EGYPT
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
1979 all over again?
04-Feb-2011
Is the drama unraveling in Egypt today a sequel to the one that began in Iran in 1979?
This is the question of the hour. In article after article, interview after interview, the experts list their reasons why Egypt is following a script of its own. They reassure the audiences by pointing to everything that distinguishes the unfolding uprising from its regional predecessor. But what goes unmentioned is that Iran’s 1979 revolution appears decidedly theocratic only from the vantage point of thirty years. At the time, when religious and secular, villagers and urbanites, educated and illiterate, all equally angrily, were throwing their fists into the air and demanding the removal of the Shah, Iran’s future was as unknowable then as Egypt’s future is today.
And yet, I, too, believe that Egypt ought not to be compared with Iran. That the comparison is wrong needs no factual support beyond citing the sheer absurdity of it. It’s one made to assuage the anxieties of Westerners who would never make a similar comparison between Bastille Day and the English Revolution because the fact that the French and the British are two entirely different people would need no factual backing.
Still, today’s democratic forces in Cairo’s Tahrir Square can learn from the democratic forces in Tehran’s Azadi Square in 1978. Nations and their distinct histories are not interchangeable. But movements striving for common democratic goals have consistently exchanged the lessons of their struggles to inform and warn their comrades elsewhere against pitfalls. Here are some of the errors Iran’s democratic forces (to use the term loosely and generously) made in 1978, in the weeks leading to the fall of the Shah:
(1) They blindly embraced a union with the religious opposition, having been perfectly disarmed by them. When the Ayatollah said that he had no political ambitions, and that, once the Shah was gone, his only wish was to hunker down with a Koran at a seminary in Qom, everyone believed him. When he spoke against the violations of human rights in Shah’s prisons, the intellectuals called him their homegrown Gandhi brand. When he talked of gender equality and women’s rights, he was hailed unequivocally as if he’d been the heir to Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. In short, before its rise to power, the religious opposition, headed by the Ayatollah, told Iranians what they wished to hear and Iranians believed what they were told.
(2) The few who were smart enough not to believe the Ayatollah made the common mistake smart people often make — underestimating the intelligence of others. They were confident that they could outmaneuver the Ayatollah. The Western-educated, stylishly-suited secular leaders assumed themselves far too sophisticated to be outwitted by the plainly-dressed provincial clerics.
(3) They did not realize that keeping the movement peaceful and nonviolent was detrimental to keeping themselves relevant and credible. Once the army had opened fire and the first victims had fallen, the religious co-opted the movement. The seculars had no substantive plans for retaliation or political comeback in light of a military attack. But the shedding of blood was the cue for the religious to enter the stage and move into the spotlight. When it came to death, the religious had a full lexicon and complete repertoire of rituals to balance the strategic shortcomings of their secular counterparts. After all, death and all of its conceptual by-products, chiefly martyrdom, had historically been their proverbial bread and butter, the spring of their livelihood.
(4) They became overambitious and gave into globalistic hubris with the first small tactical victories. Freedom for Iranians, employment and education for the youth, or the implementation of civil liberties were no longer enough. Uncle Sam and his bastard child, Israel, had to also be uprooted. Once they shifted their focus from domestic issues, they had empowered the religious once again. Within months after the fall of the Shah, Iraq attacked Iran and the Ayatollah dragged the nation into a decade of destruction because, he argued, the quickest way to annihilating the world’s two greatest evils was through conquering Baghdad en route to Jerusalem. Tehran, and its residents, did not satisfy the grand agenda.
(5) They made concessions on issues that they had to remain uncompromising about. Instead of remaining wholly committed to the pursuit of their dreams, they made compromises and bought into piecemeal, gradual, interim dreams. To successfully overthrow the monarchy and protect against its return, women were told to defer their demands for equal rights. If attorneys questioned the mistreatment of the religious minorities, say the Bahai, they were accused of being unpatriotic at a time when the nation, a brand-new republic, was too tender to withstand criticism.
In short, the religious opposition was too smart to be outwitted by the secular. It made no claim to power until it had fully seized it — a quest fueled by bloodshed and extraterritorial ambitions. And it began its encroachment on the rights of the majority by first denying and encroaching upon the rights of the most marginal and vulnerable Iranians.
These are a few of the painful lessons of a movement that was derailed, a movement that is still ongoing. May they, in their own small way, help light the way of the Egyptians in their own struggle for freedom.
First published in worldaffairsjournal.org.
AUTHOR
Roya Hakkakian is a fellow at Yale University’s Whitney Humanities Center. She is a founding member of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center and serves on the board of Refugees International >>>
| Recently by Roya Hakakian | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| A Revolution On The Page | - | Jan 11, 2012 |
| To Cure Shame | 5 | Sep 27, 2011 |
| Assassins of the Turquoise Palace: Retelling of the Mykonos Assassinations | 3 | Sep 06, 2011 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Responses
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Feb 07, 2011 05:15 PM PSTFrom Stanford to Princeton we got some unimpressive professors.
