The power struggle in Iran
What do I think about the power struggle in Iran? What should the position of Iranians be regarding the current situation and the upcoming elections? Should they support the reformist camp?
Well, I really don't know at this point.
I understand that President Khatami and other so-called reformists were limited by the power of the Khamanehie and the non-elected Guardian council, but they had a massive backing of the people for nearly 8 years. They have practically done nothing, only playing games with the hardliners, perhaps to satisfy people and to pretend that they were slowly gaining grounds.
On the other hand, I personally am not sure if a sudden change of regime in Iran will be in the best interest of the country. Things are very complicated in Iran. A sudden change might satisfy my feeling against the anti-democratic regime of Iran, but it can result in a devastating chaos in the country that can result in further devastation. Because of this, I prefer to see step by step and gradual changes if they lead to a free and democratic Iran. But is it possible?
In the last few days, while the elections in Iran are fast approaching, the non-elected Guardian council has apparently decided to set the stage to severely weaken the so-called reformist camp by banning many of their candidates from running in the elections.
The question that I have been asking myself was whether I should care what is happening in this latest power struggle between the two camps and whether it matters at all who runs, and who gets elected in the elections.
In the last nearly eight years, reformists have had huge advantage over the hardliners in the parliament as they outnumbered the hardliners by the proportion of 2 to 1. Yet, they did not make any significant advancement of what the people elected them for and expected them to achieve.
Although I have to admit that the pressure on Iranian people has been reduced, one should evaluate it in a way to see whether it was worthwhile putting up with this regime for another seven-eight years to only achieve so little?
Then again, the question I ask myself is whether I want to see a revolution type overthrow of the entire current regime. Sounds good to me. But is it?
Unlike 1979 when there was a leadership (good or bad) for the peoples' movement, but Iran's political stage today is not equipped with such leadership. In order for a revolution type uprising to have some chances of success, united political leadership is essential. Otherwise, immediately after the fall of regime there will be chaos and anarchy in the country which can grow to an uncontrollable level.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of Iranians are now sick and tired of the regime and perhaps many of its "reformist-hardliner" games. This was shown in the last municipal elections which was held not long ago. In those elections, people demonstrated their dis-satisfaction with the reformist camp and its representative candidates by practically boycotting the elections. On the other hand, since the minority hardliners and their followers are better organized, they took advantage of this lack of peoples' participation in the elections, and elected their own people to power at municipal levels.
Iran still witnesses many of human right abuses against its citizens by the hardliners. But what have the reformers done to stop this? Practically, nothing. They are either not willing or are incapable of freeing many journalists including those of their own reformist camp out of the prisons. Also, although not as widespread as before, executions and occasional stonings are still happening in Iran and this is despite the government of Mr. Khatami's commitment to stop them. As a matter of fact, sometimes the hardliners decide to go ahead with execution or stoning of one or two, only to make a point that they are the ones who are in charge, and rightly so; they are in charge.
Having said all of this, it is a very tough call to say what should be done for the best result. On one hand, ignoring and not supporting the reformists in the upcoming elections, can result in complete holding of power by the hardliners with no hope for any change. On the other hand, helping the reformers get elected again, will not bring much hope to the people for significant improvements in many aspects of the life in Iran.
On one hand, complete gaining of the power by the hardliners can eventually result in more pressure on people that can lead to a violent and bloody uprising to topple the regime, and on the other hand, sending the reformists back in the parliament can serve the regime as a "pressure valve" in order to release the excessive pressure from the society before it explodes.
In my opinion, the first scenario cannot be beneficial in long run, as it relates to the lack of universally accepted leadership and the second scenario is not suitable either as it will only serve the regime to live longer.
But what to do? I honestly don't know but near future developments might provide a better answer to this quastion as the power struggle intensifies.
What do you think?
Well, I really don't know at this point.
I understand that President Khatami and other so-called reformists were limited by the power of the Khamanehie and the non-elected Guardian council, but they had a massive backing of the people for nearly 8 years. They have practically done nothing, only playing games with the hardliners, perhaps to satisfy people and to pretend that they were slowly gaining grounds.
On the other hand, I personally am not sure if a sudden change of regime in Iran will be in the best interest of the country. Things are very complicated in Iran. A sudden change might satisfy my feeling against the anti-democratic regime of Iran, but it can result in a devastating chaos in the country that can result in further devastation. Because of this, I prefer to see step by step and gradual changes if they lead to a free and democratic Iran. But is it possible?
In the last few days, while the elections in Iran are fast approaching, the non-elected Guardian council has apparently decided to set the stage to severely weaken the so-called reformist camp by banning many of their candidates from running in the elections.
The question that I have been asking myself was whether I should care what is happening in this latest power struggle between the two camps and whether it matters at all who runs, and who gets elected in the elections.
In the last nearly eight years, reformists have had huge advantage over the hardliners in the parliament as they outnumbered the hardliners by the proportion of 2 to 1. Yet, they did not make any significant advancement of what the people elected them for and expected them to achieve.
Although I have to admit that the pressure on Iranian people has been reduced, one should evaluate it in a way to see whether it was worthwhile putting up with this regime for another seven-eight years to only achieve so little?
Then again, the question I ask myself is whether I want to see a revolution type overthrow of the entire current regime. Sounds good to me. But is it?
Unlike 1979 when there was a leadership (good or bad) for the peoples' movement, but Iran's political stage today is not equipped with such leadership. In order for a revolution type uprising to have some chances of success, united political leadership is essential. Otherwise, immediately after the fall of regime there will be chaos and anarchy in the country which can grow to an uncontrollable level.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of Iranians are now sick and tired of the regime and perhaps many of its "reformist-hardliner" games. This was shown in the last municipal elections which was held not long ago. In those elections, people demonstrated their dis-satisfaction with the reformist camp and its representative candidates by practically boycotting the elections. On the other hand, since the minority hardliners and their followers are better organized, they took advantage of this lack of peoples' participation in the elections, and elected their own people to power at municipal levels.
Iran still witnesses many of human right abuses against its citizens by the hardliners. But what have the reformers done to stop this? Practically, nothing. They are either not willing or are incapable of freeing many journalists including those of their own reformist camp out of the prisons. Also, although not as widespread as before, executions and occasional stonings are still happening in Iran and this is despite the government of Mr. Khatami's commitment to stop them. As a matter of fact, sometimes the hardliners decide to go ahead with execution or stoning of one or two, only to make a point that they are the ones who are in charge, and rightly so; they are in charge.
Having said all of this, it is a very tough call to say what should be done for the best result. On one hand, ignoring and not supporting the reformists in the upcoming elections, can result in complete holding of power by the hardliners with no hope for any change. On the other hand, helping the reformers get elected again, will not bring much hope to the people for significant improvements in many aspects of the life in Iran.
On one hand, complete gaining of the power by the hardliners can eventually result in more pressure on people that can lead to a violent and bloody uprising to topple the regime, and on the other hand, sending the reformists back in the parliament can serve the regime as a "pressure valve" in order to release the excessive pressure from the society before it explodes.
In my opinion, the first scenario cannot be beneficial in long run, as it relates to the lack of universally accepted leadership and the second scenario is not suitable either as it will only serve the regime to live longer.
But what to do? I honestly don't know but near future developments might provide a better answer to this quastion as the power struggle intensifies.
What do you think?
posted by Faramin | 11:58 p.m.
<< Home