Democracy in Action Leaves Regime Change ;Rajavi in the Cold

Iran – Democracy in Action Leaves Regime Change ;Rajavi in the Cold
For five days Iran has been the scene of demonstration and counter demonstration in favour and against two clearly different candidates. Both, of course, are proven believers in and supporters of the fundamentals of the Islamic Republic (IRI).

The peaceful demonstrations and debates and insistence on achieving demands is clearly on going and while no one doubts that this political struggle will continue even after the Friday prayers led by Ayatollah Khamenei, it is now clear that the advocates of violence and so called revolution or ‘regime change’ have been left out in the cold. The more that time passes the more it becomes clear that this is no "regime change" or for that matter a pro-west or pro-east velvet revolution.

I have always believed that the theory of ‘democracy without democrats’ would emerge as the major factor in the Middle Eastern path to democracy. I believe that democracy will not emerge through democrats lecturing those in power to accept the benefits of democracy. Rather it is the people who are in power who will fight each other to the point that they clearly see that their insistence on the policy of ‘winner takes all’ will not only fail to deliver them ‘everything’, rather it is going to leave both sides with ‘nothing’. I believe this is the point that both sides come to understand that compromise and sharing in order to have something is a better option than losing everything.

At this point of course indigenous democrats can have a role as guides and experts to analyse and explain the ways forward, even though they themselves are probably still experimenting and maturing in this transitional period. There are a few historical examples to back this theory. For example, certain periods in Algerian, Turkish and even Sudan’s history where treaties have been achieved to give ‘something’ to each side instead of the ongoing bloodshed and power struggles over ‘everything. Treaties and power sharing of course by no means derive from a belief in democracy; rather they are the starting point toward understanding the benefits of democracy for all parties.

I have been watching with interest as the tone of media reports have changed from describing a ‘coup d’etat’ and the expectation of violence, to describing the gatherings of demonstrators as "pro-government" and "opposition". Yesterday the BBC, Aljazeera and many other outlets consciously or unconsciously referred to Ahmadi Nejad as "the president" and Mirhossein Mousavi as "the head of the opposition".

That reminded of my history books and the long ago days that Tories and Liberals in Britain were representing the very different interests of very different sectors of British society. From there emerged the left side and the right side of Parliament with political parties sitting on each side. The unwritten constitution of the British establishment accepted the voting system, the way the government was to be elected and the way the opposition and the government would "struggle" to represent the interests of their constituents.

Looking at the current prominent political figures in Iran on each side I can’t help envisaging the emergence of political parties in Iran (there are no actual political parties at this moment of time in Iran even though some groups may call themselves ‘parties’).

I also believe that even if Mirhossein Mosavi would have been the name coming out of the ballot boxes (I neither endorse nor reject the possibility of vote rigging but I certainly believe that both sides have enough support and constituencies to be heard), the recent demonstrations and political struggles in Tehran and other Iranian cities would have been inevitable.
It is no longer about "who takes everything". This time it is about "rejection of the theory of winner takes all". I have heard this too many times that the political struggle in western countries is over representative seats in parliament but the same struggle in the Middle East is over the necks and heads of candidates. I see clearly that Iran is emerging one step (and a very big step) closer towards a more pluralistic political system in which various politicians will be fighting over seats rather than each others’ necks. More importantly, the winners and the losers of every period will have to accept the rights of their opponents not because they are lover of democracy but rather because they have matured to see they have no other choice.

Irrelevant of the short term results of the power struggle during the next few weeks, there is no doubt about the big leap the Iranian nation has taken in her journey toward a real democracy. A big leap for the people of Iran and an irreversible huge falling backwards for the advocates of ‘regime change’ by foreign interventionist forces and supporters of terrorist groups like Mojahedin Khalq Organistion (aka: Rajavi cult; which lost it’s backer Saddam Hussein in 2003), Jondollah (the group affiliated to mass murderer Abdolmalek Rigi who is based in Pakistan) and Pejak (the Turkish PKK paid to relocate to the Iranian border for carrying out sabotage).

This weekend the Mojahedin Khalq cancelled its planned event in Paris. Instead, the cult is recruiting people through false associations and groups in order to take advantage of the current unrest in Iran. The idea is to bring Maryam Rajavi to Brussels to jump on the bandwagon of unrest. Anyone who knows anything about Iran will recognise this as an attempt by advocates of regime change to destroy the progress of democracy in Iran. These people will deploy terrorists to undermine the real opposition and democracy movement inside Iran.

Service

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button