Wednesday
Nov042009
Iran: Josh Shahryar on Fictions & Realities of "Revolution"
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 14:31
Iran: A Response to “What If the Green Movement Isn’t Ours?” (The Sequel)
Iran: A Response to an American Who Asks, “What if the Green Movement Isn’t ‘Ours’?
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
First of all, I must say that I admire and respect Roger Cohen. He has a been a vital asset for the international community in discerning truth from fiction when it came to the ongoing crisis in Iran. However, his recent article in The New York Times angered me not because it is ridiculously flawed – it is not – but because I did not expect Cohen to be so shallow in thought on protest and "revolution".
In his article, Cohen asks a question that confounded me:
Well, I respectfully beg to differ on the comparison between Eastern Europe and China. We do know: the respective outcomes of the movements in 1989 could not have been otherwise. For what Mr. Cohen fails to mention is that the political situations in China and Eastern Europe were worlds apart.
The Eastern Bloc, along with the USSR, was economically feeble, with rampant problems plaguing it for decades. The governments had lost trust to the point where 99% of the people of Poland voted for the anti-communist Solidarity party in the 1989 elections. At the same time, authoritarianism had waned considerably in the region.
Eastern Europe had been steadily opening up its approach to popular dissent among its citizens. Glasnost and perestroika, Gorbachev’s policies that radically opened up Soviet society, had been in effect for years. The USSR had relaxed its intervention in the internal affairs of Eastern European countries, and governments were more ready for peaceful negotiations than for massacres.
This was not the case in the People’s Republic of China in 1989. The country’s political elite had been strengthened by the West so that China could be used as a pawn against the USSR in the Cold War. Domestic policy was pretty much the same as it was under Chairman Mao.
Furthermore, the West was not really that interested in negotiations with the Chinese over human rights issues as they were in the case of Eastern Europe, and China’s government was not being pounded as much as its less fortunate Communist counterparts by internal problems. While the Eastern European economy had gone from relatively good to very bad, the Chinese economy had improved significantly since Mao’s disastrous utopian schemes.
These differences are the key to understanding why the 1989 revolutionary wave failed in China and succeeded in Eastern Europe. Yet, to go further and to arrive at the heart of Cohen's analysis and our discussion, both these revolutionary waves are inapplicable in the current Iranian situation. Unlike Eastern Europe, the Greens do not form an almost uniform majority of the populace, but unlike China, their numbers are much higher and they are distributed across the country more uniformly.
The position of the Iranian Government is neither absolutely safe nor absolutely vulnerable like Eastern Europe 1989. There is growing dissent among former members of the government and the elite's clerics. Finally, the Government’s policies on access to information are neither open like those during the Eastern European uprisings nor utterly closed like those in China. Although pro-Green media have been largely blacked out now, before the protests the anti-establishment faction of the population had relatively good access to news and analysis.
Given these circumstances, the best way to describe the situation in Iran is that of stalemate. The government cannot possibly attempt to repeat the Tiananmen Square suppression of 1989 because it could bring undesired results. It would alienate the already-raging opposition clerics, politicians within the government who are sympathetic to Greens, and supporters of the government within the population. This could prove disastrous.
The Greens, on the other hand, do not have a quick victory in sight. Even if Mir Hossein Mousavi marched his supporters and took over government buildings, the Revolutionary Guard would step in and massacre them. The idea that three million protesters are unstoppable because no one can halt millions is naïve.
There is an old fable in Persian: If 20 sparrows are perched on a tree and you shoot one, how many sparrows remain? The answer is none. You don’t have to kill a million people to scatter two million. You only need to kill a thousand or so, and the government of Iran seems to have the power to do so if it is pushed too far too soon.
So, for now, both sides are reluctant to escalate the situation further because neither is prepared or ready to strike a killer blow. Tomorrow’s 13 Aban protests throughout Iran will be yet another replay of strategies. The protesters will attempt to isolate the government further, and the government will attempt to emerge with minimal casualties inflicted upon the populace and minimal damage to its grip on power. Both sides will likely retire after the showdown to prepare for forthcoming rounds. Unlike China and Eastern Europe in 1989, we are in for a very long haul.
Iran: A Response to an American Who Asks, “What if the Green Movement Isn’t ‘Ours’?
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
First of all, I must say that I admire and respect Roger Cohen. He has a been a vital asset for the international community in discerning truth from fiction when it came to the ongoing crisis in Iran. However, his recent article in The New York Times angered me not because it is ridiculously flawed – it is not – but because I did not expect Cohen to be so shallow in thought on protest and "revolution".In his article, Cohen asks a question that confounded me:
In 1989, the revolutionary year, the Tiananmen Square massacre happened in Beijing and, five months later, the division of Europe ended with the fall of the Wall in Berlin. Could it have been otherwise? Might China have opened to greater democracy while European uprisings were shot down?
