Matter and Mind
One of the most important barriers to the way of democracy (i.e. a kind of democracy developed by the society itself, not that kind of Instant Democracy claimed by US) in Iran is that several advocates of Civil Society & Democracy bear such a suffering background which not only makes a fair part of people (especially intelligentsia) suspicious of them, but also undermines efforts of sincere activist who honestly swear by Democracy.
Their suffering background might be classified in 3 important categories: Economic Corruption, Political Corruption, and Moral Corruption. Surely I’m not saying that corruption is the exclusive attribute of democratic movements in Iran, and do admit that all those three kinds of corruption might be found in other parts of the political movements/parties as well. But here I want to elaborate why some people have every right to think that Democracy is just a slogan exploited by some groups to fulfill their (possibly illegitimate) goals.
(I) Economic Corruption (both perceived and real)
In a society whose people suffer disastrous unemployment and growing inflation, and very often it happens that ‘breadwinner’ loses its very meaning since the worker does not earn enough to cover the interest of his debts leave alone bringing some bread to the household, Economic Corruption (not only real corruption, but also perceived one) is the most important determinant of shame. (Remember Confucius: “In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.”)
Liberalization of Economy during Rafsanjani administration, followed by reformist Khatami who had a bunch of Right Wingers as the theorists of his economic strategy, led to a wider gap of poor-rich which made many people believe that “Some corrupt hands are exploiting our natural resources (most importantly, Oil Revenues).”
Many rumors about the wealth gathered by some officials, as well as evidences indicating unbelievable amount of money some others grabbed (such as luxury home of Karbaschi, former mayor of Tehran and a close buddy of Rafsanjani) set the scene for Ahmadinejad’s election. Ahmadinejad, compared his house with that of Karbaschi in several occasions as well as his TV campaigns, telling the people that “I’m not that corrupt.”
Note that though some exceptions do exist, most of the clergymen still live a simple and low-level life following the tradition of Grand Ayatollahs. For example, Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Islamic Revolution, rented a house in Tehran in his return to Iran, and lived there till his death. This might be indicative of clergies’ fair understanding of an issue directly associated with their popularity.
(II) Political Corruption
You claim something and your resume shows the opposite; isn’t it enough to believe that you are a liar?
Example: some of the prominent figures of democratic movement had been previously engaged in allegedly abusive activities related to Intelligence Ministry. Akbar Ganji, known to the world since going on hunger strike few years ago in an objection to his prison term, and a prominent democrat activist now touring Europe and America in a cheap political show, is a good example. He had been a high ranking official of the Ministry, and some say that reintroduction of some old methods of torture in hidden prisons is associated with this man.
(III) Moral Corruption
In the over-traditional society of Iran, having an affair with many mistresses has been enough to end the political life of some well-known figures and isolate them forever!
With regards to current democratic movement in Iran, let me say: “Those who matter don’t mind, those who mind do not matter.”
Full Stop.
Join the Conversation
Mohammad, you don’t paint a pretty picture. It seems like there are some insurmountable barriers in place, which block the emergence of true democracy in your country. It is one thing to talk about democracy using nicely crafted slogans. It is quite another thing to bring about the conditions that would allow for true democracy to come to fruition.
Real democracy is about empowering the man on the street. Implicit in the move toward democracy is the idea that a society can best protect itself by investing power in the common man, because in the final analysis, he will have the common sense to use his power most wisely. So if he elects a person who uses his power well, then the society will be well served. But if he elects a person who uses his power badly, then the common man will be entrusted with the power to remove him from office, and elect someone else. It’s about holding our leaders accountable. They have to convince us of why they should be elected in the first place, and why they should remain in office, once elected. It’s really a question of who is in the best position to wield the reigns of power most wisely. Democracy is about placing a great deal of that power in the hands of normal people, under the assumption that they are in the best position to use that power well.
You seem to indicate that in your country the people who are in a position to bring about the emergence of democracy are themselves tainted with corruption, so even though they may have the power to do something in this regard, they are so tainted, that their voice is not sincere in bringing about real change.
So the question becomes: Is there anyone left who is in a position to give true democracy a chance. Is the young generation, for example, in such a position? Are they even inclined to try? Or is it too much of a risk? And are there things that could happen on the ground, short of democractic change, which could pave the way, eventually, for a transition toward democracy? What do you think?
Nissim:
The case of democratic movement in Iran seems puzzling even to me as an insider. For sure, not all of its advocates are some corrupt ones. For example, I do admire Liberation Movement of Iran as a sincere organization whose leaders pursued democratic changes both in Shah Regime and that of Islamic Republic, and experienced prison terms in both episodes! Mahdi Bazargan, first prime minister of Islamic Revolution, appointed by Ayatollah Khomeini early in the revolution, had been a respected icon of this movement who resigned in an opposition to several events, most important one of which was hostage-taking in US embassy.
But let’s assume that the movement has a surface and a depth. Radical supporters of a movement which constitute the most visual part of it (i.e. the surface) should not be assumed the whole movement. In the case of Iran’s democratic movement, these radical supports are mostly those whose hands were cut from power due to some internal conflicts. They consider and use the Democratic Movement as a retaliation tool against dominant powers of IRI. Then, those on the surface are not trustable, I think
But something is ongoing in depth as well, which I swear by it as the only way of true liberation. People are growing up in an awesome rate. Yeah, they voted for Ahmadinejad, and they might do it again, but mistakes do happen… practice (even the limited one) makes better! Even Americans who have a noticeable history of democracy voted for a nonsense person, not just once but twice. Recent articles of Washington Post about current administration of US might be best described by this word: Humiliating them!
You speak about “the people who are in a position to bring about the emergence of democracy” and I believe in “the people who are to bring about the democracy” – God willing.
I might be too optimistic. Others might be too pessimistic. You would better choose the middle line.
(And, about that article you posted about your Theory… I’m still mulling over it)
Mohammad, I’m glad you’re still thinking about an Ideology of Common Sense. Considering the number of comments I’ve received, it looks like it’s all up to you to figure it all out.
I’m also glad that you are somewhat optimistic about the prospects for democracy in your country. It is true that democracy does not always produce the best result, because sometimes people are elected who do not live up to the expectations of the people. However, democracy has a mechanism in place to rectify the mistake without resorting to violence. A leader could be impeached, or could lose the confidence of parliament, or could be kicked out after serving his term. The will of the people can be made known without too much disruption.
As the world becomes ever more complicated, I believe that we will have to find some simple principles to guide our way. The idea that people should have a say in how they are to be goverened, is a simple idea, but an idea that has stood the test of time. Like Churchill used to say, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others.”
I am like you in that I believe in democracy. I believe in democracy because I believe in the common man. I believe that in the final analysis, he has the common sense to know right from wrong, and that as the world becomes more dangerous, the distinction between right and wrong becomes ever more important. We can no longer afford to make the mistakes of our ancestors, because the margin for error is becomming smaller and smaller.