Iran, Ciphers and Social Facts
June 27th, 2009 § 3 Comments
A gathering of Ahmadinejad supporters in Tehran
Max Ajl offers a sobering corrective to the hype and nonsense that surround the discussions over the recent Iranian elections. Editorially, we don’t quite share the writer’s appraisal that Mousavi is an ‘execrable figure, by all accounts’ — that may be the view of some such as As’ad Abu Khalil but we recognize that this view by no means speaks for all.
Reading liberal and left-wing commentary on what’s going on in Iran, I’ve been rather shocked. Everyone–including this writer–transforms into a savagely incisive Iran scholar equipped to pontificate on Iranian society, its domestic political institutions, the velayat-e faqih, the social composition of Ahmadinejad supporters and Mousavi supporters, etc. etc., enlightened by studious Twitter research, perusal of YouTube videos, a glance at Juan Cole’s blog, and for the extremely careful, a quick read through the last 50 pages of A People Interrupted.
The axis around which commentary spins isn’t what the Iranians want, or what they think will be good for their society. For radicals the search is on for that rare animal, Revolution. Said beast looks a tad like another species in his genus, Reform, and a bit less like two other related species, Protest and Riot. See, when dusky Middle Easterners get agitated, we hope for the best: We Hope for Democracy. Mea culpa. Trouble is, things are a touch more complicated than that. Consider this astonishingly naive, dogmatic, and idiotic comment:
That said, the tactical and strategic superiority of organized nonviolent revolt, of the kind seen in this video – in contrast to yesterday’s scattered street skirmishes and battles – is what offers the Iranian resistance its fastest and cleanest path to victory.
What this scene tells us is that at the grassroots level, there are many Iranians that “get” how it works. And that means that yesterday’s wave of violent repression by the state can already be chalked up as an Epic Fail. It didn’t succeed a whit in quelling the revolt.
The piece from which it is extracted doesn’t comment on the social composition of the protesters. Nor their demands. Nor what percentage of Iranian society they represent. Changes in who is protesting or why they’re protesting are sidelined. Calls from students for strikes are cast as harbingers of socialist revolution. Such writing is a simple and idle celebration of protest. This isn’t analysis. It’s cheer-leading, scribbled away on a computer terminal “Somewhere in a country called America,” words like “resistance” and “revolt” in lieu of pom-poms and chants, ultimately, it being perhaps a vicarious variant of activistism.
This isn’t to say labor has been quiet. The Iranian bus workers’ union released a statement disavowing support for any candidate but calling for supporting the protesters. This is brave, because if there is a crackdown, they may well be subject to it, as will the students whose tweets have percolated around the internet, whose faces have appeared on a million YouTube videos, who will need solidarity of a somewhat different sort when the crackdown begins. Mousavi is also circulating a call for a general strike. There are “unconfirmed reports” of a general strike involving 30 percent of the workforce (betting odds are that they’ll stay unconfirmed).
Here’s what else we know and what’s relatively undisputed: Khamanei threw in his lot with Ahmadinejad on Friday, supporting the election results at a rally that apparently drew in excess of a million people. On Saturday, amid violent repression, mere thousands of participants came out into the streets (the number 3,000 has been widely reported. Earlier in the week, millions were out in Tehran and Isfahan). The state hasn’t yet unleashed a hundredth of its repressive instruments. Among the many killed, one name has taken on particular salience: Neda Agha-Soltan, an Iranian young woman killed Saturday.
Richard Cohen writes of her funeral. One woman he interviewed comments, “I’m scared that all the blood shed for this cause may be wasted.” Today, a thousand protesters came together in Haft-e-tir Square in central Tehran. They were swiftly dispersed. Basij outnumbered protesters by 3:1 or 4:1. Imagine 5,000 protesters disputing an election in Herald Square. It’d merit a news-story, perhaps. Robert Fisk calls the protesters cause “hopeless.” Other Iranians report that “The people know that this is not about regime change. Most people want Iran to remain an Islamic Republic. But they feel that perhaps there is a way open to them now to improve things a little from within the system. At least to keep alive the republican elements of the system that [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad’s years in power have been eroding.”
