Wednesday
Feb032010
Iran Special: Full Text of Mousavi Declaration for 22 Bahman (2 February)
Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 8:36 
Translated by Khordaad 88 and posted on the Facebook page supporting Mir Hossein Mousavi. The Facebook page also has the Persian original of the answers to 10 questions put by Kalemeh:Q: We are approaching the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. How can the recollection and commemoration of those days benefit us today?
MOUSAVI: First and foremost, I want to congratulate all of our people on the 31st anniversary of our [victory in the] Revolution, particularly the families of our martyrs, our [war] veterans and prisoners of war [with Iraq].
Iran Snap Analysis: “Game-Changers” from Mousavi and Ahmadinejad
Iran Document: The Rallying Call of Mousavi’s 14 Points (2 February)
The Latest From Iran (3 February): Picking Up the Pace
Analyzing the Islamic revolution has not come to an end yet. There have been thousands of books and articles written about it and many still to come. It is interesting that the recent elections and the events following it have brought forth new critiques of the Revolution.
Some of these analyses mainly focus on the similarities between [these events[, some explore the similarities as well as the differences, and others seek the roots of the Green Movement in the Islamic Revolution. In any case, these critiques are very beneficial, particularly for the younger generation who are the main moving force of the Green Movement.
There were many factors that converged in bringing together our people, particularly the marginalized [people], under the brilliant leadership of Imam Khomeini, and led to the [victory of the] Revolution. There is much to say about this, but what I think is particularly relevant to our current situation and would like to mention now, at the beginning of this interview, is that in the 1979 Revolution, all of our people had united and were present in shaping the Revolution. This unity was so strong that it even took over the military bases. The historic picture of the officers of the air force saluting Imam Khomeini on the 8th of February is important in documenting this.
In the days leading to the revolution we didn’t have two groups, a majority and a minority, in the streets. Because the unpopular and dictatorial regime of the Shah had completely lost the roots of its legitimacy , it had no base left, even among the military forces. In those days even specific political groups with very distinct positions lost their differences and, some even reluctantly, joined the masses of millions in asking for “independence, liberty, Islamic Republic”.
Q. Can we say that the fall of the Pahlavi regime was inevitable?
MOUSAVI: The regime had completely lost its legitimacy. Of course, the [regime’s forces] killing civilians on the streets had a lot to do with this. The murders of 17 Shahrivard [8 September 1978] were a defining moment. If we look back, we see that if the Pahlavi regime had not betrayed the achievements of the Constitutional Revolution [which saw the establishment of Parliament], the monarchy would have survived and continued to rule with the role that the Constitution had carved out for it, and with the backing of the people’s vote.
From the beginning, many warnings were given to the Pahlavis regarding [their disregard for the Constitution], and someone like the late [Ayatollah] Modarres sacrificed his life for this goal. But all these warnings and reminders were useless, and within a few years of the Constitutional Revolution, despotic governance had taken over once more, although this time with a modern façade. The relatively long rule of the Pahlavis shows that during the Constitutional Revolution, the roots of despotism were not completely destroyed. And these roots continued to live on, within cultural, social and political structures.
I remember that in those years, one picture which the Shah constantly used to promote himself was a photo of a farmer kissing the Shah’s feet. In his view, this demonstrated the deep love that the people had for him. But of course, wise men saw much more in that photo.
Q. Would you say that the elements which, according to you, reinforce despotic regimes were eliminated with the Islamic Revolution?
MOUSAVI: In the first years of the revolution, people were convinced that it had completely destroyed all of those structures through which despotism and dictatorship could be reinforced. And I was one of the people who believed this. But today, I no longer do.
Today we can identify those very structures which have lead to despotism [in the past]. We can also identify the resistance people have shown against a return to dictatorship. This is the invaluable inheritance of the Islamic Revolution, clearly demonstrated today with the people’s intolerance for deception, lies and corruption. Similarly, the tight control of newspapers and media, the overflowing prisons, and the brutal killing of innocent people who are peacefully requesting their rights all reveal the lingering roots of despotism.
