April 29, 2018
By Fazel Gheibi
Earlier this year, a group of 15 prominent Iranian intellectuals called for a referendum to establish whether the Islamic Republic still enjoys the support of the majority of the people.
Sam Ghandchi, the managing editor of the U.S.- based IRANSCOPE.com, proposed a meeting between Prince Reza Pahlavi and Mrs.Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the People’s Mojahedin of Iran (MKO.) The hope is that this unlikely coalition might persuade the UN to broker talks between the Iranian regime and opposition groups.
Will the 40-year struggle for democracy and freedom culminate in power being handed over to one of these two groups? While Mrs. Rajavi’s MKO resembles the jihadist Daesh (ISIS), Prince Reza will most likely reinstate the same hereditary monarchy as his father, the late Mohammad Reza Shah.
Are Iranians destined never to experience real democracy? That may be the case, given the history of countries that have found themselves in a similar predicament. There is little difference between Iran and Egypt, where one military dictatorship replaced another. Egyptians have had to choose between military rule or the Muslim Brotherhood.
The hope of regime change in Iran stems from the social, political and economic crisis that has gripped the country, prompting many to believe that the Islamic Republic is disintegrating. Some even speculate that Western support for the opposition could hasten the regime’s demise.
Political wishful thinking notwithstanding, the totalitarian regime in Iran will never relinquish power voluntarily. From its inception nearly 40 years ago, the regime’s primary goal has been to spread Islam in the world and not to improve the lives of its citizens. The devastation of Berlin in the closing days of World War II was evidence of the extremes to which dictatorships go in an effort to protect themselves.
We must remind those who have been calling for a referendum that 98.2 percent of eligible voters cast their ballots in support of the Islamic Republic in the 1979 poll. Some later argued that the articles of the referendum were somewhat vague. After months of heated debate in the media, 75 percent of Iranians voted for the Islamic Republic Constitution later that year. Experience has shown that Iranians would most likely vote for another despotic regime in a referendum.
Have we made any attempt at establishing democracy in Iran in the past four decades? Why can’t Iranian intellectuals create the kind of democratic system that half of the globe enjoys? Politics is the Iranian pastime. We are arguably the most political people in the world.
Totalitarian regimes have always used intimidation and coercion to shore up public support. Hitler’s propaganda machine convinced the majority of the German people that they had to stop the “Jewish and Bolshevik conspiracy” that was about to take over the world. Similarly, many Iranians argue that the Islamic Republic is the only force that can stop “Western imperialism and Israeli aggression.”
Four decades of propaganda and ideological indoctrination have obstructed the path to democracy in Iran. The Islamic Republic has espoused ideas that are inherently undemocratic. Yet the opponents of the regime are convinced that lack of unity is the weakest point of the opposition forces. They hold the mistaken belief that they could topple the establishment if they joined forces.
Those who seek solidarity don’t realize that only totalitarian states can transform words into a social movement. Any unified front ultimately morphs into a self-fulfilling political entity that requires an absolute ruler. Hitler came to power with the slogan “one nation, one leader.” There have been many dictators in the past 70 years who have claimed to be the voice of the people. For an authoritarian system, unity means putting pressure on those groups that are not part of the regime’s inner sanctum. If unity among opposition forces cannot bring democracy to the country, then what can?
Do we have the right idea about democracy? Many people believe that free elections are the key to establishing democracy in a country. They argue that people decide their fate at the ballot boxes. French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (۱۷۱۲-۱۷۷۸) described the English public as “slaves who have placed their fates in the hands of the members of the Parliament.” At the time, England was the only democracy in Europe. The Islamic Republic has repeatedly violated the rights of those who oppose the regime. It has used elections to legitimize its authoritarian rule.
Nowhere in the world can we find an Islamic country with a democratic system of government. Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, and Indonesia ostensibly enjoy national unity and free elections. We fail to understand the true nature of democracy. Some societies discover these principles without difficulties. Others go from one despotic rule to another.
Rousseau is arguably the first person who articulated the fundamental principles of democracy. In his book “The Social Contract,” published in 1762, he identifies the “general will” (‘la volonté générale’) and not elections as the main pillar of democracy. The “general will” does not address the collective demands of individuals (‘la volonté de tous’) but rather the welfare of all of society. It must, therefore, be just, wise and cooperative. No power would be able to prevent such a nation from achieving its goals. Rousseau believed that such a society could do no wrong!
The “general will” can only be achieved by raising public awareness. Only then can a society gain greater insights into its historical identity and embark on a courageous path to finding its rightful place on the world stage. The nationalization of the oil industry by the Majlis (Iranian Parliament) in 1951 is an excellent example of “general will” at work. A learned and motivated society methodically and systematically demanded its inalienable rights. In Rousseau’s view, a society that inextricably fuses the “general will” with the “national will” evolves into an “identity democracy” or a “true democracy.” In other words, intellectuals in a society must correlate the need for a democratic system of government with the will of the people. The constitution then becomes an actual social contract. In Rousseau’s view, political parties must become active after the establishment of democracy and not before.
Democracies around the world are based, without exceptions, on the principles of the “social contract” and the “general will.” But the critics are quick to point out that a lower percentage of people take part in elections in democracies than do in dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. Although people would defend their democratic system of government, they don’t value votes so much.
