Iran: Working Together? The Women's Movement & The Greens (Kakaee)

Last weekend Gozaar published a set of seven articles, all of which deserve reading, on the state of the opposition, the Green Movement, and activism for civil rights.



I have highlighted this analysis by Parisa Kakaee because it is my impression --- reinforced by conversations this week --- that the relationship between the "Greens" and civil rights groups is one of the most important issues in the evolution of the post-election situation in Iran.

A year ago today Iran was on the verge of entering a new chapter in its history. During the days before the election, an ongoing dialogue among different factions about whether or not to participate in political decision making, and the enthusiasm and excitement in the streets and at election headquarters, particularly among the youth, placed Iran in a position to undergo some unexpected events.

Different groups inside the women’s movement merged together and came to an accord over some minimum demands as their communal requisitions, and under the name of “convergence of the women’s movement to set forth demands in the election” entered the stage of the electoral campaign.

Coalition members who were present at the election centers and assemblies distributed brochures and carried placards expressing, “we vote for the demands of women.” This approach presented a new way for women to participate in the electoral process and seemed somewhat unfamiliar and unexpected for those members of society who were targeted by these messages, to a point where at times their inquiry about the nature of this practice and its place in the electoral process opened the door for lengthy discussions.

After the election results were announced, most people and social groups who were disappointed after all their efforts became desperate. In an attempt to compensate for their dismay and to claim their rights, they began to voice their protests collectively and with unprecedented unity. This was only the beginning of many aftershocks that went against all equations and became a reminder of the need for a new vision suitable for a different setting.

The irony was that while the demands of the social groups did not materialize and their inherent right to political participation was not recognized, and because women were part of the people and were campaigning by their side, and most importantly because of their known activities, women were among the first ones arrested and forced to pay a higher price.

The question is did all these events and the high repercussions bring the women’s movement closer to claiming its demands, or on the contrary is public awareness of the women’s movement that was slowly gaining momentum in society now further away and the path to success now longer than before?

Journalist and women’s rights activist Asieh Amini has an answer to this question:

Our expectations of the issues, groups and movements must be based on reality. Before the election, social groups and movements, including the women’s movement, had their own character and behavior and their interaction with society depended on the circumstances of time and place. The election disrupted all the political and social equations inside the country.

This change was not limited to the relationship between the women’s movement and the people, but was quite noticeable in other areas. Consequently we cannot expect that one social group remain unaffected by such a great event.

The pattern by which the women’s movement acted changed after the election. There was confusion among many groups and movements about how to maintain the usual trend of their activities. However, I believe that if we analyze this issue from different points of view, we may be able to draw different conclusions from what seems to be an “unpleasant event” and a “halt” in the process.

As I witness how the role of the women’s movement is becoming the subject of many analyses, or how the protest movements are adopting the non-violence approach, I see an extension of the women’s movement in society, its development and success, and not its interruption.

Following the 2009 presidential election, many activist women, not all belonging to the women’s movement, were arrested. Some unprecedented verdicts were issued against them and some of them are still serving time for their charges. It seems that the prevailing atmosphere facilitated the harsh treatment against the One Million Signature Campaign. The members who were arrested, like many other social groups, were falsely accused and went through long interrogations. Many women activists were forced to leave the country and this was a high price paid by the women’s movement after the election. As Asieh Amini puts it:

Even though the intensity of the arrests, the exodus of many citizens, the dispersion inside the country, the underground getaway, closure of internet sites, and the disruption of many demonstrations planned by women may be considered as negative, those who responded to the ensuing social movements were more than the one million individuals we expected in our Campaign, and this by itself is another noticeable accomplishment. In spite of the heavy price paid, it would be an incomplete analysis if we don’t acknowledge that the demands of the women’s movement are now being pursued in our society more seriously than before.

Khadijeh Moghadam, another women’s rights activist, believes that the way people stipulated a main demand in their protest, “where is my vote,” was something that was experienced before in the Campaign: “People, while not all aware of the Campaign’s stipulation and function, brought up a specific and tangible demand. It was the unique experience of this movement that without any leadership, and quite peacefully, this demand became pivotal.”

