فیلم تکراری؟

لزوم شفاف سازی مبارزات ماقبل انتخابات


Share/Save/Bookmark

فیلم تکراری؟
by Ahmad Sadri
08-Oct-2008
 

اینروزها که تنور انتخابات در حال گرم شدن است بسیاری در مورد کاندیداتوری رهبران نهضت اصلاحات سخن میگویند.  نوشتار های بسیار جالبی هم از دست مقالات آقایان جلائی پور و ملکیان در دعوت از آقای خاتمی به انتخابات نگاشته شده است که ویترین بسیار گویائی از فرهنگ سیاسی این دوران را تشکیل میدهند.  در این میان برخی از اصلاحطلبان هراس دارند که رقابت ماقبل انتخاباتی موجب شکستن رای شود و البته بسیاری از امکان عدم توافق نهائی و تقسیم رای نگرانند.  در مور گروه حاکم هم شایعات زیاد است و البته شایعه چیزی است که در خلاء خبر، مثل قارچ در تاریکی، تولید مثل میکند:"میگوئی احمدی نژاد پرچمدار محافظه کاران خواهد بود یا قالیباف یا لاریجانی و یا احیاناً کس دیگری! میگویند..."   در این شرایط عدم شفافیت است که صرف "خبر داشتن" در حلقه های مماس با قدرت، بجای اینکه مقدمه واجب هر گونه تحلیل باشد، به نوعی سرمایه اجتماعی تبدیل شده است.  خبر برای عموم نیست بلکه خاص خواص است و خبر دار بنا بر تعریف از ما بهتران است.  در حال حاضر سوال اینست که زعمای قوم چه کسانی را برای انتخابات نامزد خواهتد کرد حال آنکه سوال باید این باشد که مردم که را میخواهند.  

بنظر من یکی از نقائص قابل رفغ مردمسالاری در ایران عدم شفافیت مبارزات ماقبل انتخاباتی است.  محافظه کاران و اصلاحطلبان هردو از اصلاح فرایند های پیش انتخاباتی سود خواهند برد.  در حال حاضر انتخاب نامزد ها به صلاحدید نخبگان و قدرتمندان و ریش سفیدان در اطاقهای دربسته واگذار شده است.  مرحله پیش انتخاباتی ما در واقع بیشتر به یک الیگارشی می ماند تا یک دموکراسی.  آیا بهتر نیست دوره ای را رسماً برای انتخاب مرشحین هر طرف اختصاص دهیم تا در آن نامزدها ی شرکت در انتخابات درطرفین با رای مردم انتخاب شوند؟  این فرایند بار نظارت استصوابی را نیز از دوش نظام برخواهد داشت چه استصواب (که لازمه انتخابات است) نیز توسط مردم و حزب در چار چوب قانون اساسی انجام خواهد شد.  

قبل از انتخابات طرفداران اقلیت باید تعیین کنند که کدام نامزد از میانشان بهتر میتواند عملکرد اکثریت را تحت سوال ببرد و برای موضع سیاسی خود رای بیاورد، چه کسی میتواند سخن، خوب بگوید و سخنِ خوب بگوید.  اکثریت در قدرت هم همینطور: آنها هم باید به طریقی دریابند که میان همفکران خود اصلح برای دفاع از عملکرد حزب حاکم کیست.  البته اگر رئیس جمهوری در دوره اول خوب عمل کرده باشد طبعاً انتخاب او از طرف حزبش بسیار آسان خواهد بود ولی کسی که در دوره نخست ضعیف عمل کرده باشد قطعاً مورد چالش درونی قرار خواهد گرفت.  همینطور وقتی که شاغل پست سیاسی دو دوره را گذرانیده باشد باز تعیین جانشین او توسط حزبش مستلزم ارزیابی جدی درون حزبی خواهد بود.  مبارزات قبل از انتخابات مثل اردوی ورزشی قبل از مسابقات بین المللی، باعث آمادگی طرفین برای صحنه مبارزه واقعی نیز خواهد شد.  در جریان چنین فرایندی است که میتوان فهمید از میان واجدان شرایط کدام بیشتر مناسب رهبری یعنی هوشمند، متعهد، معتدل و فرهمند است.  

این تصحیح ساختاری میتواند یکی از مسائل سیاسی ما را هم که همان قحط الرجال باشد حل کند.  هرچند من خودرا از طرفداران کاندیداتوری آقای خاتمی میشمارم ولی لزومی نمیبینم که گزینه فقط بین ایشان و دو سه نفر دیگر باشد.  دلیلی ندارد که در یک نظام سالم همه اش بدنبال معمرینی که دو دوره رئیس جمهور بوده اند بدویم.   کجای دنیا برای پذیرش بالاترین مقام مملکت اینهمه خواهش و تقاضا از یکسو و ناز و کرشمه از سوی دیگر وجود دارد؟  تعارف در صرف چای و شیرینی و عبور از در ضرری ندارد ولی جای آن در سیاست نیست.  اگر ما مبارزات ماقبل انتخاباتی آزاد می داشتیم شیفتگان خدمت از جوان و دنیا دیده با کمال میل وارد گود میشدند و در راه کسب نامزدی حزب خود و مبارزه برای کسب قدرت و امکان خدمت پنجه در پنجه رقبا میانداختند.  اگر گزینه ها تنگ نمیبود دیگر لازم نمیشد که اینهمه به یکنفر رو بیاندازیم و التماس کنیم و او را به جد اطهرش قسم بدهیم و در محضور اخلاقی بگذاریم که رهبری را بپذیرد.  این همان فیلم تکراری دوره دوم آقای خاتمی است که نتایجش را هم دیدیم.  نامزد شدن یک قول است نه یک لطف.  کسی که نامزد مبارزات انتخاباتی میشود با مردم پیمان میبندد که که به آرمانهای تفکرسیاسی خاصی متعهد خواهد بود و در راه اعمال آنها حد اکثر سعی خود را خواهد نمود.  آنچه عملکرد یک کاندید را در دوران خدمتش تعیین میکند تنها مزایای اخلاقی او نیست.  نحوه نامزدی و تعهدهائی که شخصی برای رسیدن به مقام سیاسی کرده (یا نکرده) است  نیز در ایفای این نقش موثرند.  

