Iran: In Defence of Mousavi's "5 Proposals"
Monday, January 4, 2010 at 6:53 
Babak Siavoshy of Georgetown University offers a guest comment for Enduring America:I disagree with much of the reaction against [Mir Hossein] Mousavi's five-part proposal to resolve the conflict, expressed in his 1 January statement. If I understand the five goals he sets forward correctly, they are as follows:
1. Government accountability
2. The legislation of new and clear election laws, including, presumably, laws that would give some measure of protection to reform-oriented candidates from vetting by the unelected branches
3. The release of all political prisoners
4. Freedom of the press and the media
5. The recognition of the right to associate and demonstrate
Iran: The Non-Violent “Watershed” of the Mousavi Statement (Shahryar)
Iran: A Gut Reaction to Mousavi’s “Martyrdom v. Compromise” Statement (Lucas)
Iran Document: Mousavi’s “5 Stages to Resolution” Statement (1 January)
The Latest from Iran (4 January): Watching and Debating
I find it hard to imagine a society that reached these five goals and at the same time failed to meet Western standards of democratic acceptability.
If it is possible to reach these five goals and still maintain the current theocratic structure -- which, clearly, is Mousavi's wish -- then why not? What is the problem with that? Would we object to velayat-e-faqih [clerical authority] and theocratic rule with the same vehemence if Iranian society was able to maintain relatively free elections, a free press, government accountability, and the right to associate? Isn't "democracy" largely a proxy for these goals?
I cannot help but feel that the radical nature of these five proposals has largely been lost in Mousavi and [Mehdi] Karroubi's uncharismatic delivery. These proposals delineate the rough outlines of a democracy. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is structurally impossible for the present regime to fully embody these five characteristics without fundamental change. The Constitution would have to be amended or reinterpreted. Entrenched leaders would have to forego their power. The Revolutionary Guard would have to give up their economic aspirations.
I think that whether or not he knows it, Mousavi is asking for fundamental change. But he is asking for it in a way that maximizes the possibility that the regime will capitulate. He thinks he can get some election reform. He thinks he can leverage some free-press initiatives. He thinks that he can get some protection for
political dissidents.
I do not know if he can. But I think his strategy is a good one. I think that if the current movement were able to leverage even a few of these proposals from the current regime, the Iranian democratic movement will be
one giant and anticlimactic step closer to victory. How long can an autocracy last with a free press? How long can an autocracy last with free elections, or the right to associate? I suspect that even mild gains
in these areas, if they could be sustained for longer than they were during the early Khatami [Mohammad Khatami, President 1997-2005] years, would have huge payoffs, facilitating internal change within the regime, and leading to a democratic system down the line.
Accept one proposition for me: that if the Green Movement evolves to an "all-or-nothing" movement -- radical change, or nothing at all -- it will end up with nothing at all. If you disagree, then stop reading. If you agree, then you know that the movement must pick its battles. It must pick the issues for which it will fight. Mousavi and Karroubi's five goals are a healthy start to this process.
Those who want a revolution for its own sake will be disappointed in a measured approach like the one offered by Mousavi. Those who see a revolution, or social change, as a proxy for government accountability,
democratic agency, and freedom of speech and association, should take this type of approach more seriously.
Reader Comments (9)
What the writer(Mr. Siavoshy) failed to notice in Mr. Mousavi's proposal is the clear offer of an Open-Ended implementation by the Regime of the said steps.
Can someone ask him to read the "Proposal" again?
And just in case you havent yet noticed it: The Greens have the Upper-Hand and not the other way around.
QUOTE : "I find it hard to imagine a society that reached these five goals and at the same time failed to meet Western standards of democratic acceptability.?
Well add to that these two points and you are pretty much there;
- Freedom of Religion
- Freedom of sexual prefrence (Gay/ Lesbian rights)
The other Items consist of some basic rights as well;
- Freedom of speech
- Freedom of the Press
- Freedom to vote in fair and free Elections
Finally he adds in Goverment accountabilty, that to me sounds pretty much like a brand new Iran right there... defintly one I sign for.
The Fact that mousavi is not demanding all things at once is nothing but natural. He is showing his willingness to negotiate and is putting the ball in the other corner.
