Making a hero
Heroes are neither self-selected nor eternal
By Ali Akbar Mahdi
November 27, 2000
The Iranian
The trials of Akbar Ganji and Ebrahim Nabavi in the Islamic Republic
of Iran have caused many Iranians to reflect on the political and personal
characters of these two political prisoners. Numerous articles have surfaced
in the Iranian press abroad, including two features in The Iranian, "Dictators
create heroes","Defiance
vs.regret".
Such articles concentrate our attention on the implications of these
trials for the reformist movement, the future of reform in Iran, and the
personalities and modalities of resistence by political activists. In his
"mea culpa," Nabavi denounces his writings as unfair and angry
characterization of individuals and institutions in the Islamic Republic
and expresses the desire not to be viewed as a "hero", since
Iran "does not need heroes" anymore. He expresses the desire
to be a good citizen dedicated to the revolution, the Velayat-e Faqih
(the rule of supreme jurisprudent), the regime, and Islam.
Several writers, including the authors of the two articles in The
Iranian, have come to the conclusion that Nabavi and Mohammad Quchani
have broken down under pressure during their incarceration and have changed
their political views. Comparing Nabavi and Ganji's appearances in the
courtroom, Amirali Baniasadi argues that Nabavi's humorous appearance "seems
to rule out any chances of depression and confusion on his part."
Thus, he concludes that Nabavi "abandoned his assumed position as
a 'hero.'"
While these comparisons and contrasts are worthwhile and helpful in
understanding the dynamics involved here, they do not account for the subtleties
involved in political activism and social change. Certainly, the circumstances
and forces shaping these trials will have serious implications for the
reformist movement, historical trends, and any historiography of Iranian
heroes and villains. However, Nabavi's confession and Quchani's remorseful
statements should not diminish the value of their contributions in exposing
the dark side of the Islamic Republic. If they ever were anybody's heroes,
they need not be dropped from the list simply because of their so-called
confessions.
Heroes are neither self-selected nor eternal. Extraordinary behavior
or posturing may bring someone quick recognition as a hero. However, such
an honor may be taken away as quickly as it was granted. Being a hero is
an ephemeral reality. It is a quality defined by and residing in the minds
of others, rather than by and with the hero himself/herself. One may wish
to be a hero but there is no office to which one applies. Neither is there
a central authority with the power to take away such a status if granted
by public opinion.
Surely, communication technology and mass media have become important
tools for shaping public opinion and helping someone's cause and fortune
in the eyes of the public. Such manipulation of the public mind can be
successful when there are enough grievances and issues of concern.
Making a hero out of Gholamreza Karbaschi was a case in point. Karbaschi
was persecuted because he had helped President Khatami's election, thus
challenging the clerical establishment. The public sided with him because
he was seen as a victim. His defiance, helped by the well-orchestrated
machinery of the Second Khordaad Front, brought him a short-lived heroic
status. Such a conditional status lasted as long as those conditions that
gave rise to that status remained in effect. Once the machinery and those
conditions were gone, so was the status.
Until two weeks ago, when Ebrahim Nabavi's penance note was published
in Kayhan, no official source had declared him a hero. The publication
of that note and the fact that his captors forced him to pen those specific
words, trying to discourage the Iranian youth from heroic activism, indicate
that in fact people like Nabavi and Ganji have acquired heroic status in
public mind. That is why those captors set themselves the task of undoing
that stature.
As long as Nabavi and his friends fought for democracy, exposed the
inadequacy and inconsistency of the regime's conservative policies, and
championed the people's interests, the Iranian people might have regarded
them as heroes. Their heroism served as a threat to those authorities against
whom these journalists gained notoriety and recognition. In order words,
public recognition of Nabavi or Ganji as heroes remains conditional on
their actions and perceived principles.
The fact that Nabavi and Quchani have shown remorse and are trying to
free themselves from further debilitating prison conditions does not change
anything in this affair. Individuals have a right to choose their battles
as much as we have a right to judge their performance or view them as we
wish.
