Manipulation Techniques of the MEK cult leaders

Almost all MKO former members unanimously report that the organization leaders are opposed to further extra organizational studies. They reason that members have to give priority to practical considerations rather than theoretical ones. Absolute pragmatism constitutes one of the main parts of controlling system in MKO. It bans any kind of study aiming at improving theoretical political knowledge. Before reviewing the statements made by Mojahedin ex-members concerning such an approach, it is tried to evaluate it with regard to the new executed value system within MKO after the development of the ideological revolution. The reason why Rajavi, MKO leader, prevents members of obtaining theoretical knowledge has its roots in his worldview and ideological objectives.   

Absolute submission to leadership is considered to be one of the inseparable aspects of all political cults and that of MKO. Mojahedin’s theoreticians have focused on such a feature and calling Rajavi the man of ideology within MKO, point to blind obedience of members as their sole way of salvation. According to Mojahedin leaders, organizational improvement is achieved through absolute submission rather than obtaining political and theoretical knowledge. Taking a brief look at the statements of some MKO former members may prove this claim. It is said that before the initiation of the ideological revolution in MKO, members were qualified according to the following factors:   

Ideological instructions aiming at achieving ideological unity between members and the organization; political-social instructions to make members familiar with experiences of other revolutions; ability to make political analysis and familiarity with political and strategic stances of the organization; economic instructions for detecting the roots of economic crises and their solution and also finding an appropriate economic system; organizational and security instructions to make members aware of the principles of the organization, its internal challenges, how to solve these challenges, and how to act in cases concerned with security considerations. (1) 

In other words practical as well as theoretical competencies were taken into considerations simultaneously as practiced in all political groups and organizations. However, after the start of the ideological revolution, parallel to the change of the value system within MKO, all such criteria change and were replaced with just one criterion, namely blind obedience to leadership. Rajavi asked the members not to speak but act according to what they were ordered to do with no questioning. In fact they needed no further study since they needed no knowledge and understanding. Anne Singleton, an MKO ex-member, refers to this aspect of the ideological revolution and says:

He pushed the members to work harder and not to ask questions. He changed the ethos of the organisation by passing messages down to the membership of what he expected of them. The major theme of the time was that ‘ideology is what you do, not what you say’. In other words, don’t speak, act. (2)

She further compares and contrasts the organization attitude toward members before and after the ideological revolution as follows:

The major change too was in what was meant by ideological competence. In the original Mojahedin organisation this meant someone who had political, social and moral knowledge and experience. Someone who had undergone ideological instruction as had the first members way back in the 1960s. Since the Ideological Revolution, however, it came to mean someone who is, more than others, unquestioningly obedient to Rajavi, with no ability or desire to think for themselves, who will suppress any previous knowledge or experience they had in order to parrot what Rajavi requires of them. (3)

Another former member quotes Rajavi putting forth the new criterion for organizational advancement:

Rajavi told us: ‘You are not capable enough for political discussions and analysis and may go astray. You’d better let me do it, there is no need for you to pursue political events and analyze them, I will do it for you and tell you the results. If not, you may be disappointed since you have no political knowledge. There is no need to be anxious and pour out your heart to others; it is out of your business to know whether the ways are open or not. (4)

In order to develop a deeper understanding of this controlling process in MKO it has to be noted that one of the inherent aspects of all absolutist ideological trends is that they classify outsiders as either friends or enemies. Such a viewpoint has many consequences one of which is their focus on absolute submission of members. According to one of the theoreticians of Mojahedin:

One of the features of groups with ideological absolutism is that in establishing relation with outsiders close to them, they recognize no independence. In other words, the system’s rules necessitate it to have just two options regarding political outsiders, either absolute agreement or absolute opposition. (5) 

It is not possible to understand how organizational limitations and prohibitions result in controlling members unless the value system of the organization is understood since the structure of mojahedin ideological revolution is very complex and intermingled and there is a kind of cause and effect relationship between its strategies and procedures. Therefore, a deep knowledge about the ideological revolution and its consequences is needed in order to evaluate the course of events within MKO.   

References:

1. Niyabati, Bijan, A different look at the ideological revolution within MKO.

2. Singleton, Anne, Saddam’s private army

3. ibid

4. Shams-e Haeri, Hadi, The swamp

5. Niyabati, Bijan, A different look at the ideological revolution within MKO.

Collective life constitutes one of the most significant stages of human development; however, nowadays some cultist groups misuse it as a favored means through which a variety of controlling techniques such as brainwashing and mental exploitation of their members is accomplished. It has to be pointed out that communal life in a cult has a meaning much different from that we have in our mind.

Cultist joint life is based on a collective unity in which individuals are exposed to some uncommon factors resulting in their blind obedience and submission. A kind of discipline is exercised within cults much stronger than that of army, schools, political groups, etc. Such a discipline covers all aspects of cult members’ life such as their mentality, beliefs, sleep, food, leisure time, occupation, emotional relations, blood ties, etc. Eric Hoffer describes cultist collective life as follows:

Collective unity is not the result of the brotherly love of the faithful for each other. The loyalty of the true believer is to the whole-the church, party, nation-and not to his fellow true believer, True loyalty between individuals is possible only in a loose and relatively free society, As Abraham was ready to sacrifice his only son to prove his devotion to Jehovah, so must the fanatical Nazi or Communist be ready to sacrifice relatives and friends to demonstrate his total surrender to the holy cause. The active mass movement sees in the personal ties of blood and friendship a diminution of its own corporate cohesion. Thus mutual suspicion within the ranks is not only compatible with corporate strength, but, one might almost say, a precondition of it (1).

Cultist relations aim at cutting all individuals’ personal attachments on the one hand and then putting that individual within a collective unity. In other words, it is attempted to prevent member’s connections with the outside world and all his/her family, emotional, social, professional, mental, and ideological relations to make him/her wholly dependent on the cult. There is a paradox between the individuals’ separateness from the society and connection with cult members. According to Hoffer:

The effacement of individual separateness must be thorough. In every act, however trivial, the individual must by some ritual associate himself with the congregation, the tribe, the party, and etcetera. His joys and sorrows, his pride and confidence must spring from the fortunes and capacities of the group rather than from his individual prospects and abilities. Above all, he must never feel alone. Though stranded on a desert island, he must still feel that he is under the eyes of the group. To be cast out from the group should be equivalent to being cut off from life (2).

In fact the main motivation for conducting collective life in cults is taking members under full control. According to Hoffer, the mechanisms of cultist life change the value system of members in a way that it even puts value on aggression and aggressive behaviors:

There is also this: when we renounce the self and become part of a compact whole, we not only renounce personal advantage but are also rid of personal responsibility. There is no telling to what extremes of cruelty and ruthlessness a man will go when he is freed from the fears, hesitations, doubts and the vague stirrings of decency that go with individual judgment. When we lose our individual independence in the corporateness of a mass movement, we find a new freedom-freedom to hate, bully, lie, torture, murder and betray without shame and remorse (3).

It is a fact that communal life is the sole solution for keeping absolute control over a group of individuals. As a result it is a common strategy in all cults to resort to collective life.

Where new creeds vie with each other for the allegiance of the populace, the one which comes with the most perfected collective framework wins (4).

Such a collective framework has been referred to repeatedly by Mojahedin as the main factor resulting in winning their political and ideological achievements and legitimacy.

References:

1. Eric Hoffer; The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, New York: First Perennial Classics 2002, p. 115.

2. ibid, 61.

3. ibid, 93.

4. ibid, 44.