« Original sin at Notre Dame | Xpostfactoid's Blog | Obama seizes the center on health care »

Mousavi's Paradise Lost: Khomeini's Republic


There is much to honor in Mousavi's statement issued today: his pledge never to hurt a countryman, his call for freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, rule of law.

And yet, he advances those principles in service of a delusion: that to uphold them is to return the revolution coopted by Ayatollah Khomeini to its pure origins, in which these principles flourished. From the start of his campaign, Mousavi has called for a restoration of the rule of law as established by the Islamic Republic. That is, for restoration of something that never was. Today, he laid out a vision of paradise lost, paradise to be regained:
30 years ago, in this country a revolution became victorious in the name of Islam, a revolution for freedom, a revolution for reviving the dignity of men, a revolution for truth and justice. In those times, especially when our enlightened Imam [Khomeini] was alive, large amount of lives and matters were invested to legitimize this foundation and many valuable achievements were attained. An unprecedented enlightenment captured our society, and our people reached a new life where they endured the hardest of hardships with a sweet taste. What this people gained was dignity and freedom and a gift of the life of the pure ones [i.e. 12 Imams of Shiites]. I am certain that those who have seen those days will not be satisfied with anything less. Had we as a people lost certain talents that we were unable to experience that early spirituality? I had come to say that that was not the case. It is not late yet, we are not far from that enlightened space yet.
The "enlightened Imam" would be the man who massacred tens of thousands of opponents and crushed all dissent, who prolonged ruinous war with Iraq for six fruitless years after turning back Iraq's initial territorial gains, and in that war sent teens and even preteens in waves of thousands to clear minefields with their bodies (the first Basiji, today's murderous militia); who imprisoned women in the hijab and generally set women's rights back fifty years: who murdered the leaders of the B'hai and made second-class citizens of the rest; who impoverished the country with his contempt for economic management; who united the people by demonizing the United States (against whom Iranians did have ample cause for resentment) and institutionalizing the murderous Antisemitism that now, adopted in full by Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, threatens the world's stability -- who in short, made Khamenei look like a piker when it comes to crushing human rights and subverting the Republican government Mousavi professes to value.

Mousavi casts his current rivals as destroyers of "Republicanism"and hence of the Revolution:
If the large volume of cheating and vote rigging, which has set fire to the hays of people's anger, is expressed as the evidence of fairness, the republican nature of the state will be killed and in practice, the ideology that Islam and Republicanism are incompatible will be proven. This outcome will make two groups happy: One, those who since the beginning of revolution stood against Imam and called the Islamic state a dictatorship of the elite who want to take people to heaven by force; and the other, those who in defending the human rights, consider religion and Islam against republicanism. Imam's fantastic art was to neutralize these dichotomies. I had come to focus on Imam's approach to neutralize the burgeoning magic of these.
He treasures the notion that Islam and Republicanism are compatible. Perhaps they are. But Khomenei united them in demonic form by modeling the Islamic Republic after Plato's Republic -- the oldest blueprint we have for totalitarianism. The Guardian Council that falsified the vote count last week was a real-world enfranchisement of Plato's ruling class of philosopher kings. Khomeini's republicanism like Plato's, is based in absolute faith in the absolute wisdom of an educated elite invested with absolute power.

His rewriting of the history of the Islamic Republic notwithstanding, Mousavi has committed himself to the human rights that Obama today cast as the universal law of humanity:
As I am looking at the scene, I see it set for advancing a new political agenda that spreads beyond the objective of installing [sic] an unwanted government. As a companion who has seen the beauties of your green wave, I will never allow any one's life endangered because of my actions. At the same time, I remain undeterred on my demand for annulling the election and demanding people's rights. Despite my limited abilities, I believe that your motivation and creativity can pursue your legitimate demands in new civil manners.

We advise the authorities, to calm down the streets. Based on article 27 of the constitution, not only provide space for peaceful protest, but also encourage such gatherings. The state TV should stop badmouthing and taking sides. Before voices turn into shouting, let them be heard in reasonable debates. Let the press criticize, and write the news as they happen. In one word, create a free space for people to express their agreements and disagreements. Let those who want, say "takbeer" and don't consider it opposition. It is clear that in this case, there won't be a need for security forces on the streets, and we won't have to face pictures and hear news that break the heart of anyone who loves the country and the revolution.
Leaders can be transformed by the contract forged with their followers in the crucible of events. Mousavi's pledges to institute the rule of law and respect human rights constitute a religious man's strongest oath to his people, made with the world listening, in mortal political combat with those whom he charges with trampling those rights. Let's hope that if by some miracle he does come into power he will work to fulfill these pledges, whatever his delusions about the blood-soaked Khomeinist past -- and his own role in it.