Criminals are ruling Iran, no longer theocracy
by Siavash300 on Tue Feb 08, 2011 04:38 PM PSTThe criminals such as Ismall teq zan and other pimps and lampoons are in charge at present time in Iran. They dressed in civilian clothing with hidden knifes and daggers under their shirts and attacked people during uprising. Just by looking at the pictures and videos taken during uprising of our people last year, it clearly shows the present of this segment of our society. Esmalll teq zan is holding high position in law enforcement. He used to be a pimp and infamous for cutting people with knife.
Refer to my Blog on this site.
Irony
by vildemose on Mon Feb 07, 2011 12:26 PM PSTRichard Falk, The U.N. “Expert” On Palestine, On Iran And Khomeini 32 Years Ago in The New York Times
From Wikipedia:
“On February 16, 1979, two weeks after the return of Ruhollah Khomeini to Iran, Falk wrote an op-ed for the New York Times
That is how MB is portrayed by some of the leftists in the US:
Richard Falk, The U.N. “Expert” On Palestine, On Iran And Khomeini 32 Years Ago in The New York Times
From Wikipedia:
“On February 16, 1979, two weeks after the return of Ruhollah Khomeini to Iran, Falk wrote an op-ed for the New York Times “Trusting Khomeini”.
“Trusting Khomeini”. ….Arguing Khomeini was being judged unfairly, he concluded “the depiction of Khomeini as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false … To suppose that Ayatollah Khomeini is dissembling seems almost beyond belief. … Having created a new model of popular revolution based, for the most part, on nonviolent tactics, Iran may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane governance for a third-world country.”
Among the many examples of Khomeni’s supporters’ “nonviolent tactics” that had already taken place when Richard Falk wrote his Op/Ed was the setting on fire by Muslim fanatics in Abadan of the Rex Cinema in Abadan, the doors had been locked, and within which 450 people were burned alive.
My outlook on this is very
by vildemose on Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:40 AM PSTOf course, I don't know that it will work that way. No one knows what will happen and we won't until it has happened.
Another happy thought: Almost the entire Mideast followed Egypt's lead when they adopted the military strongman type of President for Life. If Egypt makes a successful orderly transition to democracy, other countries could well follow suit.
The optimist and the pessimist have an equal chance to be wrong,
alex
by shushtari on Sun Feb 06, 2011 08:11 AM PSTyou are absolutely right.
this filth only respects one thing ABSOLUTE FORCE.
they all have to be tried and exterminated for iran to be free.....sitting around and wishing these animals will somehow 'wake up' and be nice is ridiculous, and it's fallacy has been proven over the past 32 years.
they will all be hung from the chenars on pahlavi ave
Washington’s Secret
by vildemose on Sun Feb 06, 2011 08:00 AM PST
Washington’s Secret History with the Muslim Brotherhood//www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/feb/05/washingtons-secret-history-muslim-brotherhood/
Alexinflorida: Is that
by vildemose on Sat Feb 05, 2011 04:53 PM PSTAlexinflorida: Is that Zahra Bahrami's voice? Where was it taped?
No wonder they killed her so quick.
This sums up what the real Iran is Today
by AlexInFlorida on Sat Feb 05, 2011 04:45 PM PST//www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpguQIcQuVQ
A mother of two children, executed before the trial was completed or she had an opportunity to appeal. Otherwise known as death by torture. "Barbaric Animals" is another word for Irans "Muslim Regime Supporters". We the people don't want any of them.
Iraqi elections were deemed to be free and fair
by Shutruk on Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:00 PM PSTSorry. dear prophet of Khorasan, but the recent Iraqi elections were regarded as free and fair by the U.N despite the disqualification of Baathist candidates.
The Guardians council does not pick the candidates - it screens them.It does not decide who wins, the people do. *ANYONE* can run for office - even you. As I have repeatedly stated, 4600 candidates from over 20 political parties, ran in the last Majlis election for 290 seats. This included conservatives, reformists and independents.
The Baseej do not count the votes - election workers who are mostly teachers and civil servants - do that. Are you telling me that the Baseej counted Khatami's votes in 1997 and 2001 or that of the reformists in 1999 and 2000 and let them win? If so, what are you complaining about?
Shutur
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:42 AM PSTThe IR elections are like Egyptian or Iraqi. All the candidates and results are pre-approved. Specially in the past few years. Now you can keep repeating you statements. But that don't make it right.
The guardian council picks the "candidates". The Basiji pack the ballot boxes. That is not election in my book. Maybe you approve but just watch Iranians line up to get out. That is voting with their feet. Everyone knows IR elections are rigged.
Shutur
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:42 AM PSTThe IR elections are like Egyptian or Iraqi. All the candidates and results are pre-approved. Specially in the past few years. Now you can keep repeating you statements. But that don't make it right.
The guardian council picks the "candidates". The Basiji pack the ballot boxes. That is not election in my book. Maybe you approve but just watch Iranians line up to get out. That is voting with their feet. Everyone knows IR elections are rigged.
Read this and weep, veiled prophet and others
by Shutruk on Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:31 AM PST//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_legislative_e...
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_...