On Sunday, Mousavi called the elections illegitimate and said that they should be tossed out. A week ago, he’d claimed victory before the votes were even counted. Earlier this week, mere hundreds gathered, alacritously dispersed by basij. Fraud? Maybe, except this datum on the Guardian Council studiously ignores Iranian voting procedure, wherein Iranians can vote wherever they wish, and this analysis suggests that claims of fraud are fraudulent.
Mousavi, meanwhile, is an execrable figure, by all accounts except for the ones getting the most media coverage, deeply involved in repression, although now a paladin of progressive change. It doesn’t seem that Iranian hopes for him had been so radical: “”We thought that perhaps, being so well-established in the regime would give him the ability to really change things.”
Green Revolution? Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
Contributed to PULSE by the author.
Though strong on ideas and making some valid points about what the “green movement” is and is not, the writer should follow more closely reports from on the ground where he could perhaps get a better idea of the scale of the protests, particularly on the Saturday after Khamenei’s speech at Friday prayers. I personally witnessed a crowd of at least 3,000 protestors at Tohid Square alone which was some distance from Enghelab Square and Azadi Square where the main protests (and bloodshed) were taking place. This is also not including those who gathered there and then moved on to different locations over the course of the day. “Mere thousands” does not begin to describe the very significant turnout on the streets that day – significant especially given that the Leader’s speech was widely interpreted as permission to the security forces and basij militia to let loose with unrestrained force. The composition of the crowds was also not significantly different from the previous week’s “silent” protests – apart from the presence of far fewer parents with their children.
Concerning the million who turned up to Friday prayers at Tehran University, it is well known that the government employs organized transportation and compensatory payments in order to bulk up numbers at such events.
If the author believes that “claims of fraud are fraudulent” he might do well to peruse the study by Chatham House of the official voting figures which detail the rather improbable circumstances under which the results of the June 22 election would have returned the result which it did. First and foremost, the 85% voter turnout strongly suggests a “protest vote” and not the reelection of a popular president by a complacent electorate.
If perhaps the world media is, in fact, too ready to see the seeds of revolution in the recent unrest, this author is too quick to dismiss it as hype.
See the video below from 53-17 to 54-20 for an assessement of the fundamental flaws ( some would even say factual inaccuracies) of the Chatam House study:
Chatam House is also a source that has a credibility gap as they have had an alleged reputation of giving out information which can then be taken forward by various interests which have an external destabilisation agenda.Their credibility would be on a par with the VOA during the cold war.
In fact , a litmus test of credible and fraudalent academics has been whether they have cited chatam House as a source in an as-is manner , or have identified it as a source that has a easy quotable to preceptionless academics blinkered by personal or institutional dogma.
Cole in particular has been a grevious disappointing FAIL in this regard.Though his alignment to the NED part funded NIAC may have blinded his vision in this regard.
Razoniaz–
I appreciate your corrections and complications, although it should have been clear based on the context that I was basing my comments on the numbers out protesting on Sat the 20 on mainstream media coverage.
But you write,
If the author believes that “claims of fraud are fraudulent” he might do well to peruse the study by Chatham House of the official voting figures which detail the rather improbable circumstances under which the results of the June 22 election would have returned the result which it did. First and foremost, the 85% voter turnout strongly suggests a “protest vote” and not the reelection of a popular president by a complacent electorate.
That is not at all what I wrote. I wrote, “Fraud? Maybe, except this datum on the Guardian Council studiously ignores Iranian voting procedure, wherein Iranians can vote wherever they wish, and this analysis suggests that claims of fraud are fraudulent.”
I don’t mean to be nit-picky, but I provided analysis that had been provided on respected left-wing news sites, not taking an express position on fraud (the Chatham House study doesn’t seem to be your best evidence, either, although again, I am totally open to the possibility that there was fraud. But I think here as in all cases it’s important to see evidence).
As for “hype,” revolutions are hard (this coming from an author who would love to see them). I stand by my assessment.