The methodology and worldview of MKO as well as the picture Rajavi depicts of the world is fundamentally in conflict with the principles of civility and its components like reason, rationale, interaction, forum and relativism in thought. In fact, he considers the truth as an absolute concept monopolized in the ideology of his organization. In other words, truth for Mojahedin is not a relative concept but a kind of dogmatic notion that has its roots in empirical sciences and ideology.
As a result, only one group, trend, worldview, and ideology has perfect legitimacy and there is no room for other ideologies, trends, and doctrines. Based on these understandings,
Rajavi came to the conclusion that his ideology could auto dynamically eliminate the outside forces to assume its hegemony and dominance step by step. He even criticized the structure of western knowledge and derided their offspring like liberalism and individualism as well as the theories of the intellectuals and theoreticians of capitalist world and American pragmatism in order to prove his philosophic and ideological inferences that were based on the principle of polarity.
Taking a look at the doctrines and principles of the organization extracted from the theoretical book “The way of Hussein” may give us a better understanding of the real viewpoint of the organization and its leadership on democracy and other manifestations of civility.
It will give us other instances of MKO methodology to prove the fact that Rajavi has temporally deviated from the organizational principles of Mojahedin that the organization strongly adhered to. Unlike the past, now Mojahedin pretend to move on the same line with Western-favored concepts like private ownership (equal to robbery in the doctrines of MKO), open-market economy, and capitalism in recent years to win the support of westerners and the US in particular. In the book “The Democracy Betrayed” that includes answers to the accusations of the declaration of the US State Department, it is claimed that the founders of the organization had no objective but modeling the American society. In other words, Rajavi seems to have yield to capitalism,
American democracy, as well as all its cultural and ideological accomplishments based on liberalism and pragmatism.
Of the challenges facing Mojahedin in the US State Department’s statement is that they are accused of ideological inclination toward a totalitarian government and supremacy of the minority: the ruling of minority over majority is an indication of the direct effects of Communism on Mojahedin. These concepts having their roots in historical materialism and the principle of polarity, are opposed to Imperialism and consider modern concepts like democracy as well as social and individual freedom mere slogans for deceiving the masses.
The following excerpt may prove that Mojahedin refrain to believe in democracy, the vote of majority yet consider these concepts as the main enemies of their ideology. On the other hand, Mojahedin believe in the rule of minority over majority and refusal of democracy and the freedoms promoted by liberalism. An important point is that Mojahedin rely on a dynamism without which there is no possibility for understanding Qur’an. This is the boundary drawn between the interpretations made by MKO founders from Qur’an and the classic ones from their early years. The following is an excerpt from the book “The way of Hussein” based on which the ideology of the organization is to be analyzed:
By accepting the dynamism of the Qur’an and understanding its attitudinal basis, we will find no justification to adapt it to capitalism or separate it from government. Particularly, it has to be pointed out that the Islamic government is rich in respecting freedom and the will of man yet has no similarity to the democracy promoted by the West that is mere superstition. On the other hand, it promotes a kind of power enforcement and council leadership and in general, the ruling of the pious is its final manifestation. In this frame, the pious who are recognized by their more awareness of social issues lead the society and move it toward the fundamental of Qur’an.1
It is concluded that Mojahedin recognize no legitimacy for democracy or election for choosing the type of government. More importantly, in contrast to what they propagandize on the separation of the state and religion, they fundamentally believe in an ideological system rooted in the religion and consider religion and government as two inseparable issues in opposition to the belief of capitalism and modern societies. They also believe that performing the dynamism of Qur’an is impossible but by grabbing at the combination of the state and religion on the one hand and negation of democracy on the other. It has been pointed out that they believe in the ruling of a particular group rather than election and democracy.
They refrain to see ruling based on the vote of majority of people and consider it based on the doctrines deducted from this dynamism and take its legitimacy from their ideology.
The only difference between the ideology of Mojahedin and Marxism is the substitution of common terminology of Marxism with new ones. Both are based on disagreement to election, social and individual freedom, rationale, reason, consensus, civil law, etc. A brief look at the history of Marxism in recent decades may give us a better understanding of the belief system of MKO in which modern concepts like separation of government and religion, election and democracy, respecting social and individual rights, freedom and other democratic concepts are considered superstition and nothing more.
1. The Way of Hussein, MKO Publication, Tehran, 1980, p. 22.