Any one of these 5 points is a major loss for the Regime and an end to it, he knows very well he will not get any of them implemented with cooperation of this regime. People in general are wanting to much to soon. This is a Marathon not a Sprint.
In assessing Mousavi's recent statement, I think one only needs to look to Mousavi himself to figure out what it all means.
One point that needs to be remembered (but is often not) in assessing Mousavi's words is not just the change he wants but *how* he wants it. To me, just by having read all 17 of Mousavi's statements in their entirety, there is no doubt that, to Mousavi, *how* change happens in Iran is more important than what change happens. More specifically, I don't think that we can read into Mousavi's absolute unwillingness to attack the basic structure of the Islamic Republic as an endorsement of the Islamic Republic. Mousavi hasn't tipped his hand one way or the other. But we know this about Mousavi's belief:
(1) As the author in this article suggests, Mousavi knows that demands like a free press and the right to assembly will cure -- in a much broader way -- the ills that currently plague Iran. See, for example, Mousavi St. # 11:
"[I]f you look closely, even a supervisory body like the Guardian Council is not far from the auspices of the people. Yes! In the constitution, the Guardian Council has been burdened with heavy responsibilities, such as overseeing the elections – [the Guardian Council is composed of] fallible humans who might fall into the trap of sin and wrongdoing and might be tempted by power. But in this same constitution, it clearly says that people are free to hold peaceful gatherings. If only this principle from our national covenant is enacted, be certain that no one in the ruling establishment will have the opportunity to misuse their power."
Is Mousavi's insistence on the Constitution because he thinks it gets everything right? This passage, also in St. #11, hints that Mousavi knows changes are needed, but thinks that the Constitution has the flexibility to make such changes (remember that the US Constitution once embraced slavery!)
"Indeed! There have been solutions proposed in the constitution to manage certain affairs which may one day not be the answer to the needs of the country and of the world. But the path to reforming [such quandaries] has been predicted in this same constitution. In our national covenant, the legitimacy of all the pillars of the ruling system is based on the trust and vote of the people."
Why insist on the Constitution if it needs to be changed anyway? Because Mousavi is veteran of a revolution and knows that they are prone to extremism. By relying on the existing constitution, however, he believes that Iran can avoid extremism as it struggles again against dictatorship. See, for example, his St. for the 13th of Aban:
"What we can learn from this is to avoid extremism ourselves. Sooner or later — and, with the help of God, sooner — those who stand against the people will leave. On that day, will only a ruined country remain for the nation? What we must be worried about today is the interests of our country and except for its rightful owners, no one else will be occupied with this. Building tomorrow must begin today. We must be so prepared that if tomorrow suddenly presents itself, we will not be taken by surprise. Each of us must feel the great responsibility that rests on our shoulders.
Our constant demand for the constitution to be carried out is a key solution to building the future. With such an approach, we will have a light to guide us in the dark, and we will not be stepping on the struggles of generations past. Whatever remains in our hearts and desires [that is not in the constitution], we will strive for in our life because formal structures do not reflect, for the most part, the greater realities that exist in society."
I have heard a lot of people attack Mousavi for his supposed cautiousness, but I have not seen anyone challenge the intellectual framework that leads to his strategy.
Great article and great responses. I think those of this site's commenters such as angie and Megan (just as examples) who want to see a revolution in the offing need to take off their rose (or velvet) colored glasses and look at the reality in Iran.
what gives me so much hope and fills me with pride and optimism for the future is that the vast majority of the Greens inside iran understand exactly what this analysis is trying to get at... which is that the people in Iran will still have to live there after all this is done... where as those of us sitting in our cushy chairs next to our fireplaces sipping wine will go back to our daily lives in the West after all this is over with.
what Mousavi understands is that there is indeed a future after the Green movement succeeds... and THAT is what concerns him.
thank you for the commentary and for the responses.
@An Activist Green Lurker
You make an excellent point there, and it is especially true when it comes to the expats that have been out of Iran for more than 20 years. In fact any one who has probably left between 1979 and 1999 has lost touch with reality in Iran. They live with their fantasy of their shahanshah in a never ever land. We can not go back in a flash and blink to the days of 1979 with our Vali Ahd presiding over us. Once the Vali Faghih is gone what next?