The people are after justice and freedom. Moreover, they are aware that the arrests and executions are politically motivated and unconstitutional. They despise the monarchy but are also aware that people may be condemned to death based on frivolous accusations and without even being subject to a legal trial. [The people know that these executions are only carried out] so that a brutal, ruthless leader of Friday Prayers [Ayatollah Jannati], one who has constantly defended corruption, violence and deception, can applaud them. It matters not to him that there are abundant forced confessions, and he doesn’t care that [those executed] have had nothing to do with the election. For him, what matters is the power of the executions to generate fear. He is ignorant of the power of innocent blood. He doesn’t know that it was the blood of martyrs that caused the Pahlavi regime to collapse.
From the revolution onwards, people have believed in freedom, independence and the Islamic Republic. The courageous resistance and the strength of our people and our soldiers during the eight-year war [with Iraq, 1980-1988] was a sign of the fundamental changes that had taken place in our society. We should remember that parts of our country were lost in the wars, crises and political games created during the time of the shahs.The courageous resistance of our people during the eight-year war ended this vicious cycle. And now, in the courageous, defiant, and Green rows of people who demand their rights, we see a continuum of the very resistance we saw during the war and the 1979 revolution.
However, we can conclude that we were too optimistic at the beginning of the Revolution. We can see today that the government, its newspapers and its national broadcasting network easily lie. Our people can see that in reality, the security and military forces control cases in the judiciary, that the judiciary itself has become an instrument of the security forces.
I believe that the martyrdom of men like [Ayatollah] Beheshti, [Ayatollah] Motahhari, and others during the Islamic Revolution was [a result of] the extended despotic roots of the previous regime that had not been destroyed completely. Therefore, I do not believe that the Islamic Revolution has achieved its goals. The Fajr festival [the 11 days leading to 22 Bahman (11 February)] held each year is, in reality, [a medium for people] to be vigilant and reinforce [their] strength in order to remove the remaining roots of despotism. Today, people are actively present on the scene to pursue justice, freedom and [the right] to rule their own destinies. We should remember that our nation has produced hundreds of thousands of martyrs in the pursuit of these goals.
The Islamic Revolution is the result of the efforts and sacrifices of our great nation. [Even] a slight ignorance and retreat will lead us to a darker dictatorship than before, because dictatorship in the name of religion is the worst kind.On the contrary, [the pursuit of ] knowledge as well as the primary goals of the Islamic Revolution, [which include] serious demands for freedom and justice, will carry us from a dark past to a bright future. This will destroy the remaining residues of dictatorship and pave the way for life in a free [society] where diversity, pluralism, freedom of speech and human dignity are all respected. I believe that the understanding of Islam which encourages calling people goats and is responsible for social divisions is [actually] influenced by pre-revolution dictatorial culture. The right thing for the judiciary to do was to pay attention to these roots and [influences] instead of executing a number of young men and teenagers amid serious rumors regarding the ways in which they were forced to confess.
However, as I mentioned before, we have lost all hope in the judiciary. A system that imprisons an intellectual, freedom-loving and religious son [Alireza Beheshti] of Martyr Beheshti, as well as others like him, sitting him under his father’s photo in the hallways of the courtroom, has moved far away from the ideals defined during the revolution.
Today, the prison cells are occupied with the most sincere and devoted sons of this nation: students, professors and others. [Security forces] are trying to prosecute them with espionage or charges related to financial or sexual misconduct, charges based on expired formulas, while the real criminals and thieves who steal public money are free. Instead of looking for the real spies, they accuse decent religious people. I should take this opportunity to express my regret that all of my advisors who are decent, honest and educated individuals have been arrested and that I am not with them. These days, there is not a [single] night that I don’t think of Imam [Khomeini], Martyr Behesti and others. I whisper to them that what was achieved is far from what they wanted. I did not name any of my advisors in order to pay my respects to all political prisoners. Iran will remember their names and their sacrifices.