We cannot know any more than we know what lies on the road not taken or what a pregnant glance exchanged but never explored might have yielded.
Well, I respectfully beg to differ on the comparison between Eastern Europe and China. We do know: the respective outcomes of the movements in 1989 could not have been otherwise. For what Mr. Cohen fails to mention is that the political situations in China and Eastern Europe were worlds apart.
The Eastern Bloc, along with the USSR, was economically feeble, with rampant problems plaguing it for decades. The governments had lost trust to the point where 99% of the people of Poland voted for the anti-communist Solidarity party in the 1989 elections. At the same time, authoritarianism had waned considerably in the region.
Eastern Europe had been steadily opening up its approach to popular dissent among its citizens. Glasnost and perestroika, Gorbachev’s policies that radically opened up Soviet society, had been in effect for years. The USSR had relaxed its intervention in the internal affairs of Eastern European countries, and governments were more ready for peaceful negotiations than for massacres.
This was not the case in the People’s Republic of China in 1989. The country’s political elite had been strengthened by the West so that China could be used as a pawn against the USSR in the Cold War. Domestic policy was pretty much the same as it was under Chairman Mao.
Furthermore, the West was not really that interested in negotiations with the Chinese over human rights issues as they were in the case of Eastern Europe, and China’s government was not being pounded as much as its less fortunate Communist counterparts by internal problems. While the Eastern European economy had gone from relatively good to very bad, the Chinese economy had improved significantly since Mao’s disastrous utopian schemes.
These differences are the key to understanding why the 1989 revolutionary wave failed in China and succeeded in Eastern Europe. Yet, to go further and to arrive at the heart of Cohen's analysis and our discussion, both these revolutionary waves are inapplicable in the current Iranian situation. Unlike Eastern Europe, the Greens do not form an almost uniform majority of the populace, but unlike China, their numbers are much higher and they are distributed across the country more uniformly.
The position of the Iranian Government is neither absolutely safe nor absolutely vulnerable like Eastern Europe 1989. There is growing dissent among former members of the government and the elite's clerics. Finally, the Government’s policies on access to information are neither open like those during the Eastern European uprisings nor utterly closed like those in China. Although pro-Green media have been largely blacked out now, before the protests the anti-establishment faction of the population had relatively good access to news and analysis.
Given these circumstances, the best way to describe the situation in Iran is that of stalemate. The government cannot possibly attempt to repeat the Tiananmen Square suppression of 1989 because it could bring undesired results. It would alienate the already-raging opposition clerics, politicians within the government who are sympathetic to Greens, and supporters of the government within the population. This could prove disastrous.
The Greens, on the other hand, do not have a quick victory in sight. Even if Mir Hossein Mousavi marched his supporters and took over government buildings, the Revolutionary Guard would step in and massacre them. The idea that three million protesters are unstoppable because no one can halt millions is naïve.
There is an old fable in Persian: If 20 sparrows are perched on a tree and you shoot one, how many sparrows remain? The answer is none. You don’t have to kill a million people to scatter two million. You only need to kill a thousand or so, and the government of Iran seems to have the power to do so if it is pushed too far too soon.
So, for now, both sides are reluctant to escalate the situation further because neither is prepared or ready to strike a killer blow. Tomorrow’s 13 Aban protests throughout Iran will be yet another replay of strategies. The protesters will attempt to isolate the government further, and the government will attempt to emerge with minimal casualties inflicted upon the populace and minimal damage to its grip on power. Both sides will likely retire after the showdown to prepare for forthcoming rounds. Unlike China and Eastern Europe in 1989, we are in for a very long haul.
Reader Comments (10)
I can't say I understand the relative extent of the distinct groups in iranian society, so I accept I might be completly wrong, but...
I tend to see the iranian opposition as a reformist/revolutionary marriage of groups representative of urban middle class people, in a country where the middle class is still too weak to lead a national uprising.
So, as I watched some apparently unsuccesful invitations for the lower working class to join the revolutionary bus, a few months ago, I became skeptic about the outcome. What I see today is a stalemate between the IRGC and the reformist elements of the system, with the middle class following ( instead of leading ) the later. So, I'd say that as soon as the middle class gets involved with some other major social group and therefore gets strong enough to stop the country, the system will naturally fall, but not before. Indeed, it will probably take time.
You are very right to point out that Tiananmen and the Berlin Wall were very different circumstances and it wasn't mere chance that they turned out the way they did. Also your historical analysis is very accurate. However, I think that the Green movement is actually much closer to Eastern Europe 1989 than China 1989, and you underestimate their chances.