Still, I see all three individuals engaging in activism of a higher
order - actions that involve life and death decisions and cause tremendous
pain to themselves and their families. Certainly, their reactions to imprisonment
are quite different from one another. But do not quickly write off Nabavi's
or Quchani's public activism.
Nabavi gained popularity as a result of his satirical writings, in which
he exposed the contradictions of both the ideology and practices of the
conservative faction in the Islamic Republic. His latest "confession"
is a second act and is not the end of his political activism. Did forced
confessions by Reza Barahani and Ali Shariati during the Pahlavi period
end their political activism, and our respect for their fight against dictatorship?
These confessions should be viewed in light of a long resistance process
and as a sign of the regime's further brutality rather than its victims'
weak resolve.
Furthermore, reading the accounts of Nabavi's trials, I have come to
the conclusion quite the opposite of his secular critics. Some see Nabavi
as a remorseful prisoner giving up his ideals for freedom and writing his
own political obituary. However, I see Nabavi's letter to Kayhan
as a typical penance note ("Gohkhordam Naameh" or "Naameh-ye
Ghalatkardam" as it is commonly known among political prisoners and
activists) written by a tortured political prisoner.
The fact that this letter is written by a person in prison is sufficient
evidence to disqualify it as a genuine repentance. Certainly Nabavi decided
to go along with his captors and write a statement denouncing his past
deeds and thoughts in order to reduce his pain and gain freedom from torture,
solitary confinement, and an intellectual mortification. But he has done
so under duress, and in extremely harsh prison conditions. The fact that
Kayhan, whose affiliation with the country's security apparatus
is well known, printed this note is enough evidence that the same people
who obtained confessions from former political prisoners in the 1980s have
also orchestrated this affair.
Nabavi's court behavior leaves no doubt that he is engaged in a theatrical
resistance to his captors by trying to make the whole affair look like
a farce. His sarcasm and sharp tongue break the rigidity of the court rituals
and penetrates into his captors' convoluted minds. Reports indicate that
everyone in the court, even the judge and prosecutor, were in laughter
as Nabavi talked. Evoking laughter in dreadful places, as these courts
are, is not an easy task and was not done with a vain purpose. Nabavi made
a mockery of the court by changing the discourse and getting his captors
to laugh at the rules they had set for him. Read these accounts and judge
them yourself (*):
Nabavi at the start of his defense:
"First, I am thankful for the tolerance and leniency
shown to me by the prosecutor. If you had appointed me as my own prosecutor,
I would have dealt with this misguided Nabavi in such a way that he would
leave the prison for Beheshte Zahraa [cemetery] with all his hairs gone,
his beard turned gray, and a wooden cane in his hand. I congratulate the
Judiciary for this tolerance and leniency and hope that the Almighty will
forgive all my sins. It is interesting that we were searching for tolerance
and leniency in the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, while it
could be found in the Judiciary."
Further, he elaborates what has happened to him and how he has come
to the conclusions he had stated in his penance note:
"Moral Conclusion: People, specially satirists, try
to blame others for their troubles. But, then we were imprisoned. In prison,
I had been treated very well by my interrogators and guards. Of course,
to my knowledge prison conditions have improved a lot, as previous prisoners
have stated this. I, as a traitor to the people, alienated, debased, rejected,
and so on state fully that I have not been treated violently. And of course,
the responsibility is with the messenger [the last sentence was stated
in Arabic].
In the prison, I had a lot of time for assessing my self,
my behaviors, and my writings. I had meetings with several thoughtful interrogators
and experts who knew a lot about politics and history. I had many dialogues
with them and learned a great deal from them. Of course, I have heard people
say that my [latest] statement was issued under pressure. I do not see
this to be correct and reject it. Hereby, I, Ebrahim Nabavi, do not accept
anything that I do not see as reasonable and right, as this can be testified
by my relatives; and I do not hesitate to express my regrets, if I find
the truth. Yes, this is what I am! [baleh, een maa-eem!] For your information,
I should point out that since I am a "seyed" of Azari origin,
I do not give into coercion, even if it is a mighty coercion."