Q. Can you give some examples of despotic mentality that are evident in the behavior of officials?
MOUSAVI: One can see the influence of this mentality as well as the remains of the despotic regime alongside the spirit of awareness and freedom everywhere. But perhaps the best example we can observe is the distortion of logical and legal relations between [different] branches in the system. It is very obvious now that Parliament does not have enough sway over the government in matters that fall under its jurisdiction. This is not an argument made solely by those who oppose the Government. Moderate conservatives who are aware also complain about these issues. Not responding to issues raised by the Supreme Audit Court, lack of transparency in oil sales and revenue spending, disregard for the fourth [development] program, destruction of the budget office to avoid audits and reviews, and so on: all are clear examples of a return to the pre-Pahlavi time. There is no need to look too far. A few days ago it was in the media that a minister objected to a question asked by reporters about teachers’ incomes by saying that it is no one’s business how much they earn or if that figure is low. You can hear similar comments from other officials as well as security forces.
Also, while Parliament has [openly] discussed the unprecedented atrocities committed in Kahrizak [Prison], one official says that the issue has been blown out of proportion unnecessarily. Another example given these days is the relationship between the Judiciary and its so-called forces. It is a question of whether the judges make the decisions or the security forces? To what extent can the Judiciary exercise its privileges when, in the Constitution, a great emphasis has been placed on its independence? In my opinion, one of the obvious cases that demonstrates the persistence of a despotic mentality is the injustice done to the [roles of] the Judiciary and the Parliament. Can both divisions exercise all the power bestowed upon them in the Constitution?
The similarities between today’s elections and those held during [the time before the revolution] are another sign. Compare the voting process for Parliamentary elections during the early years of the Revolution with that of today’s to see if we have moved forward or backward.
Q. One of the perennial demands, reflected in the slogans of political parties, is social justice and economic equality in particular. Sometimes, freedom and justice have been interpreted as opposites. With this in mind, is it possible to recognize a specific trend in the Green Movement?
MOUSAVI: In the Constitutional Revolution, people were demanding justice, and from this justice, a desire for freedom was born. In the history of human thought, the desire for justice has always existed, to a point where some scholars and philosophers believe that justice is above all virtues. I do not believe we must choose between justice and freedom. Take a look at our society, you can see that the $850 poverty line and simultaneous existence of inflation and unemployment are limiting the pursuit for freedom.
It is exactly at this point of greed for dominance and repression of people that demands for freedom rise up to show themselves. It is because of declining family budgets that distributing potatoes and welfare economy turns into a means to attract votes [by exploiting the] needs of people. An examination of the country’s current situation shows that the tight grip of demands of justice, especially on economic justice, on demands for political freedom is a necessary connection between the two.
Before revolution, it was a principle that the revolutionary forces and the academic class defended the lower class. It was their honour to be their friend. In my opinion, the point that all of us should have in mind is that of supporting the hard-working class. Of course, [that is] not for the purpose of using them as instruments but with the intention that the movement’s destiny will be tied to the destiny of all the people and especially with the classes who are productive in economy and science: the workers, teachers, and the academics. I regret that the intense political problems resulted in less attention to the lower class of the society, their problems, and their rights. When people’s standard of living improves, the roots of the freedom grow deeper in the society and unity and growth flourishes among people.
Today, those who are responsible for the misery of our people and the backwardness of the nation, and those who are responsible for inflation and unemployment and economic ruin of the country, those who are responsible for closing huge projects and setting us back compared to our neighbors, are misusing this situation by carrying out distorted, deceptive policies like injecting painkillers [into a body]. They are taking the country to the verge of ruin with the way they are handling the justice shares and pensions and the incorrect methods with which Article 44 of the constitution [on privatisation] is carried out. The future of the Fourth Development Plan and the yearly budget is of great concern, especially with the [Government's] incompetence that has resulted in the probability of increased sanctions.
