(June 2009)
1. What is at stake today in Iranian domestic/internal politics?
Answer: Ever since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 there has been a great dichotomy at the heart of the Iranian society. Many people who took part in the revolution were looking for greater personal, political and social freedoms, greater democracy and more human rights. The slogans of the revolution were “freedom, independence, and social justice”. By freedom they meant freedom from political and religious control, by independence they meant less foreign interference in their country, and by social justice they meant a fairer distribution of wealth and reducing the gap between the rich and the poor.
Under the Shah, Iranians enjoyed a high level of economic wellbeing and greatly improved standards of living. There was free and comprehensive education for all up to university level. There was the beginning of a National Health Service, and social security schemes and National Insurance and unemployment benefits were introduced. There was almost full employment. People had a great deal of freedom in their personal lives. They were free to dress the way that they liked, to travel freely, to drink if they wished, to play music and dance, etc. Iranians did not require visas for visiting any European country, with the exception of Switzerland. However, what was missing was political freedom, and there was also a great deal of foreign, especially American, influence and interference in the country. Therefore, many people regarded the Shah Mohammad Reza as the lackey of the West and wanted to get rid of him.
While most people were united in wishing to get rid of the Shah’s government, very few of them had any idea of what they wished to replace it with. In order to achieve mass support, the educated and politicised groups enlisted the help of the mullahs to get mass support. This led to the emergence of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who had lived for 14 years in exile and who had led an anti-Shah campaign from his residence in Najaf in Iraq and who had a great deal of influence among the religious classes. The combination of the clerical support, the disgruntled businessmen, the educated classes, young people and women created an irresistible force that toppled the monarchic regime and forced the Shah to leave the country.
However, the aftermath of the revolution also gave the clerics too much power, and soon they managed to monopolise power and to put themselves in the highest posts in government. Shortly after the revolution, the mullahs ensured that they held the posts of president, they dominated the judiciary, very often the parliamentary speaker was a mullah, the mullahs even directly supervised the armed forces, the police and revolutionary guards. Consequently, they instituted a totalitarian clerical regime. The Iran-Iraq war that was instigated and supported by the West consolidated the position of the mullahs, as people had no option but to fall behind their rulers.
As a result, not only did the Iranian people fail to achieve their political rights and greater democracy, on the contrary, they even lost most of their social and personal freedoms that they had enjoyed under monarchy. In fact, the clerical regime proved to be more dictatorial and much more corrupt than the previous regime. As they presumed that they represented God and religion, their form of government was much harsher and more totalitarian than the Shah’s regime had ever been.
2. What are the desires of the opposition?
Answer: The opposition wishes to limit some of the powers of the clerics and implement some clauses of the constitution that have been totally neglected. According to the manifesto issued by the reformist presidential candidate Mir Hoseyn Musavi, the reformers wish to put an end to the power of the Guardian Council that selects the candidates that are allowed to run for presidential and parliamentary elections. They wish to have freedom of press, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. They wish to limit the power and influence of the clerics in various governmental and state institutions. They say that the military and the revolutionary guards should not interfere in politics and should not be in charge of major economic enterprises, as they are at present. They wish to cancel the results of the fraudulent presidential election held on 12 June 2009 and to hold free elections. They also demand that a large number of political prisoners who have been detained since the election must be freed and their rights and honour to be restored.
3. Is Iran a divided country?
Answer: Iranians tend to be very patriotic and all of them love their country and will fight for it when it is under threat. However, politically they are completely divided at present between the reformers and the hardliners. Probably about 20 per cent of the population are in favour of the clerical regime. They come mainly from traditional and deeply religious classes or are made up of those who have a stake in the system and have benefited from it. There are probably a similar number of people who are strongly opposed to the clerical regime and wish to get rid of it and to replace it with a secular democracy, with a separation between religion and state. The rest of the population is unhappy about the present situation, but wishes to reform the system rather than to get rid of it completely. Since the last presidential election, the division between the supporters and the opponents of the regime has grown wider, and both sides have become much more radicalised. If the authorities do not try to resolve the differences peacefully, there is a possibility of a great deal of chaos and violence in the future.
4. How can the country get out of this impasse?
Answer: The continuation of the present situation is not tenable. The alternative is either peaceful concessions by the regime to its more numerous opponents, or greater radicalisation leading to the violent collapse of the regime. The only way to get out of the present impasse is for the authorities to free the political prisoners, to call for new elections and to allow free and fair elections so that the will of the majority can prevail. Many institutions of the state, including the position of the Supreme Leader, the role of the Guardian Council, the involvement of the mullahs in power, the control of the judiciary by the clerics, etc, need to change before the majority of Iranians will be reconciled to the continuation of an Islamic system of government.
5. Is nuclear program related to this internal crisis?
Answer: President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s government tries to make the nuclear issue a rallying cause for uniting the nation. There is certainly a great deal of support for Iran’s access to peaceful nuclear energy, even among the reformers and the vast majority of Iranians. However, most Iranians believe that the policies of the present government have been too provocative and unwise and have made a difficult situation worse. As a result of adopting a very confrontational position, the government has undermined Iran’s case for access to uranium enrichment and to peaceful nuclear energy. While many reformers believe that it is Iran’s right to enrich uranium and to have an independent, peaceful nuclear programme, they do not believe that it takes precedence over everything else. They believe that the economic situation, political rights and freedoms, Iran’s national security and her relations with the rest of the world are of greater priority than nuclear energy.
6. How do you analyse Brazil’s position in defending the nuclear program?
Answer: I believe that Brazil is right to defend Iran’s access to peaceful nuclear energy. The fuss that is made in the West about Iran’s nuclear programme is very similar to the false accusations that were made about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion of that country. There is no evidence that Iran has moved towards the militarisation of its nuclear programme. Even Western leaders and Western intelligence organizations say that Iran still is a long way away even from producing a single nuclear bomb. The IAEA has consistently reported that all the declared nuclear material has been accounted for, and that they have seen no sign of diversion to military use. However, Western countries wish to maintain their own monopoly of nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons and would like to deny Iran her right to enrichment. One has to separate the domestic situation in Iran from Iran’s right as a signatory to the NPT to be able to enrich uranium. Therefore, Brazil’s defence of Iran’s nuclear programme is correct and laudable.
F Jahanpour 