|
on 12-09-09
1- I am very honored that I had the opportunity to be a visiting fellow at the prestigious Saban center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. With the help of those who assisted me at the center, I was able to put together a paper based on the experience I gained while working in Iran. I want to thank Susan, Steve, Aisha, and Mehrun for their kind help and support.
The proposal I worked on is a short report about the ever existing clash between the radical and moderate Islamic schools in Iran. This clash has affected the individual, political, social, and cultural lives of the Iranian people since the 1979 revolution. Here I will briefly mention the different forms of this clash and then answer questions.
2- During my 22 years of practice as lawyer in IRI, a paradox formed in my mind. On the one hand, I was to defend my client in the Islamic courts based on radical Islamic codes and on the other hand, I was faced with a challenge between the two views of Islam: the radical Islam which was at odds with human rights principles and the moderate Islam that was closer to the human rights principles. There was and still remained a distinct and resonating voice within Iran that belongs to the challenge with which I was involved in a professional capacity for 22 years. The moderate Islamic scholars in Iran are continuously critiquing the violent and discriminatory laws, expressing that it is indeed possible to bring the laws closer to the fundamentals of human rights without having to take Islam completely out of the equation.
3- In the June 12th 2009 election, the clash of the two conflicting political views was not visible at first. The clash only became evident through the election. Excitedly, people supported one of the four candidates that had been selected by the radicals. Each candidate represented a different political and Islamic view: Ahmadinejad represented the fundamentalists (osoolgarayan), Mir Hossein Mousavi who was not really connected with the governmental reformists was a symbol of moderation, Mohsen Rezaee with a back ground in Sepah was going back and forth between the conservatives and moderate figures like Rafsanjani, and the reformist clergy Mehdi Karrubi. As evident there are no secular figures amongst the aforementioned four. Therefore, the crisis was a consequence of a clash between different Islamic political views. However, this does not mean that Iranians are not secular. In fact, a large number of Iranian people support the separation of religion from government but are not allowed to have representatives in the elections. It has been six months that prominent figure from both Islamic schools with the excuse of election and the support of their followers have openly confronted on another. In this confrontation, the radical and moderate interpretations of Islam are battling one another. People have openly taken sides of the radical and moderate interpretations. But what complicates the matter is that the seculars have also banded behind the moderate figures and so separating the proponents of regime change within the green movement from the supporters of regime reform has become increasingly difficult. This has complicated the Iranian situation even more.
4- The clash between moderate and radical Islam is not a new thing in Iranian modern history. At the beginning of the 20th century, the Iranian people were headed towards political participation under a parliamentary system. The emerging parliamentary system was soon confronted by the religious and traditional forces. A number of important Islamic sources of emulation supported the demand of the people for having a parliament according to moderate interpretation of Islam. However, other sources of emulation tried to prevent the formation of a parliament because, according to their belief, devising law was a right exclusive to God and human beings did not have that right, therefore, the parliament threatened the principles of Islam. This resulted in the clash which is the root of why Iran was not successful in obtaining a secular constitution even after the constitutional revolution of 1906 – 1911. The first constitution is a mixture of modernity and tradition in which parliament and election represent political modernity and yet the insistence on Islam and Shi’a creed being the official religion is a symbol of tradition.
5- In the aftermath of the Islamic revolution in 1979, the second constitution was written. The content of this constitution is extremely Islamic but the shaping of the political system within it is very similar to those of modern countries. There are three branches to the government and various elections. However, all elected institutions are under control of certain selected institutions. Since in practice the selected institutions are under complete control of radical Islamists, the demand of the Iranian people for democracy and human rights has always caused crisis. Since the war with Iraq happened almost immediately after the revolution and the atmosphere became very militarily within the country, the radicals were able to heavily crush the opponent with the excuse of combating the enemies. They managed to gain the monopoly on the important political, cultural, economical and military centers. Some people were heavily involved in the war and considered it the battle between Islam and heresy. They were rewarded monetarily and so became faithful to the radical Islamists and were always ready to show their support of the official policies when they were called upon. Even so, for almost two decades the conflicts within the governments were hidden from the people.
6- With the 1997 election of Khatami as president, the clash of the two Islamic views became very obvious and apparent. Iranian citizens got involved in the clash. During the eight years of Khatami’s presidency the Iranian civil movement was incepted. However, since 2005 and with the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, eradication all the growth and development gained in the area of civil society became state policy. Also the police was given permission to be ever present amongst the people and create an environment of fear.
7- On June 12 2009, a large number of Iranian people, no matter what political adherence they had, participated in the 10th presidential election. An overwhelming number of the voters, who had not participated in the prior election, cast their ballot with the hopes that Ahmadinejad will not be elected president. After the election results were announce, this group who opposed Ahmadinejad and is mostly comprised of young people, were angered and doubted the validity of the election results. This was when the two Islamic views, clearly and combatively, came into the arena again. Some radical Islamic figures named ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, issued fatwas stating that since the supreme leader has approved of Ahmadinejad, obedience to Ahmadinejad is like obedience to God. Some moderate Islamic figures such as ayatollah Montazeri announced that legitimacy will only be obtained through people’s approval and so the government does not have legitimacy. So the clash has now changed into the crisis of legitimacy. Based on Rafsanjani’s recent speech, it can be deduced that the high ranking regime officials are secretly looking for ways to contain the crisis within Ahmadinejad’s government so as to prevent the crisis from destroying the regime. Maybe they find a solution by marginalizing Ahmadinejad. Of course, this will only happen if Islamic radicals, including Ahmadinejad’s fellow fundamentalists, are convinced that the regime is in mortal peril. It seems that the regime is cracking from within and it is possible for some of the fundamentalists to approach the moderates to seek their help. In conclusion, the role of the religious scholars will be more pronounced in future transformations of Iran, even in movements that are based on secularism and equality of all citizens.
|
