Age of Ahmadinejad
June 24th, 2009Few days before the election, I met an old friend. As an educated man with a sense of humor, and as a father of two young babies, he made a nice point regarding Ahmadinejad: “when your boy is peeing, don’t stop him. Let him complete his task.”
Ahmadinejad, Miracle of the Third Millennium [1], was a new phenomenon in Iran’s modern politics. As a demagogue, he is capable of convincing ordinary people not linked to intellectuals. This point could be easily observed in the results of the presidential election. Ahmadinejad barely had the support of intelligentsia, the educated people and experts. Rather, his main constituency was composed of rural, suburban and less-educated voters to whose tables were brought some of the oil revenues. Frequent visits he paid to provinces and the huge amount of cash his administration distributed among people were more than enough to convince ordinary people that he would be the one.
Considering pre-election events and official results, one can easily find out that there is a wide gap between experts and masses in today Iran. Lots of voters didn’t pay a minimum attention to the expert’s ideas and this led to the overwhelming victory of Ahmadinejad [2]. This might be a classic example of populist figures winning an election.
Let’s consider some of the examples of the gap between experts’ ideas and those of ordinary people.
In the term of economy, a better part of his supporters fail to understand that Ahmadinejad “is robbing our future to pay us.” With regards to oil income, most of the economists believed that we should follow the example set by Norway, i.e. turning oil revenues into a sustainable capital. (Many Arab countries followed that path.) Ahmadinejad, however, decided to share the cash with the people. It should be noted that, for instance, 50$ donated by the government means a lot to a simple farmer in a far-located village of Iran. However, this farmer can’t understand that deferring his gratification can lead to a more stable (and perhaps larger) source of income. (This is, again, a classic example of a traditional society compared to a modern one. [3])
In the term of politics, his fans can hardly realize long-term consequences of his policies. For example, many political analysts believe that “Ahmadinejad is the kind of enemy Israel likes to hate” [4] for he makes it possible for Israeli officials to justify some of their extreme acts. (As an instance, Israel publicly confessed to having nukes just few years ago for she thought she could justify it, at least partly, referring to Ahmadinejad’s policies and positions he publicly made.) However, many of the hardliners only support him as a symbol of resistance against Zionist regime and international imperialism.
In my opinion, Iran is experiencing populism, full scale. An important feature of this atmosphere reveals itself in paying no attention to the experts and intelligentsia. However, after a while, long-term consequences of populism will be made clear to masses and they will turn again to elites.
Societies usually need to experience populism. This is an almost inevitable part of democratization enterprise. And Iran is no exception to the rule.
Before the election, I used to think that the people were not still ready to swear by expert bodies for they were yet to realize long-term consequences of populism. I’m personally happy that Ahmadinejad won the election. It costs us a lot, true. In my opinion, however, better to experience it once and forever. Better to let Ahmadinejad complete his task.
Footnotes:
[1] A term used by a hardliner fan of Ahmadinejad, wife of his spokesman.
[2] In my opinion, even though there are some indications of limited fraud, Ahmadinejad won the election.
[3] “Communication for Development in the Third World”, chapter 3.
[4] A France24 commentator once used this phrase.
Loading ...
Loading...
Dear Mohammad,
Thats true, but there has been another fear. I felt another threat and thats the threat of fascism, you know. Its not very far from Ahmadinejad and thats why I voted and many others also did.
Also many tried to avoid populism; you know avoiding a threat (at any expense) is better than the “let it be” point of view, I believe.
Dear Lord,
Possibility of facism exists as long as the society is not matured enough to embrace Democracy, full scale. In the above analysis, I mainly consider the process of democratization through which the society practices various models and gives a try to different practices until it comes to realize modern democracy.
From this point of view, experiencing populism (fully embodied in Ahmadinejad), however costly, is an inevitable part of the process.
Along the path toward a democratic system, we had to experience this as well. and this is our turn, or maybe our chance.
If there were any options to aviod it forever, I would be for it for sure. However, if this is set to happen, let it happen once and forever. Let the people suffer enough to come to understand the dangers of populism and put it aside for the rest of their lives.
I read in several articles of sophisticated Iranians this argument, that four more years of Ahmedinijad will really convince the people in Iran that there needs to be a fundamental change in the system. However, as we see, many people think that there needs to be change now, and this, at the end of the day, doesn’t matter, because the regime has the power. Because of the overwhelming repressive power the regime has, with its ideologically-committed military and volunteer forces, which are based on the uneducated and rural masses, they can stifle any dissent.
Therefore, I don’t think that four more years of populist and even fascist policies, will cause a significant change in those forces loyal to the regime, because many of them support the subsidies and defiant stand in foreign policy. I think that only the loss of legitimacy, similar to the one the regime is currently experiencing, but on a larger scale, can make those forces switch sides, or at least stay on the fence. Hence, I think that four more years of inflation, stagnation and international isolation, will only bring suffering on the people in Iran, but will do little to bring change in the system.
[...] they are realistic. Others think the results can not be that far off, and that Ahmadinejad was the winner. In this view, his populist/clientalist policies, nationalistic rethoric and charisma have enabled [...]
Elizabeth,
in the above post, I consider the whole event from a social point of view. in today Iran, a populist figure can win for the masses don’t address concerns of the intellectuals and the educated.
You are right that four more years (or even a longer period) of suffering can’t bring about a change in a totalitarian political system. however, our problem right now is that the masses support a populist figure who is the symbole of the regime. after this period, when the age of populism is over, people will no more support irrational decisions of the administration for they take expert bodies seriously. This can help deligitemize the regime or make it change its behavior.
all in all, as long as the irrational decisions of an administration happens to have the support of masses (like in today Iran), we can expect no real change.
If a boy pees from a balcony up high on the people below, there surely is reason enough to make him stop peeing.
what if the majority ask him to continue?
Mohammad, the distinction you are drawing between the simple masses on the one hand, and the intellectual elite on the other, is a good one. Sometimes, the masses don’t know what is good for them, and perhaps the elites know better. And sometimes it is the other way around. However, in either case, what you are describing is a war of ideas, a war for hearts and minds. Therefore, the question becomes: Who can make the best case for his position? It is not enough to be right. The harder challenge is to convince the man on the street of the wisdom of your position. And perhaps Ahmedinijad has done a better job of that, at least with some sectors of the population, hence the success of his populist approach.
If a poor and simple man looks at the table, and sees only an ideology of hate, and some charitable handouts, then that’s what he’s going to buy into, because that’s all there is. But if he looks at the table and sees a job, and an ideology that makes more sense, then now there is a choice, and 90% will choose a life, and will fight those who would take that life away. In the final analysis, the ideological extremists will not be able to capture the public’s imagination, once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves. It becomes incumbent, therefore, for the West, and for the intellectuals and experts in Iran, of which you speak, to make the case more forcefully, so as to convince the masses that there is indeed a better way.
Waiting for things to work out, or for people to learn their lessons gradually, will not work, especially when the acquisition of nuclear capabilities can easily be used to ensure that the status quo remains unchanged.