It is almost impossible to predict what will happen in Iran next. Most learned commentators have been rightly cautious, waiting to see. Philosophers are too slow to keep up with current events; it takes us longer to digest. I do not wish to add to the flood of articles and posts on this matter by repeating more of the same. It seems to me that a particular angle has been neglected, worth emphasizing: The current protests signal the fundamental ideological bankruptcy of the Iranian regime.
Before elaborating on this bankruptcy, let me add two important caveats. First, it is not a given fact – yet – that the election was stolen. The jury is still out but of course we know that the jury itself is barely credible. But it is not entirely inconceivable that Ahmadinejad won the race. Imagine a populist president, who thrives on fear, who is overall under-educated, despised worldwide, supported by the religious right of his country, with policies that make little common sense, connected to the oil and military-industrial complex, one who openly defies and distrusts international institutions, such as the United Nations; a guy who likes to pass as an ordinary, non-elitist type of fellow. Could that kind of president be re-elected? Recent history sadly shows that it is possible. In my view, if it turns out that Ahmadinejad did win – and cheated only a little – then the protests are even more admirable. Iranians are (and would be) standing up for what is right. Nothing like 2004, no “what can you do about it, the guy was reelected after all.” Admittedly, all evidence does point to a stolen election, and I too believe it was. But let us not reduce the outrage to a procedural issue.
Second, the Western liberal discourse – and here I use liberal to include most conservatives – is extremely careful around Islam. Afraid of being labeled orientalist or neo-colonialist, many commentators tiptoe around Islam. Only the hate-driven conservatives attack Islam, but for a different reason. In this election, it would be a terrible mistake to think through this election in terms of Iranians’ attachment to an Islamic identity. Iran had a proud, secular democracy, before it was taken away in 1953 by the C.I.A. Iran’s political roots are far more complicated than they may appear and Islam is not the sole political symbol governing the nation’s mind. I would caution against the “over there” approach, as in people “over there” can’t get democracy or elections right. With leaders like Berlusconi, the Bush clan, the Thatchers and Reagans of the Western world, a touch of self-reflection and humility would not be unnecessary.
Above all, however, the current crisis in Iran signals the bankruptcy of the Iranian regime’s model, its version of radical political Islam. In its News Analysis, the New York Times immediately argued that the election “demonstrated that Mr. Ahmadinejad is the shrewd and ruthless front man for a clerical, military and political elite that is more unified and emboldened than at any time since the 1979 revolution.” On the contrary, the election signals genuine crisis for the regime and highlights deep fragmentations in the ruling class since the Revolution; it is less unified than ever before. And the lack of unity is not evident only because of the people in the streets. This regime has survived many waves of protests. By rigging the vote, at the eleventh hour, the ruling class revealed its own fragilities.
Read the rest of this entry »