The change of demands after the election

Even though the convergence of the women’s movement , which included a spectrum of both secular and religious members, happened before the election, another section of this body, including some members of the One Million Signature Campaign were not in agreement with the movement’s new approach. They believed bringing up the demands of the Campaign in a new format in order to participate in the election would only serve to politicize an ongoing civil movement and would disseminate the potential of its members.

However, the women’s coalition came to an agreement over “joining the convention to eliminate discrimination against women” and “changing discriminatory laws” and announced these as the demands of the women’s movement. The result of the election, and disregard for the votes of political and social groups along with that of the public, transformed the demands and changed them into a common discourse. According to Asieh Amini, "Women’s demands after the election were not merely to change the laws anymore, but rather to seek democracy, to refrain from violence, to promulgate civil relations, to propagate civil protest and to dare say NO.”

Non-violent campaign

The major point on which the One Million Signature Campaign insisted  was to find ways to establish a dialogue with the regime and to achieve a cultural refinement of the public. These are its similarities with the Green Movement, which many activists believe has been copied successfully from the women’s movement.

What happened after the election was an overt aggression by the government, while the people persisted in continuing the campaign without violence, except for some occasional defensive behavior. Asieh Amini believes, “No excuse must distract people from the goal they believe in. If non-violent behavior is the pattern and the expectation, a peaceful and secured society must not allow any group to cause any deviation from this goal.”

The question is how can we make this behavior institutionalized? This journalist [Amini?] believes:

One of the challenges of the Green Movement and other movements such as that of women is the lack of any plan as to how to continue defensive campaigning. A non-violent campaign needs some creativity. It seems as though the think tanks that were responsible for organizing coalitions and unions in other movements, such as the women’s movement, which led to collective decision making were absent in the Green Movement. This was a serious void in what the Green Movement copied from the women’s movement.

On the other hand, an oppressive regime is nothing new. It has been seen throughout history how some political groups chose to use violence in response to a government’s oppression and how its negative impacts lingered around for many years. The civil movements received positive responses from Iranian society for choosing the most civil approaches. Resorting to violence will take us further away from security, peace, and democracy.

Another factor is that women’s presence in protests contributes to less violence. As Khadijeh Moghadam, another women’s movement activist, states:

If it were not for the presence of mothers and women in general in the public protests, there is no doubt violence would have escalated. A week after Neda was killed, the mother participants of the Green Movement, using the experience of the women’s movement, especially the Campaign, showed up in Laleh park and adjacent streets, Behesht-e Zahra, in front of Evin prison, the Revolutionary court, and the Judiciary building and demanded the end of killings, the prosecution of those responsible, and the release of those imprisoned for their beliefs. This was an unprecedented move in the history of the women’s movement in Iran.

For aforementioned reasons, although the women’s movement is considered a model for the Green Movement in some cases such as the promotion of a non-violent campaign, in order to employ more practical solutions to institutionalize the non-violent campaign, the movement needs to seek more appropriate approaches compatible with the new circumstances of this society and offer it in a more effective manner. This is because admiring the philosophy of non-violence is not enough to address the questions of the young generation who, these days, are finding themselves alone and vulnerable facing the most serious types of oppression.

US Politics Video: Campainin’ in Sweet Home Alabama with Dale Peterson (The Sequel)

Last month, we were honoured to post the campaign advertisement of Dale Peterson, "running for Agriculture Commissioner on a platform of love for his horse, a defence of family farms, and a promise to shoot 'illegals'".

Sadly, Dale did not make it to the final run-off for the Republican nomination. Happily, he has not ridden away on his horse. Instead, he has made another TV ad, endorsing one of his opponents.

And, yes, if he doesn't shoot you for being "illegal", he will if you try and steal his yard signs.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GabMEHfCjT0[/youtube]

Iran Analysis: Why the 2009 Election is Not Legitimate (Ansari)

More than a year later, the fight goes on over the validity of the 2009 Presidential election. In the face of the questions not only about the vote but also the intimidation, state propaganda, and detentions that surrounded it, defenders of the Government re-present a series of flawed polls and A report --- based on the Guardian Council's attempt to vindicate the process --- to put Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "victory" beyond doubt.



