Friday
April 14, 2000
Khatami & Nouri are not the answer
Notes on Mr Abdy Hashemi's "Final
destination: Democracy":
I do have big misgivings about "Hojjat-o-eslam" Khatami due
to his clerical training and the fact that he has been raised within the
current system (and "aaghebat gorg zaadeh gorg shavad garcheh baa
aadami bozorg shavad") and I hold him personally responsible for the
atrocities committed by the present regime. However, I am still prepared
to give him the benefit of doubt and reserve my final judgment on his performance
after possibly his second term when he would have had the opportunity of
taking advantage of the newly elected "reformist" members of
the parliament. I also reserve my judgment on the Mr Hashemi's assertion
about "fantastic transition to a near-total civilian rule" supposedly
being achieved under his "leadership" (if the word really applies
to what is going on in Iran).
I have no argument about Mr Hashemi's statement that "the Shah
and his puppets ...... believed in the total eradication of opponents".
Although I would like to know who does he refer to as Shah's puppets and
where does Khatami stand in this analysis. Should we consider him a Rafsanjani's
or Khamenei's puppet by the same decree? As far as I am concerned the
"revolution" replaced one tyrant with another one, albeit several
times more vicious and fierce.
If we believe voting by the masses means moves towards democracy then
perhaps Iran has been a democratic country since the Iranians voted for
the "Islamic Republic". I suppose with a turn-out of over 98%
in that election one can claim the complete participation of a nation.
Then what is this new claim by several Iranians that now live overseas?
I am talking about wave of democratisation.
Reza shah forcibly removed the hijab and Khomeini reinstated it forcibly.
People did not have any choice then and neither during Khomeini's rise
to power. Any one who protested had to face the fury of Reza shah's soldiers
and then the "rogue elements" of fundamentalists or shall we
say the supporters of violence (obviously including Khomeini, the founder
of infamous "Islamic Republic") now. Iranians dismantled one
tyrannical regime in order to install another tyrannical regime in its
place. It is now a well-known fact how Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was returned
to his throne after the thugs mobilised by CIA backing took to streets
to harass Mosaddegh supporters. The same method that Mr Hashemi's dear
Khomeini and his successors have been using since their rise to power.
Khomeini who came to power with the help of various groups (Mujahedin,
Fadaiyan e Khalgh, Tudeh and several other groups who were opposed to Mohammad
Reza Pahlavi's tyrannical rule; not mentioning blessing of the American
government) eradicated all these groups as soon as he took to office.
Yet surprisingly people like Mr Hashemi suggest Khomeini was a saviour.
I wish to point out the atrocities committed and total eradication of
opponents while Khomeini was alive (and as I understand was ordered by
him personally) and the continuance of tortures, murders and widely held
inquisition by him and his aides are many times worse than what the Shah
did.
Khomeini and the clan have established a despotic system which continues
to day and have brutally murdered several thousands of people during their
purge (and eradication using Mr Hashemi's terminology) of their competitors
(or if you wish their opponents). The continuation of the Iraqi imposed
war by Khomeini and the way it was handled is sufficient to implicate Khomeini
and his aides. Yet Mr Hashemi wishes to whitewash all this and settle
his scores with Mr Reza Pahlavi. The list of titles being used these days
by the present regime (or for them) are much more revolting than the term
"crowned father" that Mr Hashemi is resentful of. It appears
to me that the Iranian nation is very talented when it comes to apple polishing
and giving titles.
Interestingly moslems start their prayers and supposedly their daily
routines with the clause "in the name of god the merciful, the kind"
suggesting that "god" is merciful and kind. But they kill anyone
who does not agree with them. They have a habit of branding those who
do not agree with their way of thought and then issue fatwas for their
murder. How this compares with what they preach is beyond my understanding.
A person has either to convert or submit or s/he should be eliminated.
It is amazing that the great nation of Iran have to put up with the "supreme
jurisprudence" and yet the term "crowned father" annoys
or irritates some.
As a Shiite moslem one has to follow a religious leader which means
people have no brain of their own when it supposedly comes to right or
wrong. Whether the religious leader decides something is a virtue or a
vice the devout follower has to accept the religious leader's determination.
I am not sure how in this case people can freely "elect" candidates
if they are considered not to have the required intelligence to recognise
good from bad.
Furthermore, I am not sure what was the intention of the writer. If
he is trying to warn us about the crocodile's tears (Reza Pahlavi's and
not ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi's) then he should not forget that no matter
what Reza Pahlavi says or thinks Iran's future will be determined by the
action of Iranian people who live there. The very fact of murder of several
intellectuals that was surfaced perhaps because the different factions
in the "Islamic !!? Republic" are trying to score points does
not signal liberalisation. The fact that the so-called reformists have
been supposedly elected by the people does not mean anything yet until
we see some outcome of this development (if it is in fact a development).
First of all the candidates all come from the "family" of the
clerics. Secondly these candidates got the stamp of approval by the clerics
imposed "council". Which means that they have been cleared by
the clerics.
What I see is that the present ruling clergy in Iran have realised that
their survival depends on trading with the rest of the world and need the
open blessing of the U.S. as well. They want to establish friendly relations
with various countries of the world (this is the continuation of Rafsanjani's
plans for the exploitation of Iran's wealth). Same as Khomeini who supposedly
drank the glass of poison and conceded to the draw with Saddam Hossein
now his successors are looking to bathe in the international trade to increase
their share of the exploitation by supposedly giving in to the public's
need for "reform". This time they persuaded the people to seek
refuge in the "reformist" camp so the clergy can implement their
plan of establishing international network for better exploitation.
The so-called rule of law that "Hojjat-o-eslam" Khatami is
supposedly advocating is the same law that was devised by Khomeini and
the company and has no merit for the general public as it does not recognise
the right of people. At the end of the day Khamenei, Rafsanjani and Hojjat-o-eslam
Khatami determine what rights the people have. In short I don't know what
the future holds for Iran. I believe that Iranians are a very resilient
nation and will bounce back in time. This may yet take some time but it
will happen. Likes of Nouri, Kadivar, or Mohammad Reza Khatami will not
define Iran's future but their desire to clinch power from the other camp
will help true lovers of Iran to steer the nation in the right direction.
Jamshid Entesari
Links