Well certainly we have to slowly but surely change, and a process that will execute on that desire for change and deliver results is what Iranians in Iran want, not another revolution.
To make westerners understand I guess everything has to be put in their own context. When Obama asked for a detente and asked for initiation of talks, he did not impose a deadline, however once the detente took and talks begin, then he started to set limits and time lines. In a sense, Mousavi has done the same, he has not imposed a deadline, for that is an ultimatum and it will immediately be rejected. He has put out an agenda. Once the agenda causes rifts in the system and causes the regime to weaken, cause fractions to splinter and cause the start of discussion around it and compromise, then he can impose his deadline. He can impose boundaries around each and every point and he can demand sequence of implementation (For example, government accountability has to happen in step with free elections, or else who are we accountable to, really?)
The Iranian people have created this bitter situation from their actions 30 years ago. Is it fair to expect 4 to 6 years to sort it out? And to follow in the footstep of the author, if you think it can be sorted out in anything less than 6 months stop reading.
It will take many years to sort out these issues and to enable people to attain those five points. The focus should be on making the structural and fundamental changes needed to enable the process to begin.
@ Afshin
I don't think the two points you raised are critical. In USA till 2003 it was illegal to be gay. There were federal sodomy laws that were not enforced. In Israel today pretty much no religion but Jewish is reserved, and in fact you could argue that there is a persecution against other religions.
Once you implement the first of the five points, it will lead to recognition of the rights of the people, and inevitability the last two points will follow. Dependent on the mood and stubbornness of the society sooner or later.
One last point, Iranian constitution does accommodate for the rights of other religions so long as the religion is a uni god and in the family of Islam, namely Zoroastrianism, Christian, Jewish religions are all allowed and recognized. It is not too hard to extend this to include many more religions such as Hindu and Budda. Before anyone complains, Bahai is not recognized, , but then again in Germany Scientology is not also recognized. Does that make Germany un democratic? No off course not. I have hope that over time when we stop fearing what we don't understand we will stop hating it, and can even recognize the rights of Bahai and of Gay / Lesbians in Iran. However today I fear that will be asking too much too soon. I feel ashamed but within the context of Iranian society, these are western battles. Iran has to fight its own battles to recognise the rights of all its citizens. Iran has to first learn to respect 50% of its population (women) before it can respect the minority such as Gay / Lesbian / Bahai.
The adminstration's response to Mousavi's five points speaks volumes: they have set teams to remove all the anti-Mousavi graffitti from around the city. Mousavi's five points are not about realizing the hopes and aims of the green revolution but of offering a suggestion to his hardliner colleagues of how to save themselves and their power base...and his along with it. It is a recommendation of one insider to ther insiders, not an advance of the green wave but a sellout. Mousavi is not and never has been a leader of green movement, even if he was for a while one of its heroes. The green revolution is not about reducing the IRI from a tightly restrictive totalitarian state to a mere moderately repsressive authoritarian regime, it is about independence, freedom, and an Iranian Republic with equality for all.
All credos to Mussawi and prayers for his success and for politicians of moderate opinions on both sides to create a genuine platform of national unity under the Islamic Republican Consitution. I believe the constitution of the Islamic Republic is on the whole a progressive constitution and the intentions of the authors was to ensure that a system was created with many checks and balances but unfortunately somewhere along the line things have gone wrong. But that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. All that needs changing is the bath water and of course anyone guilty of human rights violations in accordance with Iranian law should receive appropriate punishment. The civil rights movement in the US despite assasinations of their leaders, violence, bloodshed and repression did not ask for the dismantling of the State that had oppressed them or the discarding of the US Constitution which as someone mentioned above legalised slave ownership. The Islamic Republic's constitution is a human document and therefore subject to change in line with the aspirations of the society it governs whilst still keeping to the broad principles of Islam as preached by the Prophet and his family which was a message to create a humane and loving society exalted in piety and character as exemplified by the likes of the late Grand Ayatullah Montazeri and Ayatullah Sanei.
I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Mousavi, make no mistake, and when he says he is willing to die, I believe him. However, even he admits he is not "the" leader of the green movement or even a leader. His goals are different, and he knows it and openly acknowledges that there is a difference. His five points are not incompatible with what the masses in the streets and those who support them in the open and in secret want, but they don't go far enough.