|
 Twilight of religious marketability Mohsen Kadivar in New York August 30, 2002 The Iranian I don't believe in painted roses, Or bleeding hearts When poets speak their minds, Then bleed for it -- U2 It was a briefing of the old revolutionaries and their constituencies, serenely giving and forgiving, like a daad o setad, but civil, a dialogue amongst civilizations, politicking above Manhattan Island overlooking the sunset over New Jersey: God bless the sick and the academic. The demographic was made up of perhaps ten women in various degrees of hejab, from the ultra orthodox suffocation to the sexy show-it-all-but-the-hair-baby style together with their men in various degrees of that hezbollahi-uniform, which comprises of drab colors in style-less clothing and attitude, and different degrees of facial hair - no doubt signifying various levels of commitment; this, together with perhaps ten or more women in secular clothing and hair (distracting me shamelessly and devilishly from the wise-heit of the dude on the scene) with a few men in ties and jackets, and some other people that I can't be fucked to describe right now. The right side of the hall did not benefit from a white curtain that saved the left from having to stare directly into the setting sun, and I was sitting smack in the middle of the right side, - because it was a less crowded area - starring at the sun which slowly set behind the speaker as he went on about his understanding or a historical narrative. I was mostly writing with my head down, while others moved away, and some put on sun glasses. The fifteenth floor offered a view high above the island on three sides: Upper-west, Harlem, and New Jersey. The speaker, contrary to my expectation, was not turbaned. His white and thinly striped buttoned down shirt however, had no collar, and he was wearing a very well tailored drab suit over it. His beard was attended to, and a bit longer than the look Khatami generally goes for, but by no means an Ayatollah-style: he is a Hojjatoleslam with a PhD. But more interesting than the speaker was the bulky body-guard type who sat on the table next to him and watched silently over the crowd throughout the talk. This John-Goodman character right out of The Big Lebowski, with a carefully trimmed beard drawn around where there would have been a chin and a jaw-line, appeared to be someone between an organizer/tour manager and a bouncer. His role came to be more pronounced after the talk was over and during the question and answer period when he would choose the questions and give directions to MK as to whether he should or shouldn't answer it - at times comically close to certain boundaries (of course in the interest of time.) He also introduced himself briefly, but in such an unclear tone that seemed to indicate its non-importance. Another player in the show was Gary Sick, former U.S. National Security Council expert on Iran, who quoted something profound from Kadivar in his brief introduction: "Freedom is God's greatest gift". He unfortunately did not continue to go on and explain why God's greatest Christmas package was being delivered in Iran now with less frequency than ever, despite so many Ayat-ollahs so directly, in touch with him, and many more hojjatoleslams just waiting on the wings to take over, and cover for him, should it be necessary. Kadivar began his talk with a longish paragraph in Arabic. Later on I was thinking about these opening few sentences, and their purpose. If the majority of your audience does not understand what you are saying and does not speak the language you say it in, but you say it anyway, what purpose could this "abracadabra" have? It is certainly there to make an impression. His talk was entitled "From Constitutional Monarchy, to the Velaayee Republic," with Velaayee pointing to the Velaayate Faghih, or the rule of the Islamic jurist. The structure of the talk was surprisingly simple and easy to follow, and even the superabundance of the Arabic in the Farsi he was constructing, did not really pose a serious problem to understanding, partly because what he was saying was not anything new in that it was a loose comparative study of two systems in broad brushstrokes for the masses and the asses. The underlying connecting thesis and the fundament for many implied conclusions he drew from it, or built upon it, appeared to assert that "an absolutist rule has always existed in Iran."  Kadivar has apparently spent two years in a special mullah prison
for advancing such a thesis before. In the question and answer period there
was a reference to that made by a questioner, pointing out indirectly, that there
is a big gap between the "khodi," (part of the ruling class or one
of the revolutionaries of old,) and "digari," (the others who do
not enjoy similar fringe benefits and are quite often summarily executed or sadistically