In any case, the underprivileged classes of the society who care for Islamic values potentially have the same demands as the Green Movement. Those who are after a national consensus for change should become more integrated with these classes and also pursue their concerns and demands. Additionally, today we should all follow and be sensitive to economic news and analyses, because the economy has such a determining and crucial role in the fate of our country. These days the quantity of social and economic stories we see in the news [about Iran] is far less than the politics, and people are not informed as much as they should on these issues.
Q. A number of people see the solution to the country’s difficulties in moving beyond the Constitution. In your opinion, is this a real solution to our problems?
A. God willing, all of us entered the arena in the cause of reform, not for the sake of revenge or obtaining power or to destroy things.
Solutions which involve a transition beyond the Constitution are fraught with difficulties. The first of those is that the proponents of such a request do not have the capacity to attract the interest of the majority of our people. Without attracting the interest of the majority and, I have to say, without the creation of a consensus, we should not expect any fundamental or meaningful changes.
For this reason some of the slogans which lean toward moving past the Constitution have been treated with suspicion by the devout and by traditionalist institutions. Unfortunately, it must be said that sometimes these kinds of extremist slogans harm the movement more than the extremism of the authoritarians [who repress the movement].
That you are opposed to superstitious leanings and petrified beliefs and practices is a good thing. That, however, in the middle of battle, a debate is opened up that is incompatible with the religion and faith of the people is something of dubious value.
The next reason why moving beyond the Constitution is problematic is that, with such a solution, we are simply stabbing in the dark. If we lose hold of this connecting cord, the product of the struggles and efforts of past generations, we will be turned into little fragments without any character. Then naturally we would see ordinary people turning away from all this disorder and movement in the dark.
Those who are pursuing aims based on moving from the Constitution may well have control of the loudspeakers today, but in the heart of the society their aims are viewed with deep suspicion. In particular,
alongside the heralds of [those] moving beyond the Constitution are to be found, whether their presence is wanted or not, the repugnant figures of some monarchists who have seized the opportunity to display their hatred for the people and the Revolution. Those who include monarchists in the programmes they announce have apparently forgotten that the people have an extremely good memory. In any case, everyone should expect to be accepted in accordance with his or her weight in society, and not more [than that].
The slogans that are useful today are those which unequivocally help to make clear the aims of the movement, or which attract the sympathy of ordinary people to stand alongside the elites and the middle classes. They have to know that a decisive majority of the people consider 22 Bahman and the Islamic Revolution as belonging to the hundreds of thousands of martyrs [of the revolution and especially the 1980-8 war with Iraq] and that the history and character of our nation is, in city and village, bound to the yesterday of the Revolution by the chain of these martyrs.
Seven months of television programming coming from abroad, which has unfortunately become important because of the restrictions placed on media inside the country and because of the excesses of state television, has had its effects. Yet these effects are too weak for the people to give up the interests of their nation and their religious and historic demands. They [the authorities] should not exploit such a weapon [claims made on foreign channels] as a pretext for accusing people and suppressing the realities of our society.
In my opinion, efforts to push people to chant limited and pre-prepared slogans are an insult to the people. Slogans must well up from the heart of popular movements, in a spontaneous manner, not an autocratic one, in the same way that in 1978/9 the slogan “Independence, Freedom, Islamic Republic” welled up naturally from people’s hearts.
Q. Is it not true that reliance on the Constitution would close options for the future?
MOUSAVIE: I have said before that the Constitution is not a something that cannot be changed. It has changed before in 1988, and it can change again. By considering what people think and demand and what their collective experience as a nation dictates, we can take steps to improve the constitution. Nevertheless, we must be aware that a good constitution by itself is not the solution. We must move towards a [political] structure that imposes a high cost on those who attempt to disobey or ignore the laws.
I believe that the Islamic Republic is meaningless without the Constitution. In addition to care in safeguarding against violations to the rule of the constitution, we must also consider lack of attention or ignoring of the rules as a violation to the Constitution. It is exactly for this reason that the demand of "unconditional execution of the constitutional rights" is one of the determining demands [of this movement].