خلاصه اینکه ما در ایران به یک تغییر اساسی در ساختار انتخاب نامزدها نیازمندیم و علت اصلی این نیاز هم شفاف سازی فرایند تعیین نامزدهاست.  اگر از من بخواهند که هدف جنبش اصلاحات در ایران را در یک کلمه خلاصه کنم خواهم گفت که در یک کلمه نمیتوانم ولی در دو کلمه هدف اصلاحات شفاف سازی است که تنها راه مبارزه با فساد است.  نورآفتاب که جهان را روشن میکند و موجب معرفت ما از دنیاست در آن واحد حیاتبخش و پاکساز هم هست. مبارزه با فساد به غروم غروم و بگیر و ببند نیست.  مبارزه با فساد یعنی شفاف سازی و شفاف سازی یعنی شب زدائی و شب زدائی یعنی اصلاحات.  کما اینکه ملای روم هم میگوید: "روز خفاشک نیارستی پرید --  شب برون آمد چو دزدان و چرید."  واما جوهره شفاف سازی، و در واقع هر گونه اصلاح،  پذیرش تغییر است.  تصحیح دائم در هر زیستواره ای نشانه زندگی آنست.  در مورد ساختار های سیاسی نیز تصّلب و "سخت گیری و تعصب خامی است!"


Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Ahmad SadriCommentsDate
The Hurt Locker’s Missing Disclaimer
-
Apr 24, 2010
اوتی که گل بود
7
Feb 24, 2010
معنویت و پاکدینی روشنفکرانه - 2
1
Feb 03, 2010
more from Ahmad Sadri
 
default

حقیقت انکار ناپذیر

مهبد (not verified)


به هرکی‌ که اعتقاد دارید قسم که اگر همین الان آخوندا به یک سیاره دیگه نقل مکان کنند، هیچ کدوم از ماها به ایران بر نخواهیم گشت. بیشترین ما که اینجا اظهار نظر میکنم بیش از نیمی از عمر خود را در این مملکت گذرندیم و جزعی‌ از این فرهنگ و جامعه شدیم. واقعا از خودتون بپرسید که آیا شما دیگه میتونید تو ایران زندگی‌ کنید؟ روحیه و طبیعت ما با اون فرهنگ و مکان و مردم سازگار نیست و نخواهد بود. تمام این حرفا و جر دادنها ناشی‌ از نستلجاست. خون خودتونو کثیف نکنید، فشار خون تون را بالا نبرید. نه تو ایران زندگی‌ می‌کنیم و نه خیری برا ایران و مردمش داریم و این همه حرف هم فقط خالی‌ کردن فشار داخلیه و هیچکس نه گوش میده و نه اهمیت. تنها توصیه دوستانه من به شما هموطنانه عزیزم اینه که از این موقعیت مارکت استفاده کنید و فرصت رو از دست ندید البته با احتیاط. موفق و سلامت باشید.


Mammad

justwondering?

by Mammad on

My faith and my country never contradict each other. The Islam that I believe in is never a barrier to me as an Iranian. So, your question is not relevant even hypothetically.

Mammad


default

هر چه قدر توضیح

mullah lover (not verified)


هر چه قدر توضیح بدید بیشتر وقت خودتون رو میگیرد. کی‌ میره این هم راه رو؟ بابا انقلاب شد مردم قدرت رو به دست گرفتن مزخرف هم حاضر نیستند گوش کنند.

شما هم که از آخوند‌ها بدتون میاد، خارج هم که هستید، آخوند هم که خارج نیست، پس دیگه چی‌ میخاین؟ دردتون چیه؟ می‌خواهید برید ایران ته دانسان برقصید؟ سر پیری و معرکه گیری؟

بچه‌های شما هم بزرگ شدند و اصلا ته دانسان تو ایران نمیخوان، میخوان همین خارج بمانند. شما هم که کم کم باید غزل رو بخونید. دست بر نمیدارید؟ همین جا زهر مار کنید دیگه.

ایران به شما‌ها نیومده. ایران برای ایرانی‌ هست، نه برای هوا و هوس. آخوند‌ها هم ایرانی‌ هستند و جاشون تو ایران. شما‌ها هم جاتون اینجا. جای دوست کجاست؟ جای دشمن کجا؟ آره همون جا.


default

Faith vs Country

by justwondering? (not verified) on

Mr. Mammad: Hypothetically, If you were given an option between what is the interest of your country and what is in the interest of your faith, which one would you choose?


Darius Kadivar

Mammad

by Darius Kadivar on

I respect your views even if I do not share them and may even strongly refute them. In regard to the Revolution of 1979 I dissagree on your assessment that it was legitimate or even justified.