After gaining its independence in 1947, India became the largest democracy in the world. It is astonishing that a developing country comprised of many ethnic, religious and racial groups was able to establish, develop and maintain a democratic system of government. We must attribute this success to the efforts of political leaders who didn’t want to replace British colonial rule with an authoritarian regime. They needed to demonstrate to the world that they could create and sustain a democratic government in India.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania have been able to establish, develop and maintain governing democratic systems through the will of their people. None of these three countries ever had a democratic government in the past. More than two million people formed a 600-kilometer human chain which connected the capitals of the three countries in August 1989.
A handful of Central and South American countries have also been able to establish democratic governments in the past 40 years. The two warring factions in El Salvador; the leftist guerrilla Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN); and the right-wing National Republican Alliance (ARENA) ceased hostilities after 11 years in 1992, and joined forces to establish democracy in the country. The FMLN has been governing El Salvador since it won the elections of 2009.
The examples mentioned above are excellent proof of Rousseau’s political argument. Through national reconciliation and the “general will,” even a developing country can achieve democracy. National reconciliation is the prerequisite to this process. An authoritarian regime uses any means including brutalizing its citizens to maintain power. But after the establishment of democracy, political and civic groups would resolve their differences peacefully and through discourse.
How can we achieve national reconciliation? Without a culture of forgiveness, a country cannot accomplish national reconciliation. That is arguably the reason why Christian nations can transform through national reconciliation, while Islamic states fail to establish democracy. The “general will” cannot succeed without wisdom, justice, and cooperation.
Some philosophers, including Karl Popper (Austrian-British, 1902-94) have warned that totalitarian regimes can exploit Rousseau’s political theories. Conversely, Rousseau’s principles of wisdom, justice, and cooperation could pave the way for establishing a lasting democracy.
Iranians have demonstrated their “general will” and national unity in recent history, most notably during the Constitutional Revolution (1905-11), during Reza Shah Pahlavi’s reforms, during the nationalization of the oil industry and during the 1979 Islamic Revolution. However, they have always moved one step forward and two steps back. We must, nevertheless, recognize the achievements of the Iranian nation, which have only been possible due to unwavering national will.
Before the Islamic Revolution, the national will was focused on removing the Shah, who had failed to establish democracy in the country. The movement was collective and just, yet lacked intelligence and wisdom. Iranian intellectuals were unable to transform democracy as a political idea into a popular social cause.
Iranians dislike theocratic rule less intensely than the culture of conflict and revenge which the clerics have instituted in the country. But we have historically preferred peace and forgiveness over hostility and retaliation. The rift between various political factions has sadly widened in the past four decades, mainly due to the widespread clerical influence on Iranian society and culture.
Many people are concerned that Iran might turn into another Syria. What they fail to recognize is that the foreign powers didn’t start the civil war in that country, but became involved in the conflict later. As with other countries in the Middle East, such as Libya and Iraq, Syria was not a homogenized nation but an amalgamation of various ethnic, religious and tribal groups artificially unified under authoritarian rule. Once the regime lost its grip over the country, multiple factions, including the nationalists, the liberals, the left and the Islamists, started fighting with each other. The Syrian conflict began shortly after the opposition groups formed the Syrian National Council in 2011. Subsequently, a foreign power provided financial and military support to one of the council members.
Under Pahlavi rule, the nation relied on its historical and cultural identity to avoid any tribal, ethnic, racial and religious conflicts. The Islamic Republic has, however, fueled racial, ethnic, and religious tensions which could lead to a civil war, not unlike the Syrian conflict. Will this be an inevitable outcome if the current trend continues? The vitriolic exchanges on social media between Iranian intellectuals and activists show how toxic the political climate has become. Many Iranians fear a military attack on the country. But we can say with high confidence that Iran would most likely disintegrate due to fierce disputes between multiple social and political groups.
Even after four decades, the opposition has yet to realize that a popular front can neither be engineered nor organized as a future movement. In the case of democracy, the majority of people organically evolve into informed citizens. Any attempt to form political factions would only undermine a popular movement. Intellectuals can fuel the “general will” and national reconciliation, but they are unable to predict a popular front. Those Iranians who advocate the establishment of parliamentary democracy must not falter in their determination. A nation can realize its “general will” despite political, social, ethnic, religious and tribal differences.
There are three main Iranian opposition groups: the monarchists (pro-constitution), the left, and those who revere the late Prime Minister Mossadegh (the Iranian National Front). Democracy is not the primary goal of the left, or of other groups, for that matter. What puzzles foreign political observers is the seemingly irreconcilable differences between the monarchists and the devotees of Mossadegh. The dispute between the late Shah and Mossadegh was no more intense than the one between Augusto Pinochet (1915-2006) and Salvador Allende (1908-1973). But years later the followers of the two Chilean leaders were able to put aside their differences and establish democracy in the country. Those who love Iran can achieve the same.
The reconciliation between the monarchists and the pro-Mossadegh group may not be a big deal given the large division which the Islamists have created within the Iranian society, but it could be the first positive step. Both the Shah and Mossaadegh worked hard in the service of their beloved country. We should honor these exceptional political and historical figures. They could serve as role models for others who wish to return Iran to its past glory.