3 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

I think you are definitely right about the differences between Mousavi's speech when it comes to the revolution and what really happened then... However, living in a country not very far from being like Iran, I would say that Mousavi could not have done otherwise. You see, if he claims, at this particular moment of the reform campaign, that the revolution was a lie, and all that happened was that power moved from one dictator to another, it would give him serious disadvantages:

1- The current regime IS based on the revolution, this means that going against the revolution itself would give the regime a very clear alibi for making him public enemy no.1.

2- despite the current movement, a large number of Iranians have been deeply brainwashed since '79 by the extremists. This means that he will have to face a larger, much more outspoken public (since it will be backed by the government).

3- Although we see lots of people on the street, a lot of people do not question the revolution or khomeini. they just ask for a governmental reform. Mossavi would probably lose that part of his public if he was to go - at this moment - against khomeini.

On the other hand, I think, in order to get to the point you are talking about, Mossavi should first get on to overthrow Ahmadinejad, and most importantly Khamenei. This accomplished, it would then be the time to gradually re-educate the people about the truths of the revolution and its true consequences. At the same time, he should give the people their rights back, and reestablish human justice and freedoms. Working according to these politics, the people would feel the difference: the years of brainwashing would start to fade away, and the opinion about the revolution , khomeini, and all the repression would naturally change without anyone to blame for being behind that change!

Peace And Justice For All...
From Lebanon to the North and South and East and West!...

user-pic

eurybaric, I appreciate your insight into the political imperatives for Mousavi to speak as a loyal son of the Revolution. As he was one of the original cadre of leaders, I wonder what his personal beliefs about Khomeini's stewardship are. He has been in the reformist camp for many years, and I've read that as prime minister too he pushed for a less confrontational foreign policy.

user-pic

Xpost,

Thank you for actually describing Mousavi’s background and philosophy. I think this “revolution” in the streets is really about raw political power and government infighting. It seems to be a power play between several of the old guard: Rafsanjani and Mousavi against Khameini and Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad called out Rafsanjani on his corruption and nepotism (his power already declining), and so Rafsanjani came back with this “reform” movement pushing Mousavi to rile up protesters. Reformists seem to be those who’ll more likely do business with the US (more market oriented and modernist, less religious perhaps) but little else.

Khameini is right that the candidates and those behind them, like Rafsanjani, are not challenging the system of government and, in fact, just want to run it. When Mousavi is quoted about the “revolution” the press leaves ambiguous the fact that he’s referring to the 1979 Islamic Revolution not a nascent democratic one. It is fundamentally wrong for the US and Western media to try to make this something that it’s not (Solidarity, Democracy, Freedom!).

It’s a shame that Ahmadinejad was re-elected. I felt the same way here in 2004. But I wouldn’t have been right to call for overthrowing the government because of it. I’d like to see all the bums thrown out there and a secular democracy installed but that’s not my call, is it? Besides, seems to me, other countries like S.A. or Pakistan or Egypt or Israel are more in need of our attention than Iran in this and other regards.

This bumbling meddling in a sovereign country’s most basic internal affairs (election of their government) disguised as a call to democracy but with the goal to overturn an apparently popularly elected president is not only hypocritical; it is dangerously close to the kind of soft coup instigated by the US that removed Mosedegh, installed the Shah and ultimately ended with the Islamic Revolution and the Theocratic democracy we’re now trying to undermine.

From all appearances the election was clean and the demonstrations and confrontations planned long before the election. The Guardian Council has offered a recount but a complete re-vote is demanded instead. When has that ever happened? So, who is really thwarting democracy? Whose behavior should be criticized- those who are demonstrating (violently in some cases) against what is probably an honest election or government forces trying not to let it get out of hand (not to excuse government brutality either)?

Obama was right to stay out at first but has since made comments that will set back any renewed relations with Iran. I think demonstrations will calm down and the Most Sensationalist Media will quickly move on (those howling about democracy in Iran today will have forgotten about it in a week or two).

Leave a comment

Xpostfactoid

user-pic

Following: 2
Followers: 5

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address