Iran's Democracy Marathon

Any movement for democracy takes time.  Iran is no different.

“Iran will be a marathon,” former Italian Ambassador to Iran Roberto Toscana says.  Basically, there won’t be a repeat of Tunisia or Egypt.  As much as all of us would like to see rapid democratization there, we’re better off allowing the marathon for democracy to run its course.

Quick sprints to democracy, without developing the proper political culture, lead to a long-term failure of democracy.  We’re beginning to see this in Iraq and problems are already surfacing in Egypt and Tunisia.  In all three cases, democracy--or attempts at democracy--came quick and fast.  There was no time to develop an appreciation for the culture and institutions necessary to create a lasting democracy.  More recently, in Libya, this has been a major cause for concern.  Qaddafi gutted that country of its institutions out of fear they could become more powerful or challenge his authority. 

Most don’t know that Iran’s push for democracy started with the 1906 Constitution Revolution—my great-grandfather was a part of those pushing for reforms.  Much like the Magna Carta was the first step for the British; the 1906 movement was indeed the first step. The mere fact Iran’s movement toward democracy has been in motion for over a century provides observers, like myself, with hope that the potential for lasting democracy is high.  Of course, that is if the Green Movement is successful and continues on its current path. 

Toscana claims, “Iran has the political prerequisites for democracy…much more so than any Arab nation.”  Despite government crackdowns, it is surprisingly vibrant with varying degrees of discussion, debate, and dissent.  Among the religious leadership there is even varying opinions on Khomeini’s velyat-i-faqih ideology.  Some have claimed that a sizeable majority of clerics dismiss it and espouse a more quietist approach to politics, because after all politics is considered corrupting.  This goes in direct contrast of most American’s perceptions. 

Another hopeful trend has been the Green Movement’s strict adherence to non-violence.  This ideology has allowed it to gain legitimacy, not only at home, but also abroad.  Gaining legitimacy is essential to leading Iran toward democracy. 

The Green Movement has also exposed the current regime’s penchant for violent suppression opposition, which in turn erodes the regime’s own legitimacy.  As the Islamic Administration’s legitimacy evaporates, the Green Movement will hopefully be able to step in to fill the leadership void.  There is no doubt, however, that the regime will fight for its survival.

Remaining a non-violent movement and resisting the urge to strike back will be paramount.  It‘s no coincidence that Martin Luther King, Jr. is better remembered than Malcolm X.  One preached non-violence, while the other is remembered for his violent approach to the civil rights movement.  This is not a case in which the ends justify the means (the regime has already proved that to be an ineffective policy); rather it’s a case where the means qualify the ends.

Yes, this process will take time, but we have to remember our own country’s democratic tradition wasn’t built overnight.  It took two constitutions, a bill of rights, a civil war, two world wars, women’s suffrage, a civil rights movement, and an equal rights movement to get where we are today.  The idea that it can happen overnight in Iran is a pipe dream; you wouldn’t try to run a marathon without training first, would you?  More importantly, this push for democracy has to remain organic or homegrown; in other words, it has to be Iranian. 

Just like a marathon, Iranians will have to find the right pace for change in order to be successful.

Ten Observations from an Informed but Innocent Outsider

Since mid-January, I’ve been following the unrest throughout the Middle East.  It should come as no surprise; I’ve studied this area for the last ten years—although very far removed from the region itself. 

Throughout the last six weeks, I’ve made several observations.  They are, of course, in no particular order.

1)       Despite the grassroots nature of the revolutions and unrest and despite the lingering anti-Americanism everyone talks about—coupled with the ubiquitous anti-Israeli sentiment—there has not been much of either coming from the protesters.  No chants of “death to America” or “death to Israel” can be heard throughout the entire anti-government movement.  This does come at a surprise, but shouldn’t be read as an endorsement of either by the protesters. 

2)      There has only been a cursory discussion of the conflict between peace and justice.  This conflict is extremely important in the post-revolutionary stage in any region.  Revolutions that refuse to address the issue will surely succumb to more violence that could further destabilize the region.  In many cases, peace will have to come without getting any sense of justice.  And often the converse is true, seeking justice could ultimately lead to further violence. 