tortured) when it comes to prisons. But as the questioner pointed out, we are
all happy that not everybody incarcerated by the regime has a horrific fate - and
I would add, some even get to lecture in these New Yorkian heights. Hoj. Dr. Kadivar is very clever and has quite a number of rules of rhetoric down cold. Say anything you like about mullahs, but they are certainly not simple: there are complicated patterns to their aesthetic choices, and they have certainly spent a long time practicing the logic of their identity. Rationality is one of the many techniques for the gymnastics of their reasoning, and they certainly know that instrumental argumentation can be used to stall brute force while exercising it. In effect mullahs and academics are of the same cloth. They both practice and perfect the art of using words in their own advantage and quite convincingly declare judgments and sentences upon a certain originary assumption that is rooted in mysticism or mythology; a one that they then excavate out of this underlying chaos, and formulate into the either/or of "harfe hessaab," that then produces meanings like a computer does with ones and zeros: certainly pragmatic, and quite often even pleasing to the senses. But the tone certainly seemed to indicate that Dr. Kadivar has realized the threat that is most eminent upon his position in the society full well: "You can fool some people some time, but you can't fool all the people all the time," especially not when they are young, horny, and sick of being underestimated intellectually. With this realization come further scissions and decisions into concepts that have been unquestioned so far. So, now there must be a differentiation made between the "Islamic Republic," and the "Velaayee Republic," with one representing a currently preferred alternative to the other, which is now disputed and refuted and recognized as the place where the problem is and has always been. The new line which is gonna hopefully save the day is: Islamic=good, Velaayee=bad.  From here on, we enter the area that was introduced
by the incoherent foreign language in the beginning of his talk, a magical mystery
realm that has nothing to do with the Beatles, but still gets some of the girls all
hot and bothered underneath the overcoats and chadors. To support his position,
and to draw evidences and precedents for it, he pointed out, sort of by the way,
that if the Christian Democrats can rule in Europe, Islamic Republicans should also
be able to rule in Iran. I am sure he realizes that this analogy won't fly, but just for the record I'd like to point out that for instance, the CDU/CSU might occasionally win power, - and then try to hang on to it through all sorts of corruption, with money embezzlement and dealing with arms-dealers and terrorists, a la that big fat bastard, Helmut the cabbage, - but this does not mean that then in the world there exists a Christian Republican State, where there was once the Federal Republic of Germany. Yes, on paper there might be a whole lot of Christians or Christian Democrats in Germany, - but everyone knows that Germans are not that stupid, particularly after all the religious wars before and after a 15th century "reform"ation that now the top brass Islamic Republicans such as Soroush try to go for; wars that have been bitterly fought so that there will one day be unity and identity in Europe. A herald of this call for the revaluation of all values has come, quite mysteriously indeed, out of a nineteenth century book named after an Iranian singer and writer, some may say, prophet, who made a cut between the good and the evil in the first place. But we are already back to the beginning, "orienting" ourselves. To get to the notion of salvaging something out of the catastrophe of this Islamic Republic, Kadivar resorts firstly to argue that the move from the parliamentary version of democracy (Mahrute) to the presidential one, like the one in Tehran today, signifies a progress, and so even though they have all been totalitarian and absolutist in an Iranian context, we are now at an advantage! This could perhaps be argued in a long dissertation that no body will ever read, but his suggestion that this is self-evident is certainly questionable; just a brief look around the planet shows that a parliamentarian democracy, such as the one in England, with a symbolic position well outside of Government, and as Kadivar suggests, "tashrifati," provides for a much more stable system than a one where jack asses like Clinton and Bush, not to mention the likes of Hussein and Assad and that liar khaay-less Khatami get not only to be presidents, but also to be the symbolic heads of state as well.  The question then arises: does he not know that the
basic problem is that there is no separation of Religion and Government in Iran?