Furthermore, for the same [reason], we must remind those who advocate the continuation of the Islamic Republic that if significant parts of the Constitution, especially those articles in the third section [on freedom and other right of people] are ignored, they would start to have consequences for the establishment in the form of other causes. We must all be aware [of this].
Violating the rights of people numerated in the Constitution and refraining from recognition of people as masters of their own destinies could lead to falsification of this invaluable national legacy. For example, those who promote spying and surveillance to such an extent that it is normal are destroying the establishment from its roots. Those who constrain the media and assume an exclusive control over national TV help destroy the pillars of the Islamic Republic.
In the 17th statement [of 1 January] I had alluded to springs [of clear water] that could calm the strong currents and clear the muddy and wavy river if they flow to the river. One of these clear paths is to officially announce that we want to return to the Constitution.
Q. For our last question, please give us your opinion about the rallies and demonstrations.
MOUSAVI: Rallies and nonviolent demonstrations are among the people’s rights. I don’t think that anyone --- men, women, middle-aged people, or seniors --- holds a grudge against the Basij [militia] and the security forces because they are seen as equals. Conflicts break out when these forces stand against a calm movement. You can produce a documentary out of the thousands of photos and video clips from the days of Ashura, as well as the days prior to it, that would demonstrate how these conflicts and tense environments are formed.
My advice to the basij and security forces is to be calm and kind in their treatment. My advice to followers of the Green Movement is to reduce their identifying features, whether they are used to help them stand out a little or a lot.
This movement has grown out of a people and it belongs to them. Everyone should be extremely mindful of beliefs, values, and traditions. But we should never forget our final goal --- to create a developed, independent, free, and united Iran. This goal can only be achieved with the collaboration of all men and women from all layers of society, of all opinions and [political] appetites.
Let me stress this point: when we say Iran, we must take into account all Iranians inside and outside who promote our land with its [ancient] culture and religious beliefs. God willing, the Green Movement will stop at nothing in its moral and nonviolent methods to fight the revival of our nation’s rights. This movement has always benefited from its choice of green: the color of the prophet and his family as well as the symbol of an Islam of love and affinity. The Green Movement respects human dignity, freedom of speech and the people’s right to hold different opinions. It welcomes all movements that aim to promote our nation’s development. It represents the [civil and constitutional] rights of citizens, among which is social justice.
Q. Do you have a representative or a spokesperson outside the country?
MOUSAVI: In the Green Movement, every citizen is a media outlet. But the green path does not have a representative or spokesperson outside the country. This is one of its beauties. Everyone can talk about their ideas and the movement expands within a collaborative environment. As one of the members of the movement, I too will express my comments and suggestions in this environment.
Q. You are sometimes quoted on websites, Facebook, and other online sources. To what extent do you approve these articles?
A. My pieces are written by me and are issued via very few websites. I do not have a personal weblog or anything of that sort. The quotes that you refer to are an inevitable results of virtual environments, and I am not associated with any of them.
tagged 22 Bahman, Alireza Beheshti, Ashura, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, Ayatollah Modarres, Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, Ayatollah Morteza Motahhari, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Basiji, Fajr, Fourth Development Plan, Green Movement, Iran, Iran Elections 2009, Kahrizak Prison, Khordaad 88, Mir Hossein Mousavi, Shah of Iran in Middle East & Iran
22 Bahman, Alireza Beheshti, Ashura, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, Ayatollah Modarres, Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, Ayatollah Morteza Motahhari, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Basiji, Fajr, Fourth Development Plan, Green Movement, Iran, Iran Elections 2009, Kahrizak Prison, Khordaad 88, Mir Hossein Mousavi, Shah of Iran in Middle East & Iran
Reader Comments (40)
Wow, amazing, do I hear the sound of victory shouted blatantly, do I dare hear the sound.