Let me explain, I am not defending justifying the Shah's mistakes or his misjudements or even interpretation of his constitutional role. In practice he ommited to respect an essential key element of the Constitution and that is his role as simply a national figurehead than an absolute ruler. That could and was legitimately questioned by constitutionalists and genuine democracts and continues to be an unavoidable subject of debate when it comes to justifying the utility of the monarchy as a system of government. I am not a lawyer and therefore do not have the legal arguments to justify the institution as a functional one except by refering to what I observe in lets say Great Britain, Spain or any other European Constitutional Monarchy. I mention them because if one tries to refer to so called constitutional monarchies in Asia other than Japan, I am afraid we cannot truly vouch for their democratic nature. They are at best supported by a military Junta or struggling to find a balance between a divine rule and an apparent constitutional form of governance. The European reference is also justified due to the fact that we tried to copy this model already under the Qajar Shah's who envied the European monarchies and saw them both as models but also as a threat to their own divine rule in a highly religious society that hardly questioned their legitimacy. The constitutional revolution was an attempt by the Iranian intellegenstia aided in that by writers, members of the civil society and even progressive clerics ( most of whome were at odds with the majority of the religious establishment) to force the King into listening to their demands but also acknowledging their individual rights. Why do we call it a Constitutional Revolution ? I think because it was first and foremost a demand for rights. It was not about changing the system of government ( I.E: The Monarchy ) as such is the case during a Revolution ( as in France's 1789 Revolution) but one that molded it within a legal framework. In otherwords where laws would be drafted by a government but approved by a Parliament composed by elected representatives. That is why the Constitution that was ultimately drafted was based largely on the Belgian constitution of the time itself also inspired by the British Constitution. Given today's troubles in Belgium we can legitimately ask if the 1906 Constitution in its original form is adapted to the realities of our time or that it needs as I personally think it should be updated and dissected and explained in full transparency to the benefit of all. Not being a lawyer, I am afraid that I am not qualified to speak of it on a technical level. However the little knowledge we all have or can aquire through reliable historical sources allows me to conclude that the Spirit of the Constitutional Revolution was based on legitimate political concerns and the Constitution that was drafted was the "revolutionary" solution they concluded in order to reshape the system of government without the intention of toppling the monarch. In otherwords it was not about social change as in a revolution that aims at replacing the governing body but one that aimed to define the relationship between the governing body " King + Government" and the governed i.e. "Parliament + People".

This idea of a Constitution is what was "revolutionary" in a country where Kingship was largely justified by Divine Rule and not just under the Qajar's or Post Islamic Iranian dynasties but also under the first Aechemenids. A simple look at the monuments of Persepolis shows all the kings taking Oath under the symbolic Persian Zoroastrian God or Prophet.

So the idea of divine Rule was not a Qajar Exclusivity. However the Constitutional Revolution including in the fact that it was crushed in a bloddy conflict ( I would need to refer to some dates and facts for more clarity than I have time here) between Royalist forces and the Constitutionalists turned into a kind of Iranian ALAMO. In that if the uprising was crushed, the spirit prevailed and forced the King to approve a Constitution that would redefine his exact role in the eyes of his subjects other than simply justified by some sort of super natural divinity.

In that the Constitutional Revolution unlike the Revolution of 1979 was a victory of democratic ideals over a traditionally authoritarian rule. It aimed not at overthrowing the Shah (even if I am sure some of them may deeply wished to do so ) or his system of government but defining his role and relationship with his people. The Islamic Revolution of 1979 was one that demanded social change in the name of religion. Sure, the Nationalists like Sanjabi and Co may have had other agendas and priorities than the cleric or leftwing opposition but they represented a minority. In addition they were not really against the Monarchy in its Constitutional form. The early waves of discontent were directed towards the high level of bureaucracy, alledged corruption of politicians and ministers and mild critics towards Royal priveledges. Maybe one or two members of the Royal Family like Princess Ashraf were targeted in these criticisms but the parliamentary opposition never questioned the legitimacy of the Royal Family or the Shah as their sovereign. Shapour Bakhtiar belonged to this branch that were opposed to the confiscation of power by the Shah and his named ministers but yet  was not opposed to the Constitution ( despite having been arrested under the Shah ) and which he considered as a historical national "aquis" ( the French expression for aquired rights if you will). This is what led him to demand ( despite several refusals) the post of Prime Minister which he ultimately earned but I think we all agree too lately to be able to sustain his authority and control over the country taken by "revolutionary zeal" and "religious fervor"

Bakhtiar explaining why he accepted to become the Shah's Prime Minister

And Bakhtiar's as Prime Minister explaining his position in regard to Khomeiny and his revolutionary Zeal to disregard the government and Constitution:

I think Bakhtiar's comments clearly outlined his vision of government one of dialogue but not submission to anarchy, violence and religious zeal which he saw as incompatible with the practice of government and the rule of law ( in its secular definition).

From this point of view, I believe that what Iran witnessed in the early days of 1979 was not a demand for Revolution but poltical change or reform to put it straight. One that would reduce the Shah's role to its symbolic title and maintain his stature as a respected ( albeit  out of touch ) national figurehead like in truly Constitutional Monarchies. Added to the fact that the country was also going through a natural phenomena of "Ras Le Bolle" as the French witnessed with De Gaulle. Everyone acknowledged his role as Liberator of France but were fed up by just seeing him on Television.

One can view the signs of this discontent already in the films of those days which for the most were not censored contrary to popular belief:

//iranian.com/main/blog/darius-kadivar/nostalgia-vossoughi-film-saazesh

Had we understood the assets and shortcomings of our constitution and had the Shah not been inflicted by his fatal illness the social uprising would have probably been contained and channeled away from the religious zeolots who suggested Revolution over Reform.

Got to go and catch my bus but debate prevails and probably will come back later on.