There have been 25 competitive nationwide elections since 1979, all of them attracting large turnouts, including the referendum for the creation of an Islamic Republic. I didn't hear you lot complain when reformists were winning like in 2000 but when they lose in 2009 you cry "fraud!"while offering no evidence whatsoever
Without the support of the people, the IRI would rapidly collapse. A preacher needs an audience to communicate with.
Shutur
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sat Feb 05, 2011 09:26 AM PSTKhomeini offered the seculars free and fair elections in 1980 for both the Presidency and Majlis. One by one, the communists, nationalists and marxists chose to quit the revolutionary project and go into self-imposed exile. It is their own fault.
Khomeini is rotting in hell right now. What about now? Mistakes of 32 years ago are not binding today. I don't care about that vote.That is why people get to vote every 2 or 4 or 5 or 6 years. No vote is binding forever. The votes then no matter what it was is no longer valid. We need new elections that are free and fair. People did not know what hell Islam really was. Now they realize the filth of Islam.
Anyway that generation is gone and with it their choices.
Time for Islam is up. At least in the civilized world. One way or other Islam is going and taking its followes with it. Good I say; the sooner the better!
USA is behind this!!
by Escape on Sat Feb 05, 2011 09:18 AM PSTFor sure! For sure! lol
"Khomeini offered the seculars free and fair elections"
by comrade on Sat Feb 05, 2011 03:23 AM PSTIt's a subjective remark. No one chose to be isolated. The 79 revolution was stolen from the Iranian people. Nothing to get over!
Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Get over 79!
by Shutruk on Sat Feb 05, 2011 02:51 AM PSTKhomeini offered the seculars free and fair elections in 1980 for both the Presidency and Majlis. One by one, the communists, nationalists and marxists chose to quit the revolutionary project and go into self-imposed exile. It is their own fault.
Khomeini had to dismiss Bani Sadr when it became clear he was leading the Iranian army into terrible defeats at the hands of the invading Iraqis - they were blowing up Iranian tanks stuck in the mud!
"In short, the
by Kaveh V on Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:20 PM PST"In short, the religious opposition was too smart to be outwitted by the secular"
Kindly, I would disagree. The religious opposition, in 1979 Iran, overwhelmed the seculars and all others, and were not (by any means) smarter than seculars.
While there are many differences between today's Egypt and 1979 Iran, there is one critical common denominator; population demography. The entire political spectrum of 1979 Iran (and likely today's Egypt) from the government supporters to all opposition groups, including all the Islamists, were a tiny fraction of the entire population. I guesstimate this at roughly 10% for both countries. The Islamist demagogues and criminals were far more effective in reaching out to the remaining, ignorant and uneducated, 90% for their own political agenda. The communication infrastructure in the form of Mosques and "Husseinieh" were already made available to them. We all know how after 1979, they gained access and control of all available media to bring out rural population (the remaining 90%) and use them as political asset, and later as soldiers of Islam in their war against Saddam. In short, the religious demagogues and criminals overwhelmed the seculars by sheer numbers of the uneducated and mostly rural population. And, of course, with terror.
So far, I have no reason to believe Egypt will be all that different, but with a different flavor. The 25% Islamic brotherhood (reported in US media) is already a significant portion of the opposition coalition. If they are only 25% of the total opposition, which itself maybe 10% of the entire population, they could quickly win the support of rural Egypt and overwhelm the entire political spectrum of Egypt as well. How they choose to behave internally, or on the world stage, remains to be seen, should they overwhelm all opposition.
Meanwhile, we'll see if and how the current government, and the military will contribute to the eventual outcome.
Vocabularism
by comrade on Sat Feb 05, 2011 01:59 AM PSTAn event is best described by the motivational force which brings it about and its immediate outcome. That's why the Great Revolution of 1979 should always be called as such.
Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Well said Vildemose, well said
by Bavafa on Fri Feb 04, 2011 06:06 PM PSTMehrdad
After 2009 revolt, the IRI
by vildemose on Fri Feb 04, 2011 05:56 PM PST
The militaristic and pseudo-religious regime feeds on the blood of its people. Though It’s was not the first time where violence is carried out against the Iranians. The difference was that when the regime became naked in the aftermath of fraudlent election of 2009. It's criminal and barbaric nature was exposed and lost all legitimacy in the eyes of the world. The elections in iran are nothing but a fraud to deceive and manipulte the masses designed to make them feel that they are in charge of their destiny. Nothing is more enslaving than the illusion of being free.--GoetheAfter 2009 revolt, the IRI should not even be called a theocracy but a raving made religio-militarisitic fascistic dictatorship.
Iran is a religious democracy, not a theocracy
by Shutruk on Fri Feb 04, 2011 04:56 PM PSTIt is ridiculous to say that Iran is a theocracy, run exclusively by the mullahs, when there have been no less than 25 nationwide elections, the last of which drew an 85% turnout - really amazing.
Articles 19-42 of the IRI's constitution enshrine the people's "bill of rights" and which guarantee their liberties and entitlements.
Iran is a republic governed according to Islamic principles and laws.
The best example of a modern theocracy would be Great Britain where the head of state is believed to be divinely appointed by God and where everyone is subject to the monarch's sovereignty.