Does any one have the link to Farsi text? And if you do, will you please post the link here. Thanks
@Megan
http://tinyurl.com/yk9c3dn
Megan,
Farsi text should be available through the link to the Facebook page for Mousavi at the top of the post.
S.
Thanks much, Scott.
Amazing txt.
Reading the transcript I was reminded of such people as Dr M L King and Ghandi.
People such as MOUSAVIE are the true hero's of our world.
Alex
I was sitting on the fence about Mousavi up until his five-point plan, which was the first statement of his in a long time that was - for me, an outsider - concrete and to the point.
I've had a very hard time wading through and having a clear idea of what his verbose, vague, oblique and even metaphorical statements (once again, for me) actually are saying. I assume they are very heavily coded and full of references that are not so difficult for Iranians to understand, so I've sort of born with them, but this interview finally sealed the deal. These are the stances and clarity of expression I've been waiting to hear for a long time.
I now have the impression that he has been purposefully increasing the "dose" of his real opinions steadily over time in step with developments on the ground and events on the public calendar. I detected, as someone else mentioned I think, a challenge to the authorities to arrest him if they dare. He's really thrown down the gauntlet this time.
I was very disappointed with him because of his lack of courage and I found that he had not pretty wide "shoulders" of a leader; now I have appreciated him, he has taken a firm position; it's also true for the other leaders of opposition, they have, all of them, the same words with clear position, without any insinuations and fears, what people expect from a leader; we have to ask why this sudden change ? what has happened behind the scenes? I also sense SL more relax and serene as if he had taken a good decision for country and people, I hope I am right; anyhow, my dear Hossein , I think we can listen the beautiful symphony of Victory from now on.
Thanks much, Danial.
I read it twice.
I read both Farsi and English. It looks, so far, I am in minority opinion because I am still sitting on the fence. I briefly stated my position under “The Rallying Call of Mousavi’s 14 Points (2 February)”
I look forward to reading other view points.
[...] Veröffentlicht auf Khordaad88 am 2. Februar 2010 Quelle (Englisch): Khordaad88 Referenziert von Enduring America Deutsche Übersetzung: Julia, bei Weiterveröffentlichung bitte Link [...]
Wasn't sure whether to post here or the other page but here goes :
My grain of salt, on a couple of points that I found unfortunate :
I find it rather a pity that he didn't take the opportunity to have a more conciliatory approach to monarchists or their sympathizers. Surely he knows how different the son is from his father ? Calling them 'repugnant', and saying that they have hatred for the people is not, IMO very clever.
Surely a more unifying message would have been better, because those who left Iran after the revolution have got a legitimate part to play too. He knows that they usually claim a secular policy but this isn't criminal.
Then in a seemingly contradictory angle, he ends that paragraph with this "in any case, everyone should expect to be accepted in accordance with his or her weight in society, and not more [than that]."
which could be seen as a compromise in that the society could be represented proportionally.
He also says later : "when we say Iran, we must take into account all Iranians inside and outside who promote our land."... "It welcomes all movements that aim to promote our nation’s development."
Does he now mean the 'terrorists' and the monarchists ?
As for the 'wish of the people', I'm wondering here if there has ever been any opinion polls, or if they would be published if they were negative towards the SL ?
The other approach, of using repeated comparisons with the pre-revolution to criticise the present practises, is also ok, but as many point out, lots of younger people weren't even born or have memories of that time, or even the war.
It would be more 'modern' to simply state this but also point out the comparison with universal human rights in the world, other democratic countries and modern societies.
Another point :
He is pleading in fact to the protesters to pay attention to the masses who are more unable to follow foreign medias and ideas. To get their allegiance by focusing on what he says is important for them :*** " the character of our nation is, in city and village, bound to the yesterday of the Revolution by the chain of these martyrs". ***
In a sense, it's understandable for some age groups or religious groups, but he also could try and point out the mistakes of the regime in continually using these morbid ideas to keep the people united. It could have been an opportunity to turn the tide and stop harping on about the past and this 'martyr' ideology and turn to a modern future.