I won't repeat my dissection of those defenders here, since the campaign for civil rights and the issue of the Government's legitimacy are now far beyond the elections. I'll just note that I picked up new information this week that the decision to manipulate the electoral results had been established 72 hours before the ballot.

Ali Ansari, writing for Chatham House's World Review, offers this overview, taking apart seven myths propping up the platform of a rightly-elected President:

Iran's 10th Presidential election, on 12 June last year, was the most controversial and contested poll in the 30 years of the Islamic Republic. Far from anointing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a landslide election victory for a second term, the credibility of the result was immediately in question, unleashing the most extraordinary public anger against the governing elite.

The street protests subsided, but there is little sign of the widespread anger the result generated dissipating. The situation remains tense and the governing elite is no less anxious about the future. Unlike other disputeswhich have periodically shaken the Islamic Republic, this one affects and divides the political elite like no other. The government remains determined to promote its account of a free and fair election, convinced that it has defeated a "velvet revolution". This is the reason given for the brutal crackdown, which continues to this day.

A year on, it is worth revisiting some of the urban myths which have come to underpin this standoff:

Those who allege fraud must prove their case; the government is innocent until proven guilty

Not so; in any political system which claims democratic procedures and values, it is the governing elite and holders of power who must answer to the people, not the other way round. Accountability must be transparent and not a matter of faith. Accountability is the basis of any democratic settlement, without it the process of ‘voting’ is mere procedural window dressing.

In Iran, with its fragile democracy under considerable attack, the situation is more acute.
As a consequence of the election victories of President Mohammad Khatami in 1997 and 2001,a plan was implemented to organise and manipulate the electoral system to ensure the desired result. As a result, the parliamentary and presidential elections from 2004 to 2008 saw a gradual collapse in turnout, with optimistic estimates for Tehran in 2008 barely reaching thirty percent. For particular reasons, only the 2006 municipal election was an exception.

Last year, all the major institutions of government, including those with oversight of the
election were in the hands of the government faction. At least three members of the Guardian Council, the Chief of the General Staff, and the Supreme Leader, all voiced support for Ahmadinejad. In such a climate the burden of proof --- and accountability --- lies with the government, not the people.

Read rest of article....

Iran Request: Nonsense about "Twitter Revolution". Please Stop.

UPDATE 1825 GMT: Jared Keller has modified his final paragraph so it now reads, "The Green Revolution in Iran was muzzled, sadly, although the movement continues to put pressure on the Iranian regime a year after its initial protests. The Twitter Revolution, however, is far from over." He has also engaged in a productive dialogue over the original piece, noting his main intention was to establish the role of Twitter in events, correcting misconceptions, and adding, "I regret using 'totally stifled' as a rhetorical flourish [about the Green Movement]; I don't intend to make the same mistake in the future.

It's been wearying to read the recent mis-interpretation of social media and its place in the post-election conflict in Iran.

There is, however, a step beyond today, as Jared Keller of The Atlantic tries to set the record straight --- for which he should be thanked --- only to walk face-first into an even worse two-dimensional error. My response:

I am grateful that Jared Keller corrects the superficial notion --- sometimes put out in misunderstanding, sometimes to grab a cheap headline --- that Twitter is the movement for change in Iran.

Twitter is a tool --- a very powerful tool --- to keep information moving in and out of Iran even at the height of represssion by the regime.

It's ironic, then, that Mr Keller seems not to have used Twitter to lead him to the information of what is happening day-by-day in Iran, more than a year after the 2009 election. Had he done so, he would not have made the assertion --- as superficial as the notion of the "Twitter Revolution" and as ill-informed --- that "the Green Revolution in Iran was muzzled, sadly, its political organs now defunct and its development totally stifled".

The movement for civil rights is still much alive, with thousands defying arrest and intimidation to show up on streets in cities across Iran last Saturday and with political pressure building against the Government on a daily basis, both from the opposition and from "battles within the establishment".