Best,

DK

D  

 

 

 


default

In my opinion, this change

by shameoniri (not verified) on

In my opinion, this change must happen within Iran, by Iranians living in Iran, under a leadership that has lived in Iran all these years and, therefore, is completely familiar with the conditions on the ground.

Please explain what you mean by change??? Do you mean velayate-faghih position is going to be vaporized into thin air just because people wish it? Do you mean that the thieving elite who controls all the economic and political lever of the society will miraculously relinquish their greed, corruption, and lust for power just because of what? Do you think the ruling clergy are going to sit idly by and allow reform and their eventual irrelevancy? Do you think they are stupid or suicidal?

Please provide a historical example of any fascist and corrupt leadership that has changed its behavior through patience and waiting of its citizens?

Please discuss the model and the steps in which this change will take place. How are the insurmountable brutal and violent machinery that have been put in place to preserve the theo-fascists will give up their livelihood and turn their back on their big bosses?? I'm referring to the armed paramilitary basiji and to some extent the IRGC who are subsidized by the criminals ruling authorities to suppress and prevent any socio-economic and political move toward weakening the iron grip of the mullahs?

The reform movement in Iran is not a genuine movement toward progress and freedom. It is in every respect, part and parcel of the status quo; Cunningly and deliberately , premeditated and cooked up by the regime and designed to protract the life of the regime via cosmetic changes whenever the masses boiling point reaches to an riotous pressure inside. The reformers function is to calm down the lemmings and to provide a temporary release/relief of the built-in pressure to avoid the implosion from within. All the while, giving the appearance of a viable ‘solution’. I must admit that it is a very clever way of diversifying and marketing the same product in a different package to keep the profit margins at a constant rate of return for a extended period of time.

Nonetheless, sooner or later, people are going to recognize that but it will take a few more years of this devious dance to convince people that they are really powerless and have been hoodwinked all along; and perhaps then, we will a critical mass to have an organic and genuine movement toward rescuing the country and its citizens. We will see the utter failure and the final verdict on the so-called Islamists way of life and governance. I have every confidence that Iranians will eventually purge this cancer once and for all out of their system.


default

Just wondering...

by One Two Three (not verified) on

There's an Indian proverb that says you can wake up someone who is asleep but you can't wake up someone who is pretending to be asleep.

I'm just wondering if this applies to Mr. Ahmad Sadri -- smart as he is...


Mammad

Dariush Kadivar

by Mammad on

Thanks for your response. I enjoyed reading it, although I disagree with many of your statements.

You say you are for regime change but without violence. That is probably what 80% of the population wants, judging by various elections that have taken place in Iran. But, how? That is the crucial detail that you left out. That is the central question.

In my opinion, this change must happen within Iran, by Iranians living in Iran, under a leadership that has lived in Iran all these years and, therefore, is completely familiar with the conditions on the ground.

By the way, if believing that the 1979 revolution was legitimate means being a radical or a former radical, I am one. I believed and still believe that the revolution was totally legitimate. I do not confuse the reasons for the Revolution with its aftermath.

Iranian Revolution was not the first, and won't be the last, revolution that was started based on legitimate reasons, but after toppling the regime went in a different direction. And, as I have said it many times in this column, the fact that the Revolution did not move along its intended path, or that it had no leadership other than the clergy is, to a large extent, the result of the Shah did, especially over the last 10-15 years of reign. 

Finally, you mentioned the 9/11 and seem to blame the IRI for playing a role in it.

The 9/11 events and their aftermath had nothing to do with the IRI, but everything to do with the unholly alliance of Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/the U.S. and what it did in the late 1970s and 1980s in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was the U.S.-supported 1977 coup in Pakistan led by General Zia - two full years before the Iranian Revolution and at a time that there was no sign of the Revolution in Iran or coming to power of the clergy -  who changed everything in Pakistan, the result of which today is an unstable country, armed with nuclear weapons.

Even today, Saudi Arabia is mediating between Hamid Karzai and the Taliban, to bring them together to power. If that is good, then why did the U.S. even invade Afghanistan? Why did so many innocent people had to be killed, and are still being killed in Afghanistan every day? Those who "tear themselves apart" for "goodness" of the U.S. political/military establishment should ponder this.

Mammad


Darius Kadivar

Mammad for your enlightment ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

My previous comment was simply an observation. If some people are so susceptible even to that ? ...

Well more seriously :

What should be done ? How do you want me to answer to you in one sentence ? ...

I am just amazed by the sporadic enthusiasm's that you all seem to indulge in whenever there is a sign of Khatami or anyother so called reformist calling for change within the current system in Iran.

What is also terribly dissappointing is that once you call for regime change (something that I believe has been wished by a large majority of Iranians at least once if not more in their lifetime in the past 30 years eversince the inception of the Islamic Revolution and when they discovered its true aims) one is immediately branded as a Traitor, a War Mongeror or god knows what other name by IRI apologists turned sudden last minute patriots.

Let's put my previous observation aside for a minute and let me clarify my personal position ( which I believe has never been different and which I have always tried at least to be honest about) and that is that I do not believe in violence, revenge in order to come to terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran, nor have I EVER supported a foreign military intervention on the sacred soil of Iran.

Indeed If I may allow this diggression contrary to the fashion victimes on this site to me "Some Things Remain Sacred !"

I believe first and foremost that we should stop lying to Iranians in general and that applies not only to the current leadership or politicians in Iran but also to what is left of the Iranian opposition abroad that is the Monarchists, Cosntitutionalists ( in my book monarchists also but not orthodox shaholahis ), Secular Republicans or any other political group or party which wishes to see change in their homeland.

