Lessons for the Iranian regime

Let me register my bias at the very outset. I do not like Mr Ahmadinejad. Why would that be? Because I believe that his comic strip approach to diplomacy has ruined all the good work done by Mr Khatemi and really damaged the international standing of his great nation. Iran is one of the foremost cradles of civilization and yet his denial of the recorded historic events the holocaust make undermine the historic contribution to the Iranian contribution to the Islamic culture and the world at large. Dragging the faith and his nation into useless, and at times damaging, point scoring debates has never done any good to anyone. So that’s that. But after having elaborated my personal predilections I want to add that my following criticism of the regime in Tehran has hardly anything to do with it. If anything I regard Mr Ahmadinejad a symptom not a cause of the ongoing crisis in his country.



If truth be told the Irani government and establishment are in a perpetual state of denial about the nature of change. The Iranian revolution as we all know had to major aspects about it. The first and quite often forgotten was republican in nature and came essentially in reaction to the oppression of the elite. The second as we all well remember was its religious bent. Now it is my theory, and forgive me if you do not agree, that the republican revolution was capitalized by the religious class, since being spontaneous there was no secular voice in place against the monarchy at the top. Hence the religious outlook at best was circumstancial at best.
I do not want to ask whether it was a wise move to replace monarchy with a oligarchy. Bureaucracies the world over have the habit of becoming oppressive, corrupt and anti-democratic. The same happened in Iran but a nation exhausted by the revolution could not stand up again in a short span of time for their rights. So they have endured the regime’s wayward ways. However it is plain now that the religious interpretation of the revolution has failed to delivered. What is use of liberating people if you have enslave them again with another repressive regime?
But if the regime has not understood it for so long, my mutterings will not convince it of its flawed perspective. What I want it to understand is that today it is fighting a losing battle. Oppressing its own people will neither bear any results not end the omnipresent desire of the Iranian people for more say in their own lives. The regime has quite erroneously tried to either whip up conspiracy theories blaming foreign powers in destablization or else has claimed that the protestors are in minority. If it really is convinced about its popularity then it should call for fresh and more transparent elections. But it will not. So there you go.
When it is not popular it can only keep denying the popularity of the protestors. And if Pakistan’s Musharraf is any example no matter even if the regime inhales its own propaganda and thinks it is winning it is bound to fail very soon. Technology has given an ordinary citizen so much power that he can express himself without much problem. When citizens look around in the world the examples of oppressive regimes they have a heart and vow to struggle untiringly. The regime’s stupidity has already provided the protestors early martyrs. Neda’s death has become a symbol and a rallying point. Iran is not Pakistan. In my country people have been oppressed for so long that they have become fatalist. Iran already has the provoking example of scrapping an established monarchy. If Pakistanis have gotten rid of Musharraf, Iran’s people can really have confidence in themselves.
But here is the catch the regime can prolong its defeat and seal its own fate by not throwing the towel. However it has the potential of tribalizing and eroding the state apparatus. Change comes in two varieties. First reform. If the way of reform is blocked the situation transfers into a pressure cooker and the only course left is explosion in the shape of bloody revolution. The regime which in any case rules in the name of the people should realize that even for the sake of self preservation the only course open to it is of reform. Times have gone when you could deny people their civil liberties. Iran is a great nation and it deserves far better than a decaying theocracy. I do not understand how Iran and Pakistan can claim to be republics or democracies if they desire to be theocracies? Consider this: Islamic republic of Pakistan. Folks a country with a religious title is supposed to be a theocracy. No doubt religion is central to all our lives but state has nothing to do with it. Are we such weaklings that without taking the name of Islam we cannot be good Muslims? I think we are not weaklings. So there is no need to tattoo the name of Islam on forheads as long as there faith in our hearts. The sooner Iran and Pakistan understand it the better it is for them. Otherwise even the cause of Islam cannot be advanced with our contradictory examples.

 Print This Post