With the anniversary of the June 12th election, 22 Khordad, right around the corner, there are several different debates about the unity of both the hardline government supporters, and the Iranian dissidents and the Green movement.
Let’s start with the Green Movement. Since its inception, the opposition to the government of Iran, often called the Green Movement, has been a plurality of ideology. In fact, a more nuanced examination of Iranian dissidents would show that the Green Movement is only a part of the population angry at the government of Iran. The Green Movement as we know it is the group of people who wanted a reformist candidate to win, yet even this is a post-election conception of the movement, as green was Mousavi’s campaign color before it was associated with the entire pro-reform ideology. Beyond that, however, many in the Green Movement are not really reformists (dedicated to fixing the government by electing a candidate who will fix it from the inside) but are really revolutionaries who want to dump the entire constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Beyond THAT there are secularists, there are anti-Islamists, there are those who believe that all religions are the source of the problems in the Middle East, and there are those who identify with the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI, also MEK, MKO), Islamist Marxists who do not share the vision for Iran that the revolutionaries in 1979 shared (in fact, they fought against the Shah during the Islamic Revolution AND sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war) . All of these elements, some in small ways and others in large, make up the opposition to the government that has been protesting since the election on June 12, 2009.
As you can see, it’s complicated. Not all of these groups get along, not all of them are represented by the most visible leaders (Mousavi, Karroubi, former president Khatami, ect.), and no one knows what a post IRI government would look like.
Inside the government of Iran, and even inside the hardliner camp represented by Ahmadinejad, there is a great deal of growing disunity as well. There are growing reports that many principlists are turning away from Ahmadinejad. Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani (similar to the Speaker of the House in the U.S. congress) acknowledged the disunity amongst the conservatives. All of this is coming at a time where the regime will likely be tested during the anniversary of the disputed (or rigged) June 12 election.
There was one event this week that divided both the opposition movement and the conservatives, the significance of which has been debated by experts. This past Friday, the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, Seyed Hassan Khomeini, was heckled off the podium by the hardline audience at the commemoration ceremony of his grandfather’s death. Hassan has been an outspoken critic of the government since last June, and some of the conservatives believe that he has disgraced the name of the Imam. However, as Dr. Scott Lucas points out, “how can a government which claims to take its ideals and principles from Imam Khomeini stand by while his descendant is forced to sit down and shut up by a group of unnamed hecklers?” At the same time, there is a debate amongst the Green Movement about whether or not Khomeini’s name and image should be worshiped or burned, as there are some who say that the current regime is a betrayal of the hope of the Islamic Revolution and others who claim that the entire constitution is flawed and needs to be annulled.
So what is the significance of all of this dissent and disunity, both within the conservatives and within the reformists?
As I said on Enduring America, I have my worries and questions about the state of the Green movement’s leadership at present. As the anniversary is upon us, the debate about whether the green movement should follow Mousavi and/or Karroubi has seemed to intensify on the blogosphere and on Twitter. But not there alone. I’ve recently received many emails condemning Mousavi, or praising Karroubi, or dismissing both of them as leaders. I’ve also encountered a lot of chatter about the reformist vs. revolutionary direction the Green movement should be heading.
However, these differences may be the result of a budding democracy, where plurality and debate (and ultimately compromise) are embraced, not dismissed or silenced. In many revolutions (the Russian revolution and the American revolution come to mind) there were debates about the nature and direction of the new government. In neither case did these differences get in the way of the success of the movement. In fact, ideological differences often fuel the development of parties and a healthy debate on issues, where as lack of plurality is often a sign of a DemINO (democracy-in-name-only), not that much different from what Iran already has in place. Plurality in the Green Movement is unlikely to interfere with the main goal, to ouster the hardliners from office, and if other political revolutions teach us anything, it is unlikely to come into play at all until that goal is nearing completion.
On the other hand, the conservatives in Iran have a lot to worry about. Many feel as though Ahmadinejad’s ruthlessness has held spawn the Green Movement. His vocal disdain for political parties has recently won him criticism from the the political director of the Iran Hezbollah Society, and some have even wondered if his militarization of Iranian society is ultimately a threat to the clerics. Dissident cleric Ayatollah Dastgheib said today that the only way out of this crisis is to get Mir Hossein Moussavi back into the political arena, and with the unity of the conservatives in question this becomes a more likely scenario than any other.
With the United States pursuing a policy of slow erosion of the regime, and fostering of a democratic movement there, change in Iran will likely be slow. However, as so many empires have proven throughout history, without popular support of the people, a strong economy, and loyalty within the government, it may take time, but change will come.
Posted in Featured, Foreign Policy, Iran, Media, Middle East, Politics