The sad fact regarding all these groups or individuals regardless of their opinions is that they tend to promise a great deal and deliver little if nothing in return and have proved time and again to be dissappointing. This has less to do with their lack of enthusiasm but more with their lack of courage and more importantly a coherent vision for Iran and Iranians in general.

One tendancy has been to promise change within 6 months if they were given a chance. This is what I like to call the  "providential hero syndrom" that inflicts all Iranians from Kings, Queens, Prime Ministers and now Presidents that have aspired to the highest office.

The realities of modern politics and the ever raising social awareness of the Iranian population today in majority as you may know consisting of the youth and women which constitute 70 % of the population demands a fresh look at what our country is and what are its genuine hopes and wishes for the future.

But Not just that !

The issue we are genuinely faced with at this juncture in our history is not just about refroms, institutional changes and adapting an already impopular system of government that has more blood on its hands than any previous dynasty except maybe to Mongol dynasty that ruled our country after the hoards of Chenghiz Khan invaded our soil.

What we have to deal with is the future and on the long term seriously ponder on what we truly wish for our nation and future generations and not just for our generation. In otherwords this is not merely a question of satisfying electoral demands that occur with every election not just in Iran but in any country that holds elections ( including those frauded like in our country to guarantee the election of someone within the system or at best never opposes its institutions).

This brings us the the very idea of refom and the debate over the reality and possibilities of reformation of the Islamic State.  

Do I stand against it ? Certainly Not if it consists of transforming it into a fully democratic and secular system of government. Experience however particularly a not so old one that of the Soviet Union and the mouvement of reform The "Glasnost" and later on the "Perestroika" initiated by not only Michael Gorbatchev but two of his predecessors shortly after the death of Leonid Breshnev, that refom is always faced with great enthusiasm from the people, retisence from conservatives and followed if successful by more and more raising demands of the population at large.

Was Gorbatchev a "Great Man" ? Yes in terms of courage and what he accomplished during his term and that is a relatively peaceful transition towards democracy and freedom of speach and redefining Russia's position as a partner and not foe of the rest of the world previously seen by the Soviet apparatus as the "Capitalist Foe". He remains a "positive" hero for the West at least because unlike his predecessors he favored dialogue to confrontation. But like Every Empire that tries to reassert its position and new status, the Soviet Union very much like the Roman Empire vis a vis of Christianity was not able to resist the wave of discontent and radical demand for change it observed as Gorbatchev's reforms went along. His international status grew, while at home he remained unpopular, and seen as a hypocrite who sticks to the idea that the Empire must remain "Red" aka "Communist" after the System itself proved a failure after 70 years.

Gorbatchev's failure arised from the contradiction between the changes he promised to deliver and those he "could" only deliver by remaining loyal to the communist system. We saw what followed was accelerated by the gradual independance of satellite Soviet States and ultimately a "coup" ( with or without the endorsement of Gorbatchev himself a victime or not remains a mystery ? ) that accelerated his downfall and brought someone like Boris Yeltsin ( himself a former Apparachik) to Power with the controversial results we see today : A savagely capitalist society, a pseudo democracy where the press is heavily controlled and censored and where nationalism has replaced democratic ideals and a leadership that wages war on its neighbours like in Tchechenia ( a Muslim community) or war mongering interventionism like in Georgia. I do not want to draw an unneccessary parrallel nor draw a dark picture between what happened in Soviet Russia and what is taking place in Iran or could in the future, but to simply underline that when we speak of reform within an already rigid system entirely defined in its structure and institutions by a totalitarian or dictatorial ideology it will naturally be confronted to demands but also internal quarrels.

Thus is already the case in Iran with the difference that we have a relatively boiling and I would like to think, mature civil society in the making which is diametrically at Odds with the regime's ideology.

On the otherhand we have a totally absent not to say inexistent opposition. That applies to those abroad as much as it applies to those unheard voices inside Iran. The reformist movement is at best on Khatami's side or composed of former radicals turned moderate ( like Ibrahim Yazdi who do not see the Revolution of 79 as illegitimate because they wholeheartingly participated to its victory). Nothing stops us from speculating that within the current reformist movement voices demanding regime change may appear in the years to come, but that is just wishful thinking at this stage.

This brings me to the following observation and that is that a more active and stronger demand for reform can at best create a similar climate that was warmly welcomed by many Iranians in the late 1990's accompanied with the World Cup enthusiasm and discovery of the Iranian New Wave Cinema by the Iranian Diaspora but also in movie clubs in the world.

We observed this in the past and we may well observe a similar phenomena if Khatami or another moderate claric or civil candidate become president. Lets say even if with some luck Khamenei the spiritual leader dies from old age or health problems ( why not poisoning ? ) creating a much welcomed vaccum of power for that post ( which controlls the Army and Justice department amongst other things). All we can do is speculate on the outcome.

However I was speaking in the begining of my post of what vision we have for the future of our country to date ? What vision had Khatami other than promising an Islamic Democracy ?

We know that there are genuine contradictions in this claim and that the Islamic and Islamist nature of the revolution cannot allow the Iranian leadership to contradict the ideals of the revolution for which it takes its legitimacy and dictated by the Leader of the Revolution Ayatollah Khomeiny.

An Example: The Uproar created by Khatami shaking hands with an Italian Women:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjE8RJ8g43o

More Here:

An innocent Act that would have been severly punished within the limits of the Islamic Constitution Khatami so fervently defends.

The clear seperation between Religion and State is something that I believe would be very difficult for even a Khatami to justify without being challenged this time by the likes of Ahmadinejad and other radicals.