3)      There is, in fact, quite a bit of difference between the movements throughout the Middle East.  Sure there are some similarities, and there may even be a framework that each movement has followed.  But, as the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.”  Egypt is not like Tunisia, Yemen is not like Bahrain, and Jordan is not like Libya…feel free to interchange the nations however you please.

4)      Obama’s hands off approach to the revolutionary fervor spreading throughout the Middle East is a breath of fresh air.  After all, these revolutions cannot have a “made in America” stamp.  Thus, by imposing the US’s will or ideology on the protesters Obama will negate the organic nature of all those movements.  His decision to provide Humanitarian assistance in the situation with Libya is another step in the right direction.  This is reminiscent of George HW Bush’s response to the fall of the Berlin Wall.  He refused to actually go to Berlin, because in the end it was their movement, not his. 

5)      Military adventurism does not provide any country with long-term maneuverability.  America’s invasion of Iraq, has limited its ability to provide any support or assistance to those in Libya or even Iran.  I am in no way advocating military engagement in either country, but invading Iraq has limited rational options for President Obama.  And in some cases, the use of force is required.  However, the US cannot be seen as forcing its will upon another Muslim nation. 

6)      Our close relationship with nations throughout the Middle East has allowed space for peaceful transitions.  We saw this in both Egypt and Bahrain.  While there was some violence, our sound relationship with high ranking officials in both places allowed Obama to pressure those countries to not use force to quash the protesters.  His message was simple; force was not going to be acceptable.  In Iran, and Libya to an extent, that leverage was not there and thus those nations have used whatever means necessary to punish those protesting.

7)      Al-Jazeera has supplanted CNN as the most comprehensive news organization regarding Middle Eastern issues.  Some would even argue that they have taken over the number one spot in every region.  Certainly their coverage of Egypt, Tunisia, and even Libya has put CNN to shame.  Sec. of State Hillary Clinton said as much in a recent congressional hearing.  It’s pretty bad when a high ranking official makes that sort of statement. 

8)      Relying on dictators to provide stability in any region continues to be a shortsighted policy.  While providing any nation with the short-term satisfaction of dictated stability, this policy is ultimately doomed for failure.  As we are seeing, no matter how long the dictator remains in power, with or without our support, the inevitable change in government can destabilize an entire region.  Certainly, the prospects for short-term “western-style” democracies could be slim, but the long term advantage of popular movements throughout the Middle East ensures a stable future.  The more people have a stake in their own governance, the more likely those states will become more pragmatic, peaceful, and prosperous.  The short-term benefits of dictatorship can never be allowed to trump the long term benefits of democracy.

9)      Talking to everyone, regardless of their position or status, allows for better understanding of each group.  Ignoring groups because they don’t fit within a specific set of requirements limits any country’s—or any organization for that matter—ability to pursue policies within their interests.  The US’s early success in Afghanistan was partly because of its engagement with Iran—even with their lack of mutual diplomatic recognition.  Their lack of success in the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process could be directly linked to their unwillingness to negotiate with Hamas.  In the case of Egypt, it would behoove Obama to engage the Muslim Brotherhood in dialogue.  Even if this leads nowhere, what each side gains is a better understanding of the other—this is probably the biggest problem facing the Iranian-American relationship.  Both sides can continue to build a relationship of understanding.  It should be no surprise that the nations in which the US has no Embassy are also the same nations with which they have poor relations.

10)   OIL!!!!  We have to end our over reliance on oil.  This has nothing to do with global warming or peak oil theories.  It has everything to do with the volatile nature of the regions in which we find oil.  Oil’s grip on our economy can--within a relatively short time period--cause our economy to come to a screeching halt.  Weaning ourselves from oil is necessary to ensure the long-term viability of our economy.  We can do this by first seeking out methods of becoming more efficient with the aim of switching to alternative sources of energy—whether for transportation, electricity, heating, etc.  We have to be in it for the long haul. 

After weeks of unrest, which doesn’t seem to show any signs of fading away, it’s fairly clear to me that we need to rethink how we operate.  The lens, through which we looks upon the world, has to change.  Our formula for making decisions has to be tweaked in order to ensure the long term viability of the country.