Megan,
I rather share your opinion and still have many doubts about Mousavi.
However, he is useful for now, and I don't think people will be fooled by him.
"brilliant leadership of Imam Khomeini"
You gotta to be shitting me!
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but references to Khomeini seem to be to a concept rather than to reality. Overtime, Khomeini's brutality has been forgotten or overlooked and somehow he has become an ideal that is above crticism. How can we otherwise reconcile Mousavi's affinity for Khomeini's rule and his affinity and support for freedom?
Would love to see any responses to the above.
Could it be that Mousavi et al have been so cautious and philosophizing for all these months on purpose to get this far with the movement? Now, for whatever reasons, the situation is such that he says it all straight out? Except for that last item, the Khomeni legacy, which remains, even though it is clear to most, only a fable.
Okay, there is the bust economy, heightened international pressure on the nuclear/human rights issues, and Feb 11 approaches. (What can and will the regime do about that?)
But what else suddenly frees Mousavi to speak in this manner? As the old saying goes, seems like 'it's getting down to time.' Would someone, anyone, please comment on the timing of all this, and thank you.
Catherine ,
what you say is exactly true , his coded phrases and references made a lot of sense in farsi but I think they were hard to translate to English , I think many of us still regard his early statements with high regard , but I am also glad that from statement 17 and on ward he is becoming less verbose , and more clear in language and to the point.
Behrooz -
I agree in large part with your statement. It seems the only way to me to reconcile his statements to Khomeini with his views on freedom of the people. I also agree with you that most of refernces made by figures today to Khomeini are based on his ideals and do not rest on the situation that rose subsequent to the initial rise of the IRI. I can speak from experience in talking with several expats, that many share this view...e.g. believe in the ideal Khomeini promoted however may have distanced after reality of the actions in the aftermath of the '79 revolution.
Regards,
Nations have short memories except for the myths propagated by the conquerors. How many Frenchmen remembered by 1820 the crimes of revolutionary leaders like Danton and Robespierre? As a result of 30 years of propaganda and brain washing, people have forgotten how viciously brutal Khomeiny was.
How deliciously ironic to see Moussavi and others use “Khomeiny the freedom leader” as an effective weapon against the very core principles he had espoused, including that of the absolute Valy-e-Faghih that’s now championed by his own handpicked successor! No wonder that Khameneinejad are livid with rage...
Observer,
Regarding "getting down to time", remember the Plotters post a while back? An outsider's take is that they will have to move before Feb 11.
If the SL is serene as Ange Paris 13:57 post mentions, perhaps the Plotters had a heart to heart talk with him and he agreed to step down and retire. He gives the speech on Feb 10 and the next day the Greens go for a peaceful walk while the security forces peacefully watch and protect them. The coup leaders and senior followers will then be held accountable for the crisis while a reconciliation commission deals with the rank and file who participated in it.
If not, and the SL has chosen violence (is that his character?) then the regime is driving off the cliff.
We will see.
Mousavi’s statement is his clearest to date. It still has contradictions though. In one place he says that the Green Movement belongs to everyone but in another place he singles out monarchists (at least some monarchists) and says they are against the revolution and the people. He also seems to be equating the revolution with the people. And he seems to be using the word monarchist as an insulting label. I guess old habits die hard.
He is still sticking to the IR constitution, but at least he tries to explain why he thinks it’s better to stick to it, rather than just ordering everyone to stick to it. I don’t find his reasoning for sticking to the IR constitution a little thin. He does say that the IR constitution can be modified, but the problem with this that according to IR constitution some parts of it cannot ever be changed. And basing the constitution on a particular ideology is the basis of creating discriminations (look at IR now). So he is still not prepared to take a fresh look at this point.
