Movement or Revolution? What we could be learning from developments in Iran

As of this weekend, it seems the protests in the Islamic Republic of Iran have died down a bit… for now. The opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who for the past week has essentially been under house arrest, has agreed to seek the government’s permission before holding any further demonstrations and is no longer able to use his official web site as its functionality has been compromised. While these developments may be disappointing to many, they should not be read as the failure of this mass movement or its end. Such impatient and rash determinations by some analysts in the U.S. and Europe reveal a lack of faith in the very systems and values they claim to support. Have we forgotten that the Civil Right movement in the United States took more than a decade before we even began to see real changes? -- changes that are still in-progress today.

Why is revolution a thing so many outside of Iran support when by and large the Iranian people have so carefully attempted the opposite: a peaceful movement for reform within the current government of the Islamic Republic? The movement for human rights and democracy in Iran has been underway for at least twenty years now. Brave women, labor organizers, and defenders of free speech have been working for change and building momentum under the most hostile conditions for quite some time. Would another revolution moving at a hastier pace than this truly serve the Iranian people? Did the last revolution serve the Iranian people? These are questions worthy of pause and consideration.

We should not be so quick to dismiss what the recent protests have achieved. Arguably, the movement has been successful in many regards. It has successfully drawn attention to the demands of a large part of the Iranian population for social and political reforms, it has made impossible to ignore the political divides that exist within the government of the Islamic Republic, and it has disrupted monolithic interpretations of Islam that circulate in the West. The recent unrest in Iran provides an important opportunity to rethink how we have understood Iran, how we have understood Islam, and how we have understood democracy.

In regards to Iran, major fissures between clerics and officials in the Islamic Republic have not only been revealed; they have grown deeper. The voice of the people and the violent response of the Republic have caused many within the regime to take a step back and reconsider what they have been doing; there have been calls from within the establishment to examine the recent government-led violence; some important leading clerics have begun to discuss the possibility restructuring the balance of power to limit the influence of the Ayatollah within the Republic; and there is the renewed interest of a large portion of the Iranian population in a movement they might have given up on prior to the protests. While the government of Ahmadinejad and Khamenei has been using violent tactics to successfully quell the unrest, this has not been without its costs. Regardless of what the actual numbers in the election were, Ahmadinejad’s image and what he stands for have now been sullied by the recent actions of his state; this will not be forgotten anytime soon and the buzz within the halls of the Republic echo this sentiment.

What we have seen these past two weeks in Iran is a people demanding democracy, demanding their rights, and demanding reform of the current Islamic system. We have also witnessed the ways Islam is largely seen by protestors as compatible with democratic values. We have heard our beloved protestors calling from their rooftops at night: “Allah-o-Akbar” -- God is Great. The Ayatollah Montazeri, a very important and senior cleric who has been under house arrest for years now, has repeatedly denounced the violence against protestors as un-Islamic. In fact, he broke with the Ayatollah Khomeini in the late 1980s because of his advocacy for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the Iranian people. What has become abundantly clear in the past week is that “Islam” is subservient to politics and power in Iran. Defiantly, Islam has emerged from the thick of politics in the Islamic Republic… as multiple.

We should be increasingly suspicious of sloppy stereotypes and comparisons that circulate in film, television and print-media that too easily defines an evil-enemy-other in singular and simplistic ways. Comparisons of Ahmadinejad with Hitler and of these recent clashes with the Holocaust, rely on such stereotypes; they are not only hyperbole, they are offensive and disrespectful to Jewish Holocaust survivors. The use of stereotypes is an age-old tactic for consolidating what is nuanced, erasing context and history, and dehumanizing a group of people for the purposes and interests of state or other entities in power. The media plays a significant role in perpetuating such stereotypes and can therefore play a powerful role in dismantling them.

Another very important point that I have only heard raised by Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), is the possibility that the recent demonstrations in Iran were more viable in the climate of diplomacy and engagement that has been introduced by the change in tone of the Obama administration. What human rights workers on the ground in the Islamic Republic have been saying for years is that the tougher the U.S. gets on Iran, the harder the Republic clamps down on their movement. We may finally be witnessing the truth of their warnings.

Finally, we must not forget that here in the United States, many of our elected leaders were recently calling for a “bomb-bomb Iran” campaign; they should now be eating their words. The very people they wished this upon are the ones who have been risking their lives for the freedom and democracy these leaders claimed their dirty bombs would bring about. I am concerned about Obama’s statements Friday that the possibility of direct dialogue with Iran has been affected by the recent clashes. While I understand and respect his concerns, I do not believe this is a time to play the silent game; this of all times is one for dialogue. I am even more concerned about the recent vote by the House Appropriations Committee to increase sanctions that would limit the functionality of Iran’s petroleum industry. Oil is the main economic lifeline of the Iranian people. Such sanctions will further devastate an already desperate economy, and will further harm the very people we in the U.S. claim to want to support. How do sanctions do anything but force a suffering people to rally around a government they may not wish to support? Such tactics work against the will of the Iranian people. We should not suffocate the movement before it’s even had a fighting chance.

I fear the government crackdown will get worse before it gets better; but the fires have been stoked and the will of the people is in play. We should continue to voice our support for the struggle of the Iranian people for their rights and freedoms. We should vehemently denounce the recent call for the execution of protest leaders by a senior cleric. We should not, however, support military, political or economic interventions; these will only undermine a healthy, strong and inspired movement.

We should not take our eyes off of Iran; the minute we stop paying attention, our silence gives license to further violence. I have seen emails circulating between people and communities in Iran proper showing one another pictures of the mass rallies that have occurred all over the world on their behalf. Whether you believe it or not, international people-to-people solidarities do help Iranian freedom fighters know they are not alone. Our solidarity inspires them, and gives them the strength to continue on with their struggles for rights and freedoms.

Let's commit to taking our lead from the demands of the Iranian people. Democracy yes. Intervention, no.

*******************************

 you can read an updated and edited version of this piece published here: http://womensmediacenter.com/ex/070209.html