Iran: The Green Movement in Transition (Rafat)

Ahmad Rafat writes for Gozaar:

If we consider the unrest and violence that followed the Tenth Presidential Elections of the Islamic Republic in 2009 the starting point of the Green Movement and the new wave of the Iranian people’s struggle for freedom, then this movement and wave have just entered their eleventh month.

The Latest from Iran (10 April): Look Over There!

The first anniversary of any movement is a propitious moment in which to take stock of what that movement has accomplished and what lies ahead of it. Perhaps it is necessary first to ask what exactly was the trigger point of this outpouring of the people’s obviously longstanding seething anger? Was the precise point of departure for this movement June 13, when the election results --- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election to a second term as president --- were announced?


There is no doubt that what is now known as the Green Movement came about as a result of the dismal record of the 31-year rule of the Islamic Republic, a regime that has not been able to meet the needs of the ethnically diverse citizenry of Iran in the political, economic, cultural, and social arenas. The social transformations of the last three decades, spanning growing urbanization, a growing number of the under-25 segment of the population, and active participation of women in the cultural, economic, and political spheres—have played a significant role in the birth of this movement.

These transformations have deepened the existing gender-based, social, economic, ethnic, and religious schisms and have brought about a deep schism between a society in search of modernism and the regressive and repressive regime that rules it. Of course, in this connection, the role played by the latest technological advances in communications cannot be ignored. Without the transformations brought about in people’s daily lives by the Internet and telecommunication satellites, perhaps a large movement with such content could not have been born.

Despite the expected ups and downs it has encountered in its path as well as the suppressive instruments at the disposal of the ruling regime, this almost virtually self-propelling movement, which reached its apogee in late May to late June 2009, has demonstrated a remarkable resilience and has had significant accomplishments in various arenas.

On the international level, one of this movement’s accomplishments is its pattern of building trust. In the course of its first six months, the Green Movement was successful in winning the support of public opinion but was not able to gain the trust of the governments and statesmen in the Western countries. However, in recent months we have witnessed the large-scale attention given to the Iranian people’s movement for freedom by such governments and statesmen, especially in Europe. We can consider the decision of the governments of Germany and Italy to limit their economic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as the decisions of the governments of France, Germany, and Italy to open their doors to the opponents of the Ahmadinejad government, as the starting point of a trend towards official recognition of the Green Movement and, beyond it, of the sources and forces of protest in Iran.

Clearly, this trend requires the Green Movement to take on new tasks and means that those who claim to be its leaders must shoulder new responsibilities. Given the various viewpoints that have existed within it from its beginning, the current movement for freedom inside Iran has been able to bring about political transformations that could potentially change this movement’s destiny in the coming months.

The Green Movement came into being in the months preceding the 2009 Presidential Elections with a plan to resurrect reformism, despite the fact that even then there were major differences between the platforms of Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi. The demands put forth by Mousavi lay within the realm of fundamentalism and reformism while Karroubi’s election platform had a more radical tone and content and was able to bring the opponents of the regime itself into the arena of the election struggle.

Following the election and the occurrence of violence at the hands of the regime’s leaders, Mousavi was forced to accept the stances of the reformists, but Karroubi acted outside the customary framework of the regime and the Constitution. Today, not even the most conservative segment of the Green Movement believes in the regime’s rhetoric and the possibility of effecting changes from within the existing constitutional framework.

If the freedom movement wishes to remain loyal to certain beliefs, such as negation of use of violence in any form and belief in progressive changes, it must remain --- structurally speaking --- as it stands now and, before it searches for more coherent leadership or organization or think tanks, it must take steps towards encouraging individual initiatives and towards strengthening the movement. If the slogan “Every soldier is a leader and every leader a soldier” --- which thus far, has been able to guarantee the pluralism of this movement --- changes, this will result in the movement’s disintegration.

Not negating and formally recognizing the existence of different viewpoints and actual differences within the movement as it stands now may be the way to guarantee the movement’s survival. Embracing the principle that meaningful change will take place only in phases and through the use of democratic instruments such as elections, referenda, and plebiscites is another of this movement’s features which must be emphasized in the coming months. Concurrently, it must be emphasized that even those who oppose the regime itself and demand fundamental changes will have the right to participate in the free elections called for by Mousavi and Karroubi. The chasm between “insiders” and “outsiders,” for 31 years a distinguishing feature of the current regime, must be excised from the political vocabulary of Iran, both rhetorically and actually, forever.

If we were to put forth a list-like action plan for the future of the Green Movement, we could put the following at the top of that list: the wearing out of the increasingly insupportable regime and creating schisms among the regime’s supporters, in combination with concurrent efforts towards the establishment and strengthening of national solidarity.

Needless to say, the Green Movement has had other shortcomings, which it must rectify as it enters its second year. At the top of the list of shortcomings is the need for the geographic expansion of the Green Movement. The lack of participation in the Green Movement by residents of regions within Iran which include other --- that is, non-Persian --- ethnicities is one such shortcoming. If not properly addressed, lack of attention to the specific needs and demands of ethnic and religious minorities is another issue which could place countless roadblocks in the path of the movement. The Green Movement must make allowance for the participation in it of ethnic minorities a priority. Needless to say, these ethnic minorities’ political representatives must have a realistic view of this process and not expect to accomplish in one day what would normally take a century to accomplish.

Giving due attention to heretofore marginalized social classes must be on the Green Movement’s agenda too. Inattention to such marginalized elements and postponement of the demands of the various ethnicities and classes within society, alongside negligence towards foreign policy, have been two important reasons why the freedom movement did not expand more quickly last year. Geographic expansion of the Green Movement is the only way for it to address the existing asymmetry in the balance of power between the regime and the people and to change it to its own advantage.

Comments

[Barry]

I keep asking the question : Who is really in charge of things that happen in Iran?? Who controlled/instigated the fraud during the election?? The Government?. The Parliament?. SL? AN? SEPAH? The "Regime"?

The most significant this for me was the statement that SL made - basically, it went something like this- Oh well, all of the contestants for the Presidency are all quite good guys -- but Ahmadinejad is closer to me and I like him best, -- so he's the winner!!

Barry

[shangool]

Barry

I don`t think your question lends itself to an easy answer. It`s hard to say who`s in charge. Some argue that june 12. was a coup`d`etat by Sepah against the old clerical establishment ,Raffers and co and SL is caught in between. I`ve read that Mojtaba is behind it all, I`ve also read that Efandiar Mashai is the real power behind AN and they want to get rid of SL or merely make him a puppet.

I really don`t know.. my best guess would be that a faction wihin Sepah is now pulling the strings both for the Judicary and SL`s office. It will be interesting to see how the subsidy "fight" between majlis and government unfolds, maybe then we`ll have a better understanding of who`s with who and what`s what.

[afshin]

@ Barrt

I would say shangool has possibly given the best possible answer.

What the opposition is hoping for now? I think they are hoping to economically cripple the country even more, with more and more wages not being paid chances of strikes increase. This will however still need a massive turnout on the streets to gain trust.

[Catherine]

This is a demographic they'll have to focus on too:
“Silent Protesters” Fear Foreign Intervention

Many have not joined demonstrations for fear of getting worse regime.
Many Iranians who are sympathetic towards the opposition Green Movement hesitate to participate in the protests staged since last June’s disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because they fear the alternative could be worse.
http://www.mianeh.net/en/articles/?aid=294

[Kiterunner]

HELLO Guys,my new blog post:
What’s the benefit of imposing sanctions against Iran?
u can come to my blog n discuss this important question! i’m awaiting