 |
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 2008, page 65 Waging Peace Iran: A Perspective From Within
IRAN’S FORMER Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Ebrahim Yazdi discussed “The Situation in Iran” at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC on April 3. Dr. Yazdi, who currently resides in Tehran, serves as secretary-general of the Freedom Movement of Iran (the country’s main reformist political group). Introducing the speaker, Michael Ryan, vice president of the Middle East Institute, noted that in the U.S. Iran has become an “obsessive interest” shrouded by mystery—a mystery that the discussion aimed to bring to light. Dr. Yazdi attributed the tensions within Iran between tradition and modernity to the “interwoven” nature of nationality and religion inside the Islamic Republic. While this has led to Iranian clerics and mullahs labeling democracy as anti-Islamic, Yazdi said, “intellectual Muslims...[as] the thinkers” do not believe democracy and Islam are incompatible. However, he added, linking democracy to the West has allowed the concept to be considered alien and therefore incompatible. Dr. Yazdi reflected that Iran is a unique case where a balance between the historically coordinated “king” and “clergy” has been broken. The clergy always wielded great power, he explained, but they did not rule directly, instead serving as the king’s access to the masses. According to Yazdi, the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi did not learn from history when he implemented the 1960 White Revolution—which the mullahs did not support. Mohammad Reza Shah went so far as to publicly slander the clergy, severing their relationship between ruler and clergy, as well as bolstering the anti-despotic movement in Iran. The mullahs retained “deep-rooted influence among the masses,” Yazdi stated, and helped propel the 1979 Islamic Revolution that led to theocratic rule. However, in Yazdi’s opinion the clergy “are not qualified [to] rule,” since they operate according to tradition and hereditary succession (helahfat). He described their rule as being outside “of the complexity in contemporary society,” yielding an “old and outdated system of governance” that fails to provide the cultural, social, political, and economic services Iranians badly need. This situation is “eroding” the theological connection to the masses, the former prime minister pointed out, especially among members of the “New Generation” (75 percent of Iran’s population is under the age of 30, and born after the Revolution), who are increasingly anti-religious and dissatisfied. With lessening public support, there is higher political oppression in Iran, he explained, citing as an example the disqualification of non-“principalist” (conservative) candidates in the recent Majlis (parliamentary) elections. The 1953 intervention of foreign powers in ousting Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh “suffocated democracy in Iran in an embryonic state,” Yazdi said. He emphasized that democracy in Iran today is a learning process that must develop organically through the acceptance of social pluralism, tolerance, and cooperation among the nation’s majority and minority groups. “U.S. policy in Iran is not helping the development of democracy,” he added. “It is counterproductive.” Explaining that “optimism is in my nature,” Dr. Yazdi concluded by noting that the “road to democracy for us inside Iran is not paved yet...[but will be through] patience, hard work, love, and perseverance.” —Nina Hamedani |
|||||