So what is my position in regard to Khatami or other so called Moderate clerics or presidential candidates or parlimentarians withing the system ?

I would say one of constructive criticism based on the way I evaluate the ideological profile of the person in question.

One that consists of a GIVE AND TAKE relationship than JUST GIVE A BLIND ENDORSEMENT to him or her.

Please allow me to refer you to the following civil intellectual discourse between the then President Khatami ( during the early years of his tenure) and a former Minister of Shah's Era and Shiraz University chair Dr. Farhang Mehr:

HOWEVER, with the difference that we are not living in Pre-Sept 11th detente world but in a post Sept 11th World and all for which the Islamic State is accountable for in terms of international terrorism, war mongering statements ( such as the Holocaust Denial and wiping of Israel ) and a disastrous Human Rights Record for which many Human Rights campaigns ( including the SCE campaign is just one in a pool of other similar campaigns for civil rights) can vouch for.

In otherwords in MY BOOK the Islamic Republic of Iran is ACCOUNTABLE and will have to respond to many many legitimate demands for freedom and respect for human rights.

As an Iranian I simply refuse to see my patriotism be highjacked by IRI lobbyist's who simply wish to prolong the regime's existence, wipe out to oblivion the Iranian Opposition and serve as a platform of respectability to the leadership of the Islamic Republic.

THEIR AGENDA IS CRISTAL CLEAR and anyone who does not see it by now is simply naive or is part of the system. In the end it is a question of LOYALTY and I have my own,  based on my intellectual upbringing, education, background and persoanl experiences shaped by life before the revolution, the revolution and the years in exile. I am not a politician and speak my mind freely and independantly. But I also refuse to see my convictions dictated by people who are not qualified to speak in ANYBODY's Name but themselves. I am not accusing anybody, I am simply observing a general behavior and hypocrisy that characterizes these groups who think that they can overlook the reality of what the Iranian Diaspora is and where and WHY they left their country.

A Smiling face or well shaved or trimmed beard and neck and tie are not enough at least for me to see through their intentions like through a transparent crystal glass. I believe we all have our motivations, personal dreams and visions for our country's future. 

The One I Hope for is a democratic secular system of government one that aspires to my understanding of my country's ancient history and evolving culture but also ideals rooted in the Constitutional Revolution of 1906 which remain a milestone in our nation's century old struggle for individual rights and collective responsabilities that is ultimately an unambiguous democracy where the executive and legislative powers are clearly outlined. The only existing examples we know today for such a system of government can be found equally in Secular Democratic Republics or Constitutional Monarchies as we know them today in the West and which served as references to the Constitutionalist mouvement of 1906 and the Iranian Intelligenstia of the time which unlike Khomeiny and his clowns had read Voltaire, Roussea, Montesqieu but also Thomas Pain, Benjamine Franklin as well as the British Magna Carta and the American Bill of Rights.

Based on these arguments I am adamantly and passionately an advocate of "Regime Change" and anything that can allow that to occure without violence. In otherwords I believe in intellectual discourse when that can occur peacefully, but I also believe that the role of the Iranian Diaspora is first and foremost to support the struggling Iranian Civil Society AND NOT the Regime of Iran.

We should applaud when applause is deserved and be heavily critical when those demands or promises are not honored. I can at best be constructively critical but don't expect me to spill crocodile tears for a regime that in my book has betrayed the confidence of the Iranian nation at large through its behavior both on a national and international level in the past 30 years. The Islamic Regime is accountable for the crimes it has commited just as the monarchy can be held accountable for its own record postive or negative.

As a Constitutionalist the Islamic Republic (in my book at least ) has no legitimacy for its leaders and leadership sided with acts and a behavior that find no justification other than in medieval practices and an ideology that takes its root in the teachings of its founding leader so best expressed in his book The Tozyol Maaeref :

Farrokhzad Part I

Part II

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFJaUlcOKss&feature=related

Part III

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOSYuc48Wbw&feature=related

So in conclusion: I Do Not claim to have the Solutions, I can just claim What I will rely on and that is: MY LOYALTIES AND MY CONSCIENCE. Others are free to adopt another attitude its their free choice.

I PREFER TO BE ALERT LIKE DR. ABBAS MILANI:

And NOT NAIVE like some IRI Lobbyists with a smiling face and good manners.

Best,

DK

 

 

 

 

   

 

  

 


Fred

The Islamist “catalyst”

by Fred on

Soroush sidekick says:


کجای دنیا برای پذیرش بالاترین مقام مملکت اینهمه خواهش و تقاضا از یکسو و ناز و کرشمه از سوی دیگر وجود دارد؟ 


Besides being wholly and as usually mendacious about the nature of the Islamist republic, namely that people have any say in it, the westoxicated Islamist labels the “presidency” in the Islamist republic as the “highest position in the country”. Wouldn’t the unelected lifetime head turban who under article 110 of the Islamist constitution has absolute power and can dismisses any one including the “president” take an exception to this demotion? This Islamist bride is way too ugly for these childish efforts by the Islamists to even momentarily change its appearance. The whole rotten Islamist system has got to go.


 


default

What Iran needs is 10 more

by shameoniri (not verified) on

What Iran needs is 10 more years of leadership under hardliners like Ahmadinejad and also a Supreme Leader like Mesbah Yazdi; Khamenie is too lenient. That is our only salvation.


default

I agree with theonlyway. A

by lifeinMars (not verified) on

I agree with theonlyway. A civil war is a must and it is almost a given that it will happen.


default

I like a conservative values

by XerXes (not verified) on

In the US I am a conservative, and in iran I am also a conservative. I believe that in Iran we need a tough guy who stands up and gets rid of all who stands in front...Same in the US.
Khatami is just too soft, won't cut it we need harsher than Ahmadinejad (He has become too soft lately)


Mammad

theonlyway

by Mammad on

Will you be willing to go to Iran and take up arms in support of your side? Or is this one of those suggestions made in a slow day, out of boredom, from the comfort of wherever it is that you live in?

