Phrases like, “No (violent) revolution in history has brought democracy to a country”, “Revolution is not the answer”, “The Iranian regime is a totalitarian/authoritarian regime because it was established by a violent revolution”, “Reform is the only way forward” and so on, are talking points repeated by some so-called “reformist intellectuals” nowadays. But do they have any validity? And are they based on historical facts?
To answer these questions let’s first focus on the term “violent revolution”, recently used by these “reformist intellectuals”, to refer to the Iranian revolution of 1979. As a matter of fact, the 1979 revolution was almost entirely a nonviolent revolution. It is often categorized as a nonviolent resistance movement, by many historians. In 1979, Iranians marched the streets peacefully demanding the end of monarchy, Shah voluntarily left the country and the army stood down and let the new government take charge. The regime that was established afterwards however, unlike the revolution that led to its establishment, was indeed vicious and violent.
It is interesting to note that the Iranian revolution of1979, in the manner in which it was carried out, is very similar to the “velvet” revolutions of 1989 which overthrew communist governments in Eastern-bloc European countries. These revolutions were characterized by peaceful protests in the streets against the regime, the government’s initial resistance to giving up the power, paralyzing mass strikes by the people and finally the government’s volunteer abandonment of the power. Yet, despite their similarities, the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the “velvet” revolutions of 1989 had entirely different outcomes. One led to the establishment of a brutal totalitarian and theocratic regime while the others led to establishment of democratic republics. Similarly, the Romanian revolution of 1989 and the Russian revolution of 1917 were both violent revolutions, yet one led to the establishment of a democratic republic while the other led to the establishment of one of the most brutal totalitarian regimes in human history. So why is it that the outcomes of these revolutions were so different? And what determines the outcome of a revolution?
I submit to you that the outcome of a revolution is less related to the manner in which it is carried out and more related to the goals and ideals of the masses that carry it out. The rather violent Romanian revolution of 1989 resulted in the establishment of a democratic republic because the masses who poured into the streets followed liberal democratic ideals. The nonviolent Iranian revolution of 1979, on the other hand, resulted in the establishment of a vicious totalitarian regime because the masses who poured into the streets followed Communist and Islamist ideals rather than democratic ones. It, certainly, is arguable that nonviolent movements could have more desirable outcomes but history shows us that the most determining factor in the outcome of a movement is the ideals of the people involved in that movement rather than anything else.
That said, I myself believe that a nonviolent revolution (AKA national referendum) is the best way forward for Iran, but a revolution nonetheless. These so-called “reformist intellectuals” like to throw around the word “violent revolution” a lot and argue against it, but I suspect that they have a problem with the word “revolution” rather the word “violent”.
Many intellectuals and scholars have analyzed the fundamental problems ingrained in Iran’s Islamic constitution and explained why Iran’s current regime is not reformable. However, I have yet to see an argument against revolution and for reform based on merits of Iran’s Islamic constitution itself. Instead these so-called “reformist intellectuals” keep basing their argument on “history” and how it shows that any revolution would lead to failure. As discussed earlier however, the case against revolution is not based on historical facts and has no historical validity. Either these “reformist intellectuals” are ignorant about history or they are dishonest opportunists who intentionally fudge the facts for their own purposes. Either way, I fail to see the intellect in their arguments.
