As it is common in most closed systems with an authoritarian structure, no feedback is permitted within the system and any modification is refused except those done by leadership approval. As a result, any critic or complainer will face a variety of allegations since the leader never tolerates them. It is a well proven fact within Mojahedin Khalq Organizatin (MKO, MEK, PMOI, NCRI) and Massoud Rajavi goes further in his message of January 20th in an attempt to justify his hostile and aggressive reactions against his critics:
They suppose we do not know the meaning, definition and the difference between serious criticism and submission, reactionarism, scandal, and flattery regarding the regime of Velayat-e Faqih and democratic gestures and think that we have not experienced it.
In this way, Rajavi makes an attempt to deny all criticisms and disclosures made by MKO detached members pretending that all his critics are unexceptionally related to the Iranian regime and are it agents. Evidently, he has to attribute his critics as well as the opponent trends to the Iranian regime. His self-fabricating theory and principle of “those who are not with us are against us” legitimizes him to introduce anyone having the least objection to his policies and actions as an agent of the Iranian regime. His analyses in the last three decades results in this conclusion:
They suppose we do not know the notorious ministry (of Information) has instructed anonymous soldiers to give the priority to spreading rumors on the action of Mojahedin in labeling all their critics as the agents of Iranian regime.
The above statements being distracted from his message of January 20th may shed light on Rajavi’s paradoxical and false assertions. He tries to infuse the idea that in spite of the existing rumors against him, he is highly democratic and ready for accountability contrary to the Iranian regime. Interestingly enough, Rajavi denies all the charges posed on him and attributes his 30-year policy to the Iranian regime while all his intra and extra-organizational statements and messages in recent years openly focus on calling his critics and opponents as infiltrators and agents of the regime. He states that he knows the difference between serious criticism and submission. It is a clear difference and everybody can distinguish the boundary between these concepts yet Rajavi has never admitted any criticism, even those announced to have been on an impartial side.
It is highly surprising that someone can claim all his critics, detached members of his organization as well as westerners and researchers criticizing him over the last three decades have been paid by the Iranian regime. This assertion in itself implies Rajavi’s undemocratic and egocentric nature. Now this question arises that even if we consider all his past critics related to the Iranian regime, how can he legitimize his present critics and be accountable for their political, ideological, and strategic questions and doubts in an ethical manner far from any insult and slander keeping the red borders? Is it probable that Rajavi once for ever answer his critics’ questions and doubts even by means of virtual and communicative devices?
Even we give him the opportunity to disgrace those he assumes to be the agents of the Iranian regime and just answer to one person.
His claim of the policy of the Iranian regime in spreading rumors on his labeling the critics as agents of the regime is a big lie yet taking an optimistic view; he is invited to take part in face-to-face debates with his critics to prove that the Iranian regime is responsible for these charges and also acquit himself of all accusations posed on him in recent three decades. Although the new approach of Rajavi to solve the information gap in those who are unfamiliar with his past history due to their social isolation with distortion and fabrication is not so instrumental, we can blink at them and hope that the recent transitions and new conditions have influenced Rajavi and he is ready for a fundamental change. Taking this assumption into mind, Rajavi is invited to determine a time for answering the issues and questions posed on him.