Iran's youth today are not China's of 1989. China in 1989 was barely climbing out of Mao's shadow (and the tens of millions he killed) and was almost entirely rural and a subsistence agrarian economy. The youth in the Tiananmen 1989 protests were mostly seeking more economic opportunity, which they eventually did end up getting.
In Iran 2009, the population is largely urbanized and the economy is more developed (although in many ways it has been in steady decline for the last 30 years). Further, as opposed to Tiananmen, the grievances of the Green movement in Iran, are much more specific (the outrage of the stolen election and uniting around the figure of Mousavi).
Most importantly however, the Iranian youth are exposed to the outside world in a way that the Chinese were not. The expatriate community and the internet have led Iran's youth to expectations of freedom of expression that were not even in the comprehension of the Chinese in 1989, also the Greens have the ability to communicate to each other and the outside world (you are the media!) that goes far beyond even Eastern Europe 1989.
Further, I think your assumption that the Revolutionary Guards would kill all of the students in a "sacking government buildings" scenario is mistaken. I think the rank and file of the conventional Army and Revolutionary guards are very conflicted about all this to say the least, and that is why Khamenei hasn't pulled out all of the stops. Khamenei is also in a tough spot regarding international support, although I think that unfortunately high oil prices bail him out in that regard.
This is not to say that the Green movement is on the verge of taking over the government (if that's even their goal). I am just making the case that this case is much closer to Eastern Europe 1989 than it is to Tiananmen Square.
I'd also like to note the persistent and widespread nature of the Green protests, as opposed to either Tiananmen or Eastern Europe. As we see from all of the video clips today (EA didn't even get the half of them) the Green movement does not seem to be dependent upon centralized protests. There's no square that the government can clear that will guarantee an end to these protests. The protests pop up daily in every university and apparently among some laborers too, Leaders of political and religious organizations as well as top Ayatollah's make statements of protest daily, and this has been going on for over 4 months already. The political climate seems to have changed drastically over the past 4 months... from students shaking while questioning government policy 4 months ago to a student damning the regime right to Khamenei's face.
Niteowl
I agree with some things that you say but I think Cohen doesn't disagree with what you think. He is in fact, appealing for a better leadership, that 'human' act, that did in fact change a peaceful event from being a massacre. (going through the berlin wall). He is somehow saying that great events often have as their source a small event.
I saw a very good doc again tonight on our French TV about the events from 1945 - 1990 in Germany and I can say that I saw many parallels with Iran. Of course they had Gorbechev, and they chanted 'gorbi, gorbi' during his vist, but Honeker was stubborn and it was touch and go whether the crowds would be gunned down or not. It really was the people, who despite their fears after the chinese massacre, just came out and pushed forward.
The story of that one guard is true and he talked about it himself in this film. He should have got a nobel prize. He refused orders and opened the gates. Otherwise the people would have gone crazy and would have been suffocated.
The parallels with Iran that struck me were the same slogans that they chanted 'down with tyranny, down with Stasi', we want freedom, freedom of medias, freedom of travel, we want democracy", they were the same chants !
I forgot to add : this was 20 years ago.. surely it's time that Iranians can have what they wanted. Its a minimum in today's world ..
The path Greens have taken is not a speedy high way, as most of you mentioned, but it's the most correct one. I have been watching campaign interviews before election, a lot of people felt offended and embarrassed by Ahamdinejad as president. So the main issue was not him anyone else but not him.
All that happened after election have changed their views, why since they're witnessing the system failing them in every which way. People are collecting evidence of 30 years of oppression, torture, rape and unjust execution. All the rumors are becoming the truth no one can deny, that's the achievements of the green. It's not just about getting their elected president into the office, it's about holding him and whoever taking any office responsible for their obligations. Iranian young people may have started this for some social liberty this regime denied them, but now they're questioning the whole system. Even Mousavi and Karoubi do the same, they question disobedience of constitution. They hold the regime from Supreme Leader down to MPs for breaking the law.
This have made people release there is no other way to take back the country.
At the same time the government is splitting into smaller and smaller fractions. The government With Ahmadinejad at the lead are showing their real face. Ahmadinejad is not even pretending he is not a dictator he's acting openly walks into the Parliament and demands control.
Don't underestimate the power of Iran, nothing in them is stronger than 200 years of desire for freedom. They forced Shah to leave in less than a year, they'll force this regime out as well. The longer time it take at this stage the safer is the success of the movement, simply because people need time to adjust to political freedom. Once we have been fulled by Khomeini and it cost us our identity, we need to get that back. We need to be allowed to call ourselves people of Iran instead of Muslims. We are a lot more than what the regime wants the west to believe.
