Josh's question and the "hundred Persian flowers"
Josh Marshall asks the following question:
How so?
The first thing that someone who has grown up in a democracy has to get clear is the difference between a lone dictator and a regime.
A regime, even with an unquestioned, charismatic leader such as Mao T'se Tung can live and even thrive without the charismatic leader, while when the lone dictator like Uganda's Idi Amin Dada or the Congo's Mobutu Sese Seko disappears so does his entire ruling apparatus.
Obviously Iran, whether qualified democracy or iron fisted autocracy, is a regime; one which has handily survived the death 20 years ago of its über-charismatic founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. A regime that lasts this long under successive leaders, of necessity has a complex, multi-layered, organization and a wide popular base.
In the case of Iran the regime's popular base is made up of the traditional peasants and urban poor and finds the body of its critics among the urban middle-classes: people who would have the education, money and the leisure time to enjoy freedom of speech, a more relaxed dress code and travel abroad.
How does the present situation re-enforce the regime?
The easiest example would be Mao T'se Tung's "Hundred Flowers" campaign, where he encouraged criticism of the party under the slogan;
Iran, certainly the regime, feels itself to be threatened by the USA and Israel and has every reason to feel so threatened: even a paranoiac can have enemies.
What they have done by encouraging a free and outspoken presidential campaign is to encourage any serious opposition to the status quo which might collaborate in any way with the west in time of war, to come forward and identify themselves. Now they will round them up or at least know exactly who to round up at a moment's notice in case Obama doesn't turn out to be quite so friendly as he'd like them to believe.
So yes, the regime is strengthened by all this dissent: all the rallies and the demonstrations have been filmed, the regime's dissenters have taken the bait and all Khomeini's successor, Khameni has to do is reel them in.
Bill Keller (editor of the whole operation) and Michael Slackman have a piece in Times arguing that Ahmadinejad and the hard line clerical establishment emerge from Friday's selection with a stronger hand than ever before. I'm curious whether others share that impression.In this case, the answer is probably yes.
How so?
The first thing that someone who has grown up in a democracy has to get clear is the difference between a lone dictator and a regime.
A regime, even with an unquestioned, charismatic leader such as Mao T'se Tung can live and even thrive without the charismatic leader, while when the lone dictator like Uganda's Idi Amin Dada or the Congo's Mobutu Sese Seko disappears so does his entire ruling apparatus.
Obviously Iran, whether qualified democracy or iron fisted autocracy, is a regime; one which has handily survived the death 20 years ago of its über-charismatic founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. A regime that lasts this long under successive leaders, of necessity has a complex, multi-layered, organization and a wide popular base.
In the case of Iran the regime's popular base is made up of the traditional peasants and urban poor and finds the body of its critics among the urban middle-classes: people who would have the education, money and the leisure time to enjoy freedom of speech, a more relaxed dress code and travel abroad.
How does the present situation re-enforce the regime?
The easiest example would be Mao T'se Tung's "Hundred Flowers" campaign, where he encouraged criticism of the party under the slogan;
"Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land."When the flowers had "bloomed", when the intellectuals had spoken their minds, Mao lowered the boom on them. This is how Wikipedia describes the result,
The result of the Hundred Flowers Campaign was the persecution of intellectuals, officials, students, artists and dissidents labeled "rightists" during the Anti-Rightist Movement that followed. During this time, over 550,000 people identified as "rightists" were humiliated, imprisoned, demoted or fired from their positions, sent to labor and re-education camps, tortured, or killed.That is what I imagine is happening or going to happen in Iran right now.
Iran, certainly the regime, feels itself to be threatened by the USA and Israel and has every reason to feel so threatened: even a paranoiac can have enemies.
What they have done by encouraging a free and outspoken presidential campaign is to encourage any serious opposition to the status quo which might collaborate in any way with the west in time of war, to come forward and identify themselves. Now they will round them up or at least know exactly who to round up at a moment's notice in case Obama doesn't turn out to be quite so friendly as he'd like them to believe.
So yes, the regime is strengthened by all this dissent: all the rallies and the demonstrations have been filmed, the regime's dissenters have taken the bait and all Khomeini's successor, Khameni has to do is reel them in.
Advertisement
Interesting comments, David. You might be right. But Khameini has now responded to Mousavi's request to the Guardian Council to set aside the election results by ordering a probe into the vote and the claims of fraud. Ahmadinejad and his militias might be somewhat more isolated within the established regime than your account suggests. Khameini is an Ahmadinejad supporter and had initially certified the results, but he can be removed by the Assembly of Experts. It would appear there is pressure on him from inside the regime.
June 15, 2009 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
They say that Khameini himself ordered the results cooked, I can just imagine the probe... on the order of Bush 2000.
June 15, 2009 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, but Khameini's power isn't at all unlimited. It is possible that he is now under extreme pressure from the forces around Rafsanjani in the Assembly of Experts and the Expediency Council, or from other senior clerics in the Guardian Council. It is clear that there were a lot of powerful figures in Iran who wanted Ahmadinejad gone.
