By Nader Hashemi
The trigger event that launched the Arab democratic uprisings of 2011 can be traced back to the small Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid. It was here that Muhammad Bouazizi, a poor street peddler, engaged in act of self-immolation after being humiliated and brutalized by a policewoman. His death sparked a series of democratic revolts that have swept across the Arab world, radically altering the political landscape and shaking the foundations of Middle Eastern authoritarian rule. An argument can be made, however, that Iran, not Tunisia, is the geographic home where the true origins of the “Arab Spring” are located.
In the summer of 2009, after a stolen presidential election, Iran’s pro-democracy Green Movement was born. It shook the Islamic Republic to its core and, according to a senior commander of the Revolutionary Guards, the movement posed a greater threat to regime stability and political order than Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran and the subsequent Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988).
The emergence of the Green Movement is nearly identical to recent protests in the Arab world, especially when measured by its core constituency, its fundamental grievances, its modus operandi and its political aspirations. Similar to Tunisia and Egypt, the birth of these movements and the street protests that ensued were both unprecedented and unexpected. These movements were leaderless and protests were organized by small groups of internet-savvy young people frustrated with their bleak economic prospects and rejecting their repressive political contexts. The protesters in the Iranian and Arab street were non-ideological in terms of political ideology; their core demands were simply for democracy and dignity and they were uniformly committed to a strategy of non-violent resistance. But why did the pro-democracy movement in Iran fail, despite its earlier manifestation, while similar movements in Tunisia and Egypt were successful?
There are no simple answers to this question. Each country has its own internal story and there are different social conditions that bolster authoritarianism in countries across the Middle East, notwithstanding the broad structural similarities that produced the current wave of pro-democracy movements. I would like to identify two ways in which the case of Iran is dissimilar to the Arab world, thus posing unique challenges for democrat forces moving forward.
Iranian democrats have to overcome two distinct ideological challenges that their counterparts in Tunisia and Egypt did not have to face. These challenges have allowed the Iranian regime to retain a level of support among a deeply loyal core constituency (about 20 percent), forcing the Green Movement to incorporate this reality into their struggle with Iran’s clerical oligarchy. I am referring specifically to the theme of “Islamic authenticity” and the theme of “anti-imperialism.”
The Islamic Republic claims to be the embodiment of Islamic purity on earth. In a religious society such as Iran, the regime manipulates popular sentiment, especially among the poor and the pious, through massive state propaganda, by arguing that the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, is God’s representative on earth. Rejecting his authority is portrayed as a moral sin and according to a leading clerical hawk, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, disobeying Khamenei is equivalent to “apostasy from God.” Thus, the use and manipulation of religion to preserve political power is a key weapon in the arsenal of the Iranian regime that it wields to retain power.
Secondly, there is the theme of anti-imperialism. The Islamic Republic claims to be the vanguard state opposing western imperialism in the region while supporting the rights of the oppressed Muslim masses. Within Iran, the regime claims to be champions of Iran’s territorial integrity and sovereignty who are protecting the country from the evil machinations of the Great Satan (USA) and the Little Satan (Israel), who are blamed for all of Iran’s political and economic problems. The Green Movement is subsequently portrayed by the Iranian regime as an agent of these foreign powers. While most of society rejects these claims, a small minority buys into this regime’s propaganda. Moreover, this argument has resonance internally, in part due to Iran’s troubled past with western powers (recall the 1953 CIA coup) and the current debate over the nuclear question that the regime portrays as American bullying of Iran.
In short, religious authenticity and anti-imperialism are two pillars that shape contemporary Muslim identity. They are powerful weapons that can influence public opinion. Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali could not utilize these themes to retain power for obvious reasons. Both men were military leaders with weak religious credentials who justified their rule in the name of secular Arab nationalism, not Islam. Moreover, their close alliance with the West implicated them in struggle against western intervention in the region.
The struggle for democracy in Iran is far from over. While the pre-conditions for democracy exist and recent events in the Arab world help shine a spotlight on all authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, it important to appreciate how each country in the region is unique. In the case of the Islamic Republic, the ideological challenges —while distinct — are certainly not insurmountable.
Nader Hashemi teaches Middle East and Islamic Politics at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver. He is the co-editor of “The People Reloaded: The Green Movement and the Struggle for Iran’s Future” (Melville House, 2011). This commentary is published by DAILY NEWS EGYPT in collaboration with bitterlemons-international.org
