In the days leading upto 22 Bahman, the Iranian blogosphere was abuzz over whether a momentous turnout would mark a turning point in the Green movement. DC’s policy and think-tank circles were excited, too, with many starting to see Iran’s so-called “democracy clock” as outpacing its “nuclear clock” for the first time. The mainstream press also again took notice, putting aside its ceaseless coverage of the nuclear issue — if only fleetingly — to cover the another showdown in the first major social movement of the twenty-first century.
Ultimately, the ‘hype’ surrounding the day was not matched by the events on the ground. The regime was out in full-force, surprisingly disciplined in its brutality, and with numbers not seen since June. Security forces were concentrated in a hornets’ nest around Azadi Square, where Ahmadinejad was speaking and where a loose network of Green activists had proposed the opposition march towards. The strategy was a failure, as Green protesters blended in with demonstrators that the government had bused in. Meanwhile, those intrepid enough to try to protest were quickly and swiftly detained (some reports put the number arrested on Thursday at over 1,000).
What caused the Greens to suffer from such poor strategy and coordination will be debated in the weeks to come. For now, though, one thing is certain: the same supporters of the Green movement who were so excitedly anticipating 22 Bahman last week now feel a collective sense of dejection. Perhaps that will prove to be a lesson in itself, however. For if the Green movement is to restrategize following Thursday’s poor showing, one adjustment that surely must be made is in how it views itself — on the ground, online, and from abroad.
Indeed, the disappointment felt by so many stems not just from the fact that expectations were set so high, but the fact that expectations were set to begin with. This is of course symptomatic of how we have to come to view these ‘big days’ in the Green movement, marked in our calendars weeks in advance. But the reality is that this is a social movement that is in a state of flux and still finding its way. There will continue to be moments of green jubilation in Tehran, as well as more horror, shock, and the occasional misstep. It would be imprudent to think that the uprising of a nation with a history as long and complex as Iran’s could be predicted otherwise.
What’s more, as empowering as the information revolution has made it to report the Green movement on the one hand, it is somewhat clouding the long-term perspective of many on the other. The way this movement is followed and reported on — through blogs, Twitter, and YouTube — is even more instant-analysis driven than the 24-hour news-cycle of the same cable news networks that so many bemoan. Even this blogger would by lying if he said that he did not feel a certain pressure to post this entry as soon as possible, before the conversation moves from 22 Bahman to the next fleeting topic.
By no means does this reflect a weakness in citizen journalism through these new and innovative tools, however. Rather, what all of this points to is the success the regime has enjoyed in employing its blanket censorship of Iranian media. Independent-minded newspapers are routinely shut down, IRIB’s programming has become entirely propagandist, and the foreign press has been all but expelled from the country. Ultimately, what will make Iran’s Green uprising and resistance seminal to future social movements is not its innovative use of information technology, but rather, its dependence on it.
In truth, the pace of this movement will always be measured and decided by those on the ground, by the ones who actually see and record events as they unfold — by the ones forced to breathe the regime’s repression on a daily basis. After Thursday, there is no doubt that the figureheads and leading activists of the movement must study what transpired and make adjustment ahead of Chaharshanbe Suri, Sizdah Bedar, or whenever the next major demonstration is planned. To repeat what transpired on 22 Bahman and expect a different result would be foolhardy.
But inside of Iran, where information is disseminated through networks and word-of-mouth in addition to the internet, the sentiment surrounding 22 Bahman must surely be different than what it is online or abroad. In fact, there is a certain disconnect between the two groups. While the Greens have been steadfastly calling for “evolution” both before and after the election, many in the diaspora community and Washington have been screaming “revolution” since the day millions of brave Iranians poured out into Tehran’s streets. Even if they are a minority, they still represent a voice that is mostly absent among those who make up the Green movement. This is also why the movement has remained largely non-violent, something which revolutions surely are not.
Most recently, this divide was revealed in the days leading up to 22 Bahman. There were those who overeagerly awaited the regime’s collapse on the thirty-first anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, and there were those who prudently recognized that the struggle ahead would be as long as it would be trying. For Thursday was never going to be a day where the regime cowed into retreat; historic days such as these are incapable of being scheduled in advance! In the end, it will have to be the Greens who march themselves forward, and with their ingenuity, determine how the opposition will next outwit the regime. Everyone else must remember to help only facilitate — and not guide — that vision.
(c) Masoud Shafaee | http://www.thenewestdeal.org