Does he not see that a government that actively tries to force a particular version
of a religion, which is dogmatic to begin with, - in various forms and reforms, in
new and improved packaging or in its retro come-backs, - is bound to kill all the
spirituality it aims for, especially in these times when new and more fluid values
are needed? Surely, he does, but he is nevertheless a mullah. He did not get to lecture on top of Columbia University because he is a secular political science scholar of note bringing a new contribution to the research in this area, he is here not only as a Sick-joke, but also because of the "hojjatolesam" part of his title, (rather than its "doctor" part,) something that has bought him ever-increasing credibility and has not only saved his life, but has also elevated it to the 15th floor. He knows exactly what set of cards he has in his hands. Still, what he says is not wrong. He points out several issues that have perhaps unfortunately not yet achieved common-sense status, but are at least subconsciously present in the Iranian psyche. A will towards absolute domination has always existed, and will go on to live in the psyche of people for a time to come. In this, then, the issue becomes: which system, while not pretending to be absolutely democratic, has achieved more modernity, improvement and advancement; which has brought more international prestige and a more stable and growing economy; which has improved the rights of women; which one has been kinder to the religious, cultural, and sexual minorities and those poor bastards who just don't want religion (thank you very much;) which one has built instead of destroying; which one has brought Iran so far ahead of other countries in the middle-east and which one has dragged it right back down.... And why? Of course these are my questions, and not Kadivar's. And there we see that although it is correct to say that absolutism has always been there, that does not mean that an Iran under the Sassanian and Hakhamaneshian, as a major world superpower, is comparable to a one under the Arabs or the Ghaajars, who mostly farted around while Iran was ripped to pieces. (The problems in Gorjestan of Russia as it is today on the news, can be seen also in a different light, if one realizes what the "stan" at the end of it points to.)  The constitution of 1906 was not ever fully implemented,
Hoj. Dr. Kadivar is right in asserting this as the sun slowly hides behind New Jersey.
But this by no means justifies the constitution that was put together in 1979, which
is far inferior to the previous one, (which also didn't get fully implemented, giving
Kadivar the right to make surgical cuts between Velaayee and Islamic Republics,
and try to buy some more time for his government.) Over and beyond that, as Kadivar himself inadvertently pointed out in his talk, the referendum that handed the takht over to the mambar, was introduced to people only "two days before the referendum on TV." When asked if he thought this was fair, he replied that this "asking" from the people in and of itself is something that hadn't ever been done prior; and in that sense it was "a progress" no matter what. Well, the question that is begging for an answer then is: do we also think so? Do we think that the referendum in 1979 was or has come to be, or represent, any sort of "progress"? Is it not rather clearly an instrumental lie at the hands of an expert with words who is resorting to save this Republic and therefore his own hide? Underneath all revolutions and all actions there lies a will to power, and nothing else. Those who profess to deny this, and appeal to humanity and God as their witness, however, have always been the cleverest of the priests, securing their reign in various guises from time immemorial right up to today. And it has always been through real though not direct violence; the kind of undercover terrorism and sneaky double-talk that has never been as exposed to all as it is today.  Still, the fact that the good doctor managed to mention
the Pahlavis in his talk of "Reza Khan who brought back the absolutism...,"
perhaps against a Fath Ali Shah, who conducted a "Jihad against the Russians"
(and got his ass beat) points out very carefully where the real danger to the present
version of absolutism, of which he himself is an honorary member, lies. The
specter of the old man is still there, and everyone is recognizing that if there
is a real threat to the way things are as they are today, it is not to be found in
the cynical smile of a funky "khodi" ayatollah or another, but is
rather posed by someone named Reza again! As the talk ended, and I thought I'd be the first one downstairs, I encountered a few women standing outside, who asked me if it was over already. I just smiled and said yes. But in reality, it is far from over: this is just the sunset, and "midnight is where the day begins."
 |
|
|
|
Web design by BTC Consultants
Internet server Global Publishing Group