Asked why he is wearing a prison uniform, Nabavi replied:
"In order to come to the court, I had to leave the
prison. Apparently, according to the Article 93 of Prison Rules, wearing
the prison uniform is mandatory for all prisoners. So, while it is true
that I could enter the court without a uniform, I could not leave the prison
without one! Since the conditions of departure precede the conditions of
arrival, I had to enter the court with a uniform! ... I am wearing this
as a sign of respect for financial prisoners who are less sinful than me!
... If I had come to the court with my personal cloths, I might had been
labeled 'Soosool Khan', 'Hooshang Khan', and the like. That would have
not been appropriate... Since we are not in the park, we follow prison
rules."
Further, his satirical statements reveal much of what has happened to
him and what he is trying to imply about the prisons in the Islamic Republic:
"Point Number Eight: Finally, Nabavi was incarcerated
and, unfortunately, for the second time. One reason I was incarcerated
for the second time had to do with the fact that at the end of the first
imprisonment I asked my prosecutor to let me keep my uniform so that I
preserve it as a reminder at home. He rejected my request on the basis
of prison rules and laws. That is why I declare now that it is not me who
is solely responsible for my imprisonment. If Mr. Ganji is so upset with
his prison uniform, I am ready to take his uniform home after my release
so that I do not engage in actions worthy of imprisonment. Therefore, I
suggest to the respectful prison officials to give prisoners, in addition
to one uniform at arrival, a second one at the time of their release so
that they remain careful about their behaviors."
When asked by Judge Mortazavi how he wants to defend himself, with or
without his lawyer, he replied:
"I am capable of defending Mr. Ahmadi [his attorney]
too!"
When the judge disagreed with his lawyer's questioning of the court's
legitimacy and asked Nabavi about this, he turned to his lawyer and politely
asked him not to question this court's legitimacy. Then, he said:
"I accept the legitimacy of this court and Mr. Ahmadi
is expressing his own personal and legal opinions."
When apologizing to those who claim to have been hurt by his writings,
he reveals why he is saying what he is saying. He does not want to become
a martyr. He wants to live and continue to be an effective writer:
"And I should say that for this writer what is important
more than anything else is to be alive so he can write, or saying it more
accurately, to write so he can live."
Finally, he ends his defense this way:
"The last statement I would like to make is about
the nature of my work which has to do with satire and humor. Several years
ago Mr. Nateq Nouri used this same phrase during one of the squabbles on
the floor of the parliament: Gentlemen, my job is humor and satire. We
joke and ask you guys not to take them too seriously."
In conclusion, these trials and confessions are orchestrated by the
Islamic regime in order to break the resolve of Islamic reformists, coerce
them into compromise with the conservative faction, and scare off youths
and secular activists who oppose the clerical rule.
They certainly will have a slowing effect on the train of change in
Iran but are not going to change anyone's minds about the brutality of
prison policies and the monopolistic nature of clerical politics in Iran.
They may dampen the political morale of people who saw these activists
as their leaders but will not eliminate the underlying motivations that
gave rise to their activism. They may force moderation on weaker agents
of change but they will not eradicate the harsh image of the clerical rule
in the country.
Resistance to oppression takes many forms, goes through many stages,
and generates many heroes, some with a more enduring character and some
with less. Aauthritarian regimes can not impose heroes on a movement, though
they do prepare the ground for their emergence. Nabavi did not choose to
be a hero by himself and the Islamic Republic will not be able to dethrone
him if the people have already made him one.
(*) All quotations from Nabavi are translated from his defense printed
in Kayhan, November 15, 2000. Persian text here Page
ONE - Page
TWO
Author
Ali Akbar Mahdi is chair and associate professor at the Department
of Sociology and Anthropology, Ohio Wesleyan University.
Making a hero
