Affiliated with the University of Nicosia |
|||||
|
|||||
IRAN: FRONTLINES AND PERSPECTIVES By Hamid R. Khalaj
|
|||||
|
|||||
Research Associate, Cyprus Center for European and International Affairs |
|||||
|
|||||
The persistence and continuity of the Green Movement of the Iranian
people which reached its peak of political radicalism on Ashura has
resulted in the emergence of unprecedented frontiers and groupings in
various aspects. For the first time the idea of major political
transition and even regime change has emerged on the agenda of the
Western Powers as a fact which can be a potential solution to the
nuclear issue with the Islamic Republic. The United States, for one, has
focused on supporting the opposition in Iran while at the same time
constantly questioning the reliability of Ahmadinejad’s government and
endorsing the Green Movement.
The linings in political scene of Iran have become more evident now. In
the pro-goverment camp, including all harline and centrist
fundamentalist parties, fear of downfall of the Islamic Republic is
obvious. Consequently three perspectives are competing as to the way to
handle the crisis. Radical extremists prefer the policy of bloodbath
which desires an ever more macro scale violent and suppressive
altercation of the Green Movement. This policy demands a direct and
merciless confrontation by eliminating those behind the post
presidential election chaos up to Ayatollah Rafsanjani, the chairman of
the Expediency Discernment Council and the Assembly of Experts.
Ironically, he was the one who played the most part in making Ayatollah
Khamenei the Supreme Leader following Ayatollah Khomeini’s death.
The more moderate elements of the fundamentalist camp prefer negotiation
and compromise with the figurative leaders of the Green Movement. They
expect defiant figures like Mousavai and Karoubi to retreat from their
initial demand regarding annulment of the presidential election.
Furthermore, they are asked to make a clear-cut separation from those
questioning the regime’s coup and crackdown to favor the choice of the
establishment over the people’s vote and publicly condemn them.
The third perspective is that of the Supreme Leader himself which is
still indecisive between massive eradication and/or moderate concession.
Nevertheless, he advocates the power of fear and applies all means to
implement that. Though, his public announcement as the enforcer of the
coup against the very constitutional principles of the Islamic Republic
came as an extereme shock.
Lately even Ahmadinejad has kept quiet about all relevant affairs and
the Revolutionary Guard generals have avoided public political comments
due to the leader’s personal takeover of command.
As for the Green Movement, following the events of 6th of
December, the burial of the Grand Ayatollah Montazeri,
and the day of Ashura a clear distinction has emerged. The division is
an indication of contradictory views in some parts of the Movement. Some
elements partially seek going beyond the regime and the concept of
Velayat Faqih through revolutionary methods. But the figurative
leadership of the Movement insists on remaining within the framework of
the Islamic Republic and its constitution. The reactions to the last
statement of Mr. Mousavi were indicative of such fact. Most academics
and intellectuals and some political activists inside Iran and abroad
gladly received it. Yet, minor segments of the Movement considered it to
be a clear setback from the major initial demand of annulment of the
election. There were also modern religious thinkers who considered it as
the floor base of the Movement. They went further to conclude that
avoiding the demand for removal of Ahmadinejad from office has been due
to the heated environment following the bloody Ashura. However, in a
seemingly coordinated effort in abroad this group once more insisted on
the annulment of the election and removal of the coup government.
Indeed, even among the modern thinkers there are serious
differenciations on their view of the system of governance. There are
those who are definite seculars and those who still belive in the
Islamic Republic in its original form. Still, the uniformity of the
effort results from the dominant democratic view among the whole body of
the Movement suggesting that differences should be left to voting
ballots in a free referendum for people to choose. It is commonly agreed
among most, though, that the obvious strategy requires a well tuned view
of the realities of the situation. The foremost significant aim should
be to avoid massive and brutal suppression of the Movement. Thus, the
figurative leadership of the Movement endeavors to play the scene in a
way which would create conflicting divisions amongst hardliners. This
approach stipulates the non-interference of the Supreme Leader and the
rule of law to be applied by the Parliament to remove the coup
government and the Judiciary Power to punish those responsible for the
inapprehensible violence against the people.
Another contradiction in the Movement comes from two different
perspectives on the essence of the Iranian society. Most of modern
religious thinkers take the Iranian Society to be essentially religious.
A society which consists of a definite majority of Shia Muslims. They
assume that the Movement’s aim should be to shift the absolutism of
Velayat Faqih to a conditional one. On the other hand, large segments of
the movement, despite being faithful Muslims or not, support a secular
democracy. They believe that the Islamic Republic will take away the
rest of religious remains among Iranian people.
But the main contradiction results from two various views over the
essence of the regime and the manner of transition toward democracy.
Some believe that this regime is an ideologue despotic regime which, if
necessary, would kill a million people to stay in power. It is suggeted
better for the Green Movement to accept this bitter reality and avoid
any violent confrontation. Instead the Movement should focus on
promotion of civil institutions, change the behavior of the regime, and
reform its repressive ways through a gradual and lengthy process. This
view rejects radicalization of the Movement and recommends success and
expedience over precision.
The other view puts forward that the regime is a totalitarian
dictatorship which has rejected any reform. It believes that the
mentality of the rulers do not in any manner match with that of the
people yet all the wealth of the nation is at their discretion. It
concludes there is no way that the establishment would risk the
opportunity by giving way to democratic reforms which would jeopardize
their seemingly firm position. This view advocates a more
confrontational approach for transition to a secular democracy by means
of a referendum.
But despite these contradictions, the significant common grounds of the
Green Movement rely on the internationally recognized human and civil
rights, social justice, application of national resources for the
betterment of the people, religious and minority rights, gender equality
in all aspects, non-discrimination, cooperation with all countries based
on mutual interests and respect, and peace and harmony for the whole
international community. |
|||||
|
|||||
Cyprus Center for European and
International Affairs Copyright © 2010. All rights reserved
|
|||||
Makedonitissis 46, 2417 Egkomi CYPRUS | P.O.Box 24005, 1700 CYPRUS t: +35722841600 | f: +35722357964 | cceia@unic.ac.cy | www.cceia.unic.ac.cy |