Mammad


Mammad

Dariush Kadivar

by Mammad on

As usual, your "smart" comment is no comment at all. Tell us what you think should be done?

Oh, do not give me your argument about using Reza Pahlavi as a "catalyst." I have worked with catalysts for 30 years. RP is no catalyst. Enlighten us.

Mammad


Mammad

Thenewcats

by Mammad on

Fine. Let's say for the sake of argument that you are correct 100%

Mr. Sadri made his suggestion. What is yours? How do you suggest to break out of the present situation?

Beautiful slogans, like yours, are fine, but at the end of the day we need practicable solutions? What is yours?

Mammad


Mammad

Redwine

by Mammad on

Oh come on! What is more important to you? The cloth that someone wears, or the thinking that he/she has? Stereotyping people is one of the worst things that anybody can do. If you believe in someone, and that someone with the same thinking starts dressing up like Mr. Khatami, what would you do? Rejecting him?

Mammad


samsam1111

Notice how the dormant cells of the Ommatist regime

by samsam1111 on

wake up & speak up when,  the legitimacy of their Mullah masters comes in question. It,s all about subtle propaganda .  Down right defence of the regime does, no longer work . The new trend is to be a mild critic of the regime, on superficial issues, and to gain the trust of the useful idiots so the apologist can use that cover to legitimize & humanize the regime in broader form & important issues. One thing common among all Ommatist is the term "We" , they use it to speak on behalf of the whole nation. Their bottom line universal message:

Patience, what,s the rush, We can,t have every thing. We are going through our own renaissance. We have to be realistic.blah blah

Yep. Leave it to them to extend the khaliffate for an extra 400 yrs.

hishhhhh

------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

btw*  Here are my picks for what Qadesiyeh regime will select for malijak kar-chagh-kon president.

If McCain on top;

Abdollah Nouri (He is an Ommatist  but a likable one "3 yrs jail term"), Khattami, Karoubi, Ayat Mousavi Khovainiha or Mir hussein Mussavi (the ex PM in khomeini era)

If Obama on top;

Ahmadi-Dajjal, Ghalibaff, pasdar Yahya  Safavi, Mehdi hashemi samareh, mullah Rafsanjani  or one of Larijani brothers.

The logic;

With Husein Obama, the mullahs know that USA has won the PR war with regime in popularity contest among 3rd world nations, so US can afford to attack mullahs with the full support of most nations due to Obama's popularity & believability in the 3rd world & Europe. It,s all about US industrial elite to re-invent a friendlier uncle Sam to sell more & punish low life Jehadists with least cost. Obama is just an insignificant front man & Foolish Ommatist Goats falling for it..hehe


Hajminator

‫به به

Hajminator


چه خر تو خریه اینجا، منم آجر پارمو آوردم بزنم تو سر یکی...
بدبختی ما ایرونیا تو دنیایه فعلی که از یک طرف آخوندها جون مردمو میریزن تو بطری زهر مار میکنن و از طرف دیگر این اسرائیلیا و آمریکایها هر روز زر جنگ رو در آوردند اینکه والله دیگه خودمونو باختیم...
‫اگر بشینیم ۲ دقیقه فکرشو بکنیم میبینیم بد جور گیریم... من تنها یک راه برایه نجات میبینم و اونم یک صدا کردن خودمون اینور دنیا و پشت وایستادن سیاست تحریم بر آخوند. این بی دینهایه دزد اینقدر حیاطشون براشون مهمه که اگر تحریمشون کنی که جنگ راه ‫نمیندازن... ببینن کارشون واقعاً گیره به گ.. خوردن میفتن.... من یکی از بستگانم خدا بیامورز آیت الله بود و سره رو کار آمدن خمینی لبیک رو گفت و به آون دنیا رفت. اون خدا بیامورز میگفت مردم هنوز حکومت آخوندو نمیشناسن : این آخوندا تا دلشون سیره برات میگوزن، ولی وقتی دلشون گشنه شد اون موقعه از زبالتم میخورن.


Red Wine

...

by Red Wine on

چقدر خجالت اور و تهوع انگيز هست در اين زمونه كه كسي بگه علنا كه طرفدار يك اخوند هست.
نفرت و نفرين به شما غير ايرانيان پارسي نما بيايد كه انقدر خوار هستيد و اغفال در دستان اعراب.تف بر پدرانتان.


default

شما فکر

Mullah lover (not verified)


شما فکر می‌کنید چون مردم ایران سی‌ سال پیش انقلاب کردن باز هم انقلاب میکنند؟!! انقدر کم شعورید؟ انقدر دلتون خوشه؟!

مردم آخوندها رو اوردن سر کار، تحویلشون هم میگیرن، هیچ غلطی هم هیچ کس نمیتونه بکنه. شماها هم اگر خیلی‌ نارحتید برید سوپ بخورید، ابگوشت خوردن به شما نیومده. به شما چه که ایران چه خبره؟

شتر در خواب بیند پنبه دانه، گاهی لوف لوف خورد گه دانه دانه. درود بر هر چی‌ اخونده. خدا سایه این آخوند‌ها رو از سر ما کم نکنه. درد و بلاشون بخوره تو سر شما که بد خواه هستید. چشم بصیرت ندارید.

