This was a comment in discussions about constitution of a republic for Iran which was not welcomed there but I think it’s too important to be brought-up NOW, to be ignored.
Jamshid wrote … Regarding ethnic rights, There are three camps in Iran. One side thinks that giving full rights (language, self-governance, etc.) might cause an eventual break up of the country. The other camp doesn’t believe this, and in fact believes that this will bring the country closer together and make it more vibrant and stronger. I belong to the second camp.
However, as long as there are members of the third camp who want to use autonomy as a stepping stone to actually break away from Iran, there will be always danger and mistrust, the weaker Iran, the stronger people will perceive these dangers.
For preventing the mistrust of some, we should not cultivate the mistrust of others…
This is an issue that should be dealt with long before getting to a legitimate process of drafting a constitution to be voted by people.
We can not dismiss any of three camps, just because we belong to one of the other camps. When the agenda is freedom, this includes freedom for trying to democratically proceed with the goal of secession.
As the current legitimate constitution of Iran is the starting point, we should also start with acknowledging the territorial integrity of Iran as it is internationally recognized right now. But this is also the starting point.
The main goal is freedom and the 19th and 20th century concept of territorial integrity is outdated -if not unsustainable- and it should not undermine the freedom -within rules- for secession. If you truly believe the inhabitants of Iran of all ethnic backgrounds share the same history and the same identity as a single nation as I do, then there shouldn’t be any concern. If you don’t believe it, then there is a serious ground for secession and serious reason for not blocking it. So either way you look at it, there is no justification in undermining the freedom of expression, or setting up some preventive measures undermining freedom of expression.
Federalism and autonomy, are management patterns, not necessarily related to ethnic differences. We should address the main issue head on. So instead of saying ‘it is illegal to secede from the mainland’, or simply postponing the issue by saying it is premature to speak of ‘federalism’ -which I incidentally totally agree- with respect of freedom of expression, we have no way other than specifying what would constitutes ‘legal’ secession.
My rule of thumb is that for a relatively reversible decision such as electing a 4 year term government, majority of over %50 as practiced in all democracies is sufficient. But for something as irreversible as secession, it has to be subject to some other conditions.
What I suggest is this:
For any territory to separate from the mainland, or to join to the mainland, there has to be a favorable majority of over %66 from the inhabitants of the territory, and a favorable majority of over %50 from the inhabitants of the rest of the mainland simultaneously. To me this is an absolute necessity for a peaceful, sustainable and stable transition. An Azari may say the rest of the country will never have %50 favorable vote for secession of Azerbaijan. I would say, then maybe it is not a good idea and it will create a never ending tension and violence. Go get the %66 of Azaris to be favorable to such idea, then you may have a good chance convincing %50 of the rest of the country. The hole point is to establish a peaceful democratic process… process again!
It goes without saying that in my personal perspective, this rule is mostly for facilitating the creation of ‘Iran-e bozorg’ -democratically- not shrinking it.
