The electoral coup and the subsequent uprising and suppression of the revolting voters in Iran have prompted all sorts of analyses in Western media from both the Right and the Left. The Right, mostly inspired by the neo-con ideology and reactionary perspectives, dreams of the re-creation of the Shah’s Iran, looks for pro-American/pro-Israeli allies among the disgruntled Iranian public, and seeks an Eastern European type velvet revolution. As there is very little substance to these analyses, they are hardly worth much critical review; and one cannot expect them to try to understand the complexities of Iranian politics and society.
As for the Left in the West, confusions abound. The progressive left, from the beginning openly supported the Iranian civil society movement. Znet, Campaign for Peace and democracy, Bullet, and some other media provided sound analysis to help others understand the complexities if the Iranian situation.
Some intellectuals signed petitions along with their Iranian counterparts, while others chose to remain silent. But disturbingly, like in the situations in Gaza or Lebanon, where Hamas and Hezbollah uncritically became champions of anti-imperialism, for some other people on the left, Ahmadinejad has become a champion because of his seemingly firm rhetoric against Israel and the US.
Based on a crude class analysis, he is also directly or indirectly praised by some for his supposed campaign against the rich and imagined support of the working poor. These analyses also undermine the genuine movement within the vibrant Iranian civil society, and denigrate their demands for democracy, and political and individual freedoms as middle class concerns, instigated by western propaganda (a view shared by Shamenei, Ahmadinejad and his supporters).
MRZine and Islamists
The most bizarre case is the online journal MRZine, the offshoot of Monthly Review, which in some instances even publicized the propaganda of the Basij (Islamic militia) hooligans and criminals.
The website has given ample room to pro-Islamist contributors; while they can hardly be considered to be on the left, their words are appreciated by the leftists editing the site. One writer claims that the battle in Iran is about “welfare reform and private property rights , and that Ahmadinejad “has enraged the managerial class , as he is “the least enthusiastic about neo-liberal reforms demanded by Iran’s corporate interests , and that he is under attack by “Iran’s fiscal conservative candidates . The author conveniently fails to mention that there are also much “corporate interests controlled by Ahmadinejad’s friends and allies in the Islamic Guard and his conservative cleric supporters, and that he has staunchly followed “privatization policies by handing over state holdings to his cronies.
During the 1979 revolution, the late Tudeh Party, under the direction of the Soviet Union, was unsuccessfully digging deep and looking hard for “non-capitalists among the Islamic regime’s elements to follow a “non-capitalist path and a “socialist orientation . Now it seems that MRZine magazine is beginning a new excavation for such a breed among Islamists, not understanding that all factions of the Islamic regime have always been staunch capitalists.
Azmi Bishara’s imagined Iran
In “Iran: An Alternative Reading , Israeli Arab politician and former Knesset member Azmi Bishara argues that Iran’s totalitarian system of government differs from other totalitarian systems in two definitive ways: Firstly, it has incorporated “such a high degree [of] constitutionally codified democratic competition in the ruling order and its ideology . Bishara does not explain however that these “competitions are just for the insider Islamists, and all others, including moderate Muslims or the wide spectrum of secular liberals and the left are excluded by the anti-democratic institutions within the regime.
The Second differentiation Bishara makes is that “. the official ideology that permeates institutions of government . is a real religion embraced by the vast majority of the people . He is right if he means the majority of Iranians are Muslim and Shia, but it is wrong to assume that all are religious and share the same obscurantist fundamentalist version as those in power. He also fails to recognize the existence of a large number of secular people in Iran, one of the highest percentages among Muslim-majority countries.
He praises “such tolerance of political diversity , “tolerance of criticism , and “peaceful rotation of authority in Iran.
One wonders if our prominent Palestinian politician is writing about an imaginary Iran, or the real one. Could it be that Bishara has not heard of the massacres of thousands of political prisoners, chain killings of intellectuals, and silencing of the most able and progressive voices in the country? Doesn’t he know that a non-elected 12-member conservative body (The Guardianship Council) only allows a few trusted individuals to run for President or the Parliament, and that the real ‘authority’, the Supreme Leader, does not rotate, and is selected by an all-Mullah Assembly of Experts for life? The unelected Leader leads the suppressive apparatuses of the state, and since 1993 has created his own “Special Guards of Velayat (NOPO) for quick suppressive operations.
So much for tolerance and democracy.
Bishara undermines the genuine massive reform movement and claims that “expectations regarding the power of the reform trend … were created by Western and non-Western media opposed to Ahmadinejad… . Had Bishara done his homework, he would have learned about the massive campaigns led by large number of women’s organizations, the youth, teachers and select groups of workers. He warns us of “elitism and “arrogant classist edge , and implicitly dismisses these movements of “middle class backgrounds and claims that these people are not the majority of young people but rather the majority of young people from a particular class . It is unclear on what basis he makes the assertion that most of the youth from poor sectors of the society support Ahmadinejad.
Saeed Rahnemais Professor of Political Science at York University, Canada.
Part II of this article will be published tomorrow, Wednesday Sept. 9, 2009.