خاتمی و احمدی نژاد عین همند؟! هیچ فرقی‌ با هم ندارند؟ این که دیگه سی‌ سال پیش نیست. به همین زودی یادتون رفت؟

اگر فردا خدا آرزوتون رو بر آورده کنه و جنگ بشه تنها کسی‌ که جلوی قتل عام را خواهد گرفت همین آخوند‌ها هستند. شماها همین دستمال‌هاتون رو اتو کنید کسی‌ از شما هیچ انتظاری جز این نداره.


IRANdokht

Majid aziz

by IRANdokht on

If it were not for the very refreshing style of your comments, I would have had a hard time going through some of the nonsense I see here. I especially liked the "1000 shallagh" story.

It seems like people are sitting out in the west wishing all sorts of hardship and misery on the Iranian people and they actually believe that they are being patriotic in their self-righteous ways!!! 

Khatami is a step forward for the people in the country. Actually two steps forward because Rafsanjani is considered one step forward from Ahmadinejad... You'll have to do with what you got and since the brave intellectuals of our country are sitting these out, you have to pick from the available choices.  Our country is not used to democracy and has to take baby steps while being sabotaged by the radicals along the way. Shaffaaf saazi or clarifying where the candidates stand and what their agenda is, seem to be a great little step forward.

Until some of these "behind the Monitor warriors" get off their arm chairs and decide to do something themselves, they have no right to determine what is good for the iranian people and what's not. 

It's pathetic and ridiculous to sit out here and keep criticizing the ones who are doing something towards the imrpovement of the people's lives: NIAC, CASMII, Human Rights advocates, HR Watch, activists, Iranian students etc..  they are all doing something towards a peaceful future of our country, they have different goals and different means but they are ACTIVE in the scene. The rest are just spreading negativity and wishing for Iran's destruction by foreign military attacks.

IRANdokht


default

Tragic flaw

by thenewcats (not verified) on

Tragic flaw: Fascist-based (theofascist-based), oligarchal-Khomeini's Shia-based entities are not reformable, period.

Author's tragic flaw:

The philosophical, economical, social divide between the religio-centeric, bigotted fascists/conservatives, non-bigotted , non-religio-centeric, secular/democratic are antithetical and diametrically opposed to each other.

Asking this entity, namely, IRI to reform itself, is akin to asking a paralyzed man to run a marathon.

Hope, grounded in pragmatism is always good and admirable, however, when it dabbles in fantastical and impossibilties then it becomes, dangerous counterproductive and delusional.


default

Hamoon Aash-o-Hamoon Kaaseh

by Shadooneh (not verified) on

Khatami has given his exam (emtehaanesho daadeh) and we have seen what he can do. Therefore there's no need to ask him again to run, especially when he clearly signals his reluctance to do so. There's no need to recycle the same BS. I hope Iranians can find someone who is eager to serve not someone who is setting ridiculous pre-conditions for his service.

I wonder if anyone has compiled an analysis of the electoral situation in Iran similar to this:

//www.stratfor.com/analysis/20080922_new_pres...

Iran's socio-political situation is very complex and there are no simple answers nor solutions. I hope we can learn to ask the tough questions of the candidates rather than begging and nazkeshidan. I am sure Iran can do better than Khatami, who I think did his best during his terms considering the neo-cons oppositions to his efforts both in Iran and the US.


Abarmard

The good of Khatami

by Abarmard on

The positives that Khatami brings to the Islamic Republic is mostly the question of modernity in the traditional social structure.

Although not enough for some Iranian, specially those out of Iran, yet the idea is a great move forward in the political dream from a society in wanting to reach "home-made' Democracy.

He would be powerless to advance the economic growth to the acceptable level, but looking at his contributions from social perspectives, he will bring a minute yet far fetched (Based on todays realities of Iran) to the country.

I hope that he runs, but the more practical choice would be Ghalibaf!


Darius Kadivar

Mr. Sadri your on NIAC advisory board right ?

by Darius Kadivar on

Funny How quickly I can second guess you guys ... ;0)

//www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1211&Itemid=28

Khatami the next Gorbatchev Right ? I personally find him too Saucy to my taste LOL

 //www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyw_o6P6-WQ&feature=related

Yawn ...


default

For Iran to be saved once

by theonlyway (not verified) on

For Iran to be saved once and for all, we need a civil war in the manner of American civil war; the bigotted Islamists vs. non-bigotted muslims, secular and the likes. If the secular and educated patriots want to save their country and take their country back from the ignorant mullahs, they need to take up arms. That is the only way.


Mammad

Rook Goo

by Mammad on

Since you are rook goo,  how do you suggest achieving your propposition regarding IRI?

Slogans are fine, but they must be accompanied with concrete, practicable suggestions to be taken seriously.

Mammad


default

خاتمی هم هیچ کاری نمی‌‌کنه

gold fish (not verified)


دلتون را به اون بی‌ خودی خوش نکنید.سگ زرد برادر شغال هست.تا وقتی‌ که مردم فکر می‌‌کنند یک آخوند ۲ زاری دیگه بیاد اوضاع مملکت درست می‌‌شه. خانه از پایبند ویران است.


default

قربون هرچی‌

Mullah lover (not verified)


قربون هرچی‌ ملا من برم. الهی در و بلای هرچی‌ ملاهه بخور تو فرق سر همهٔ کسانی‌ که دارند اینجا بیخودی کامنت میدن.

الهی در و بلای هر چی‌ اخونده بخور تو سر این ایرانی‌‌های الکی‌ مثل شما. زنده باد آخوند! !