The fact that he acknowledges that the 79 revolution has not reached its basic aims of freedom from tyranny and dictatorship is a big deal. As far as I know, after Banisadr, he is the highest ranking former IR official to admit that the revolution has in effect failed. The aim of this statement is probably twofold: firstly, To get people to come out onto the streets on 22 Bahman (reminding them that the Bahman 1357 moves were not enough) and secondly, to slap SL in the face with it and say to him, not only do I not accept you as SL, but I also think that your regime is the same as the other dictatorships. (it is a little funny to see this from someone who himself was running the country for 8 years in this regime and is still a member of the Expediency Council, although he apparently has not been attending its meetings for years now).
This Mousavi statement must be as part of a coordinated effort with Khatami and Karoubi. Why else would suddenly all three take direct aim at SL?
I am not sure if their moves have anything to do with Rafsanjani’s recent threat to reveal a few things about Mohammad Yazdi (that row is apparently now over after Yazdi supposedly apologized to Rafsanjani). Rafsanjani had threatened to reveal three things about Yazdi: one from when Khomeini was still alive, one from the Assembly of Experts meeting that selected Khamenei as SL and one from Yazdi’s time as head of Judiciary. I am guessing if Rafsanjani’s threat is not also directed at Khamenei. Basically telling Khamenei that I can reveal a lot about people in IR, including you.
If we are to think that Rafsanjani is coordinating his moves with the other three then it could be that they are trying to limit or push back Khamenei or set the scene for his eventual removal or resignation (I am not sure as things stand they would have the time for the latter).
Mousavi looks like he is goading the SL to have his arrested (he says he is sorry that he is not in prison with his advisors). If SL does not move against Mousavi, Kharoubi and Khatami, then he will look weak within IR. And he will have become an SL whose death the people are calling for in the streets and who has no clout within the establishment.
I think the ball is now firmly in SL’s court. I would not want to be in his shoes right now.
[Because of censorship, Mousavi’s message will probably take days to get to people in Iran. So this is probably why he issued it more than a week before 22 Bahman, or it could be argued that the message is for the 10 days of dahehye fajr leading to 22 Bahman]
"Those who are pursuing aims based on moving from the Constitution may well have control of the loudspeakers today, but in the heart of the society their aims are viewed with deep suspicion."
"Furthermore, for the same [reason], we must remind those who advocate the continuation of the Islamic Republic that if significant parts of the Constitution, especially those articles in the third section [on freedom and other right of people] are ignored, they would start to have consequences for the establishment in the form of other causes. We must all be aware [of this].
Violating the rights of people numerated in the Constitution and refraining from recognition of people as masters of their own destinies could lead to falsification of this invaluable national legacy."
Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't he pretty much saying that if the current Constitution cannot be adhered to by the government, its pretty much useless and should be thrown out.
Greeny,
Re: post 21 at 20:55.
The SL's resignation would be a signal to the Greens that the crisis is over. It would be effective upon selection of successor, which seems to be why this crisis started in the first place. It would allow a (much needed) change in direction for the ship of state without the chaos of a revoultion or civil war.
Overall, the resolution for all of this rests on Khamenei. Does he want his legacy to be that of a blood-thristy tyrant overthrown by his people? And will others from the revolutionary generation allow it to get that far?
Thomas,
Re. “The SL’s resignation would be a signal to the Greens that the crisis is over.”
I think as things stand Khamenei’s resignation could lead to the disintegration of IR. This crisis started off as protest to rigged presidential elections and if Khamenei resigned, it would have led to the highest ranking IR falling because of it.
Since Khamenei has managed to push most of the IR establishment away from himself and the center of power, there will probably be a serious power vacuum at the top of IR. IR is not a system that can survive with a vacuum at that level.
The part of Mousavi’s statement about the IR constitution could have been written with eye an on such an eventuality.
I personally don’t think that Khamenei will go that easily. If he goes when he and his faction are weak, a lot of the people around him could be in serious trouble. Even if the remainder of IR establishment (including Mousavi, etc) give them amnesties, they may have problems controlling the public mood.