I too am rather perplexed by the "interesting" if complex parallels being drawn here, of the caricatures of Berlin & Tianamen, both by Roger and then Josh. Ah, but they're good fun, the realm of "macro-history" -- the wondrous world of what if's.
About this "knowing" assertion of Cohen being "naive" bit, there is the question not just of what the Rev. Guards would have done, but just what the millions marching were for.... Far fewer marched in 1979 -- and they DID bring down a system, when the Shah's regular armed forces refused to fire on them. Of course, the Basiji & Guards (a far more complex organization than stereotyped in the west) know their 1979 history too -- and in part are worried not so much by 1989 parallels by by those of the decade before.....
And back to the question of what those protesting the results wanted, again, as with 1979, it could be said it was clear what they didn't want ("the dictator" -- then and now), but what did they actually want? Did they really want to bring on another round of violence, another revolutionary cataclysm? Or did they want that original revolution to live us to its republican/democratic ideals....
And oh let's have some more fun, who exactly speaks for the greens even today? The wall street journal neocons today would have us believe Makmalbaf. (rather than Mohajerani -- whom the Wash Post recently trashed because he didn't tell his WINEP hosts what they/we wanted to hear)?
So many on the outside (and not just neocons) would prefer Makmalbaf.... But how 'bout the greens on the inside? Hard to know for sure.
Not all of the greens want exactly the same thing. However, they have decided for now (probably smartly) to unite behind Mousavi, as his goals and methods are the most pragmatic. Also, the regime has made Mousavi a martyr in a way by victimizing him so obviously both by stealing the election and by attacking him and his supporters since.
I personally feel that at this point Mousavi needs to be a little more aggressive. Today showed that Greens can still mobilize, but the government's crackdown is about as brutal and unfair as it was before. Civil disobedience has been effectibe, but I don't know if the Green movement will be able to keep bringing people out into the streets if they stand by and watch as those same people are beaten, imprisoned, or killed.
Quoting Adam -- Most importantly however, the Iranian youth are exposed to the outside world in a way that the Chinese were not. The expatriate community and the internet have led Iran’s youth to expectations of freedom of expression that were not even in the comprehension of the Chinese in 1989, also the Greens have the ability to communicate to each other and the outside world (you are the media!) that goes far beyond even Eastern Europe 1989."
*******
True, and we should factor in the difficulties Iran -- and the Muslim world as a whole -- has had in coping with the challenges of globalization and modernity. The Muslim world has been caught up in a religous revival in the last 30 years. The result has been calls for the formation of Islamic states and Sharia Law. I think what lies at the core of the Greens and Iran's leadership is the fear of losing their cultural identity. That's what gives rise to things like the revolution of '79, extreme Islam and the fight against the wealthy, callous West -- the scapegoat. This is a very different situation compared to Eastern Europe in the 1980s.
Josh you know Iran better but:
The governments in Poland never lost trust of people because they never had a trust of people. The governments of Poland were imposed by Soviet Union after 1945 and they were never quite independent of Soviet Union.
Eastern Europe economy was weak, the China economy was also weak and the West never strengthened Chinese communist political elite during or after Mao Tze Tung.
Eastern Europe people never formed "almost uniform majority of the populace," that is a view of outsiders, like the outsiders view of Iranian people.
The position of Eastern Europe governments was not quite vulnerable, it couild go both ways and in fact it nearly went differently.
Sometimes people do not care about police, about army ( could attack people or it could not), about Russians with missiles standing at the Polish border, sometimes they have enough.
You do not have foreign army stationed in your territory, in Iran, like Poles had for 40 years..
And Iran, not unlike Poles, may have be in for a long hail. We waited to be free from outsiders' imposed communist government for 40 years, you may wait longer.
Adam
Persistent and and widespread nature of the Green protests, as opposed to either Tiananmen or Eastern Europe.? You must be joking aren't you? Do you really think that was is going on in Iran in so "exceptional"? You think that in Poland somebody just needed to clap their hands and - hey- here we have "Solidarnosc"? What you have in iran is nothing, it is that right now there is internet, twitter, cell phones and youtube. Poles did not have internet, twitter, cell phones and youtube. So think how much more difficult it has been for Poles without gadgets!.
****
And one more thing, there are two large differences between what happened in Poland in 1989 and what is happening now in Iran.
Iranians themselves throw out shah and imposed present government - perhaps it is different from what many Iranians wanted but it is Iranian made. Poles got government imposed from outside, it was not their government.
Iranian wanted theocratic government, poles had atheistic one. Iranians now want less theocracy, Poles wanted more religion.