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.
No comments:
Post a Comment