Open Menu
June 14, 2010
As necessary as sanctions may be in thwarting Iran’s nuclear programme, they are a secondary issue. Challenging the moral and political legitimacy of violence by the Iranian state against its own citizens ought to be the urgent priority of the international community. After enduring a year of extraordinary cruelty, solidarity with those struggling for democracy and human rights is every bit as critical as sanctions aimed at Iran’s rulers.
The Iranian presidential elections, which took place on June 12, 2009, changed the destiny of the Islamic Republic. The unprecedented protests that followed the elections presented serious challenges not only to the political credibility of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the president of Iran, but also to the moral status of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his legitimacy as the supreme leader of the Revolution.
The public anger and the ensuing infighting among the founding architects of the revolution have presented the most serious challenge to Iran’s clerical regime since it replaced the Shah in 1979. Those among the reformists who believed that the system allowed scope for reform found themselves face to face with an authoritarian structure that used extreme violence to ensure its political survival. Others who dared to speak out for their civic rights risked imprisonment, torture, rape and execution. The intensified crackdowns on journalists, intellectuals, students and women activists indicate just how determined the Iranian regime is to secure its political future.
Although it is true that the popular demonstrations did not bring an end to the Iranian regime, they have badly damaged its domestic and international legitimacy. Assuredly, the diminishing number of protesters in the streets of Teheran gives the impression that the protest movement is fading away and Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi are losing steam. These two opposition leaders will have to decide whether to keep going on or accept a humiliating deal with Mr Ahmadinejad’s government that would greatly diminish their moral and political statures. As for the Iranian authorities, the question is still whether the continuous crackdowns have succeeded in putting an end to the popular quest for democracy or, on the contrary, provoked a wider challenge to their rule.
These emerging power dynamics leave Iranian Green Movement dissidents with tough choices. If they continue insisting on exercising their lawful rights through non-violent demonstrations, they risk inviting further bloodshed by military and security forces seeking more power in the name of stability. If they put an end to their movement of civil disobedience because of the harsh repression over the past year, they might lose the attention and sympathy of the outside world.
What is certainly clear is that the Iranian political structure is facing a crisis of legitimacy. The current power holders have lost moral credibility by virtue of their cruelty and lies. By asserting the republican principle of popular sovereignty, the Green Movement has posed a counter-claim of legitimacy against the political theology of the absolute sovereignty of the Supreme Leader.
Continue reading Ramin Jahanbegloo’s article at bangkokpost.com.