I would also suggest that we don't know at this point who ordered what. It could have been Ahmadinejad himself and his loyalists in the interior ministry and the militias. The regime in Iran is a fairly complicated affair. Perhaps Ahmadinejad greatly overplayed his hand.
June 15, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You really think the clerics could execute a Stalin or Maoist purge in this present scenario, with the world crying out for accountability?
What about the power of modern communication technology, internet, cell phones, even radio, etc to place the struggle under an unprecedented level of scrutiny from the rest of the world?
This technological factor is in fact already redirecting the outcome of their crisis. The world is watching the streets of Teheran, and responsible governments are monitoring it.
June 15, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you believe them to be much more interested and influenced by western opinion then I do.
June 15, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if it's being influenced by the West as the communication possibilities of the technologies themselves. This is moot as long as the internet and cell coverage is closed down, of course. But Iran--especially the cities--is increasingly modern. They can't keep communication closed down forever, imho. Besides, who would have thought Twitter would be seen as important as it became in this case?
June 15, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have a really interesting point, here. Technology has forced more transparency--if Iran didn't care about western opinion, why would they call for a recount? Even if it's a fraudulent call for a recount, why would they bother?
June 15, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
People who know them well say the Persians play a very deep game. Other knowledgeable people say their mentality is a akin to the design of their carpets... go figure.
June 15, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are right then that's going to be a hell of a bouquet.
Interesting angle though.
June 15, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would let things play out a bit more before trying to predict which group is strengthened.
June 15, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very cynical -- unduly so I hope.
Whether or not Ahmadenijad as a populist authoritarian beloved by the 'proletariat' would have won a fair election, the fact is that the regime did not conduct a fair election. If you disrupt the oppositions means of communication no one is going to trust how you count the votes. It now has a credibility gap with some 38% of its population to the point that they believe that the election was stolen and are willing to risk their own lives to say so. The opportunity to have an excuse to kill a few intellectuals and politicians -- which hasn't been shown to have happened yet although people have been disappeared -- the one death reported seems to have occurred during an attack on a militia barracks - is an extremely small payoff for such a large price.
One indication that the regime may be seeking to take advantage of the situation to conduct a purge is the rumour that Rafsanjani had resigned his two posts. No one should believe this unless he so states from a position of safety.
Khameini may very well be playing for time and hoping that tempers cool but if he does not conduct a fair investigation there will be distrust from a large portion of the population for decades and if multiple killings occur there will be distrust for generations.
June 15, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
David, I am not sure I've come across many people in my life who are as unsinkably pessimistic as you. I'm not sure how you do it. And I certainly hope you're wrong. But at the moment, I don't know what to think about Iran and I fear you might be right.
June 15, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, I disagree...I think this weakens the regime seeing they are unable to stop the protests. Right now they are being faced down by the reformers and estimated millions of them. This is the biggest protest since the Revolution...and this time it is against those same revolutionaries. Things can change but right now I think the reformers have the upper hand and will continue to have it provided they don't back down. Which would be ceding a position of strength.
June 16, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting suppositions. I don't think the current demonstrations in Iran equate to the 'Hundred Flowers' campaign. While the Chinese dissidents were coaxed out, perhaps even genuinely at the beginning, and then 'suppressed' by the regime, the Iranian demonstrations seem to be more spontaneous. Hence the crackdown, to the extent it comes, will likely be less controlled than that with which the Chinese were able to orchestrate their clampdown. I suspect it will backfire on the Iranian 'regime', with a corresponding upswing in the general populace's support for the maligned dissidents.
June 16, 2009 4:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right now the question for me is if the disturbances in Iran are spreading beyond Tehran. How about Moussavi's home town for starters? If the protests begin to spread all over the country, then I will begin to think that this is all genuine, impossible to manipulate. At the moment all I really see is a battle between two Ayatollahs: Kameini and Rafsanjani using surrogates. At this point Kameini is ahead on points.
The best write-up of the whole thing that I have seen so far comes from the Asia Times.
What I do know for sure is that there are two stories here: 1.) What is actually happening in Iran and 2.) How it is being reported here.
What I see is that my point two is pushing Bibi Netanyahu and his version of a Palestinian "state" off the front pages.
It is a good thing to remember that while Iran, in reality, actually poses no threat to Israel's existence (Persians are not suicidal), a free, sovereign Palestinian state in "Judea and Samaria" does. or at least to Bibi's version of it. In my opinion most the furor over Iran in the western press can be explained by this simple fact. The whole "Iran is a threat to the world", is a massive red herring.
June 16, 2009 5:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your assessment of the fallout of the election and its' effect on Netanyahu's single sided 'two state' solution. I think it's difficult to accurately report what's happening in any country that has largely restricted foreign journalists from photographing and reporting within its' borders. From Al Jazeera:
The news as well as its' presentation takes on a distinct Kabuki-like quality. It may be some time before we hear reports from outside the metropolitan areas of the country. Thanks for the link to the article from the Asia Times on the players in Iran/decoding their actions.
June 16, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink