
have abandoned thinking of their struggle as one between two regime factions.
We see no substantive difference between the Islamic Republic's moderates
and conservatives. They both seek to prevent the collapse of the Islamic
regime, the very goal for which most Iranians strive. Indeed, the only real
difference between moderates and hardliners is that the moderates always
threaten to resign but never do, while the hardliners don't bother to go
through such a charade.
So what do Iranians
want? Some circulate the idea that the way forward is to push for a nationwide
referendum to determine what system of government Iranians want. Many
Iranian groups claim credit for first pushing the idea of a referendum,
but the idea first came about in the aftermath of the 1998 murders of
Iranian dissidents Darius Foruhar and his wife Parvaneh Iskandari. Darius
Foruhar was a famous democrat from the period of 1953, when the Central
Intelligence Agency helped overthrow the popular Prime Minister Mohammad
Mosaddeq. The 69-year-old Foruhar had been stabbed 26 times; his wife
25 times. The root of the scandal was that the murders occurred while
the two dissidents were under surveillance by Iran's intelligence ministry.
The intelligence ministry proceeded to destroy the surveillance tapes.
In the end, the Iranian government arrested Said Emami, an intelligence
ministry deputy, for ordering the hits. Emami was then "suicided"
while awaiting trial. (Michael Rubin has a good English-language account
of these events in his book, Into
the Shadows: Radical Vigilantes in Khatami's Iran). The brutality
of the murders, followed by the brazenness of the cover-up convinced many
that there simply could be no reform, and that there should be a referendum
as the way forward.
Unfortunately, the Islamic Republic has co-opted the idea of the referendum
as its own. While the referendum may have worked four years ago, it can
no longer provide a reasonable way forward. Every political group now
wants a referendum to further its own agenda. The monarchists want a nationwide
referendum to see whether there should be a constitutional monarchy. President
Mohammad Khatami wants a referendum to see if the people will pass two
bills to give him greater powers. The Iranian National Front party wants
a simple yes or no to the Islamic Republic referendum, the same option
offered in 1979. Expediency Council chairman (and former president) Hashemi
Rajsanjani wants a referendum to see if people want normalized relations
with the United States, something that would mean a business windfall
for the politician considered to be Iran's most corrupt. The Islamic Iran
Participation Front wants a referendum to see if Iranians want reform.
Unfortunately, in
all the lofty discussion of referendums, one basic problem remains: The
ruling clergy have given no indication that they would consider any referendum
binding. All indications are they would not. Take the case of the University
of Hamadan: Last week, students erected five ballot boxes for students
to voice their opinion in a symbolic referendum. Regime thugs violently
confronted the students and set fire to four of the five ballot boxes.
Students have established a 24-hour vigil to protect the remaining ballot
box. So much for Iranian democracy, Mr. Armitage!
Many referendum advocates
hope that the clergy will buckle under international pressure to abide
by the results. But since when has the international community put real
pressure on the Islamic Republic? Despite the doubling of capital punishment
in the Islamic Republic and a backsliding human rights record, the European
Union has doubled trade with Iran. With student protesters disappearing
everyday into the Islamic Republic's gulag, and newspapers closed down
for even the mildest criticism, it was the United Nations that took the
Islamic Republic off the blacklist of the worst human-rights offenders.
Change through referendum
is a fool's paradise. Unfortunately, the only practical alternative is
revolution. Iranians themselves acknowledge that they want regime change,
so a revolution need not be a far-fetched goal. It will take some convincing
though. Iranians don't want a repeat of the chaos, anarchy, and killing
of a quarter-century ago. Some fear that a revolution would turn violent,
but it need not. Whether during the monarchy or the current period of
religious apartheid, it has always been the government, not the protesters,
who resorted to violence. During the 1999 student protests, a Marze Por
Gohar member was shot in the face while holding peaceful vigil.
But, despite the
risks, why not lay out a blueprint for a peaceful revolution? What if
Marze Por Gohar laid forth a detailed plan to dispose peacefully the clerical
regime once and for all? Isn't it worth it to try to save our precious
land and culture any way possible? We believe Iranians should dispose
the clerical regime by ourselves, without outside assistance. We only
publish in American publications to escape the censorship of our native
Iran. It is time we rise up, and realize our quest for a secular republic.
Freedom is not free. We know the risks, since we were out on the streets
in July 1999. We must show that we are not all talk, and trust that international
support will follow once the world community sees action. We have exhausted
all other options. There is no viable alternative. If we fail to live
up to our responsibility, we risk having foreign forces make the first
move.
—
Babak Namdar is assistant director of foreign policy for Marze
Por Gohar, an Iranian political party advocating a secular republic.
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
n
May 21, 127 deputies in Iran's parliament sent an open letter to Supreme
Leader Ali Khamenei. The letter called for the Supreme Leader to end abuse
of power in Iranian institutions directly under Khamenei's control, like
the Council of Guardians, Iranian radio and television, the judiciary,
the Revolutionary Guards, and the all-powerful Expediency Council. Khamenei's
response? He ordered Iran's media to drop all mention of the letter, and
cease criticism of his regime, "the most democratic in the world."
(Ironically, the only other person who agrees that Iran is a democracy
is Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and his advisers in the
State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs).