The Latest from Iran (18 June): Hardliners Criticise Ahmadinejad

1510 GMT: Twitter and Civil Rights. We have posted a response to the latest attempt to set straight the relationship between social media and the post-election political situation in Iran.

1430 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Journalist Ebrahim Rashidi, who disappeared on Monday, has reportedly called his family from Ardebil's intelligence detention centre.

NEW Iran Request: Nonsense about “Twitter Revolution”. Please Stop.
NEW Iran Analysis: How Europe Can Help (Mamedov)
NEW Iran Document: The Tajzadeh Criticism and The Reformist Way Forward (Sahimi)
Iran Snapshot: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Master of Irony
Iran Overview: Striking Poses from Sanctions to Cyber-War to “Terrorism”
Latest from Iran (17 June): Clearing Away the Smoke

Journalist Hassan Etemadi has been given a two-year sentence, and journalist Shahin Zeynali has been handed a term of two years and 91 days.

The former mayor of Ghasr-e Shirin, Ghodrat Mohammadi, has been detained and transferred to a centre in Kermanshah. No reason for his arrest has been given.

1330 GMT: Through the Looking Glass on the Hijab. Reviewing today's Tehran Friday Prayer by Ayatollah Jannati, the head of the Guardian Council, I think we are now caught up in a contortion of politics. Iran has suddenly become a place where defenders of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praise him for "a relatively liberal government approach" and turn their fire upon the "hardliners", rather than the opposition.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tZ2a0_3sNw&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

For the headline from Jannati's speech today, in contrast to his previous appearances, is not the threat of heavy punishment upon the opposition but his criticism of Ahmadinejad for raising the "cumbersome" issue of the "morality police" and their efforts to enforce "good behaviour" such as the wearing of the hijab.

Linking those who acted or dressed inappropriately to "drug traffickers" and "terrorists", Jannati said that women who defied the rules on proper clothing were "worse than poison". No one (he means you, Mahmoud) had "the right to tie the hands" of those enforcing the law.

1005 GMT: Ahmadinejad's Hijab Problem. It seems the President has got himself in a political tangle over his complaint about "morality police" cracking down on supposed social transgressions, including "bad hijab".

The Governor of Tehran, Morteza Tamaddon, has insisted that Ahmadinejad's directives are the basis for his officials' actions.

High-profile member of Parlaiment Ali Motahari has declared that the President has been adversely influenced by his chief aide, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai.

Ayatollah Alamalhoda, Mashhad's Friday Prayer leader, has asserted, "Unfortunately Ahmadinejad does not give the right attention to implementing religious rules."

Member of Parliament Mohammad Taghi Rahbar says he is ready to discuss the issue with Ahamadinejad on television.

0950 GMT: Today's Khabar Kick on the Government's Shins. Khabar Online, linked to Ali Larijani, has suggested that Vice President Mohammad Reza Mirtajoddini might have to resign because he wants to complete a Ph.D. dissertation.

The website, as reported by Peyke Iran, also points to 11 "suspicious" comments by the President in the last 76 days.

0945 GMT: Take Your Resolution and Stick It. Iran's National Security Council has issued a strongly-worded denunciation of the UN Security Council sanctions resolution on Tehran's nuclear programme:

Contrary to all expectations, the resolution has focused on Iran's nuclear program, without so much as a word about the Israeli regime's criminal activities and its attack on the Freedom Flotilla convoy carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip only 10 days ago.

Also, the resolution brazenly ignores the 11 proposals put forward by Iran during Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which have been welcomed by world countries.

The council takes issue with the adoption of the resolution, particularly since it came despite constructive cooperation and the release of a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency confirming the non-diversion of Iran's nuclear material for the 22nd consecutive time....

"This clearly shows that Washington's commitment to Israeli security will never allow UN Security Council to fulfill its obligations with regards to securing the safety and the rights of different nations....

The Islamic Republic of Iran will respond fittingly to any attempt to violate the legal and legitimate rights of the Iranian nation," the statement added.

0845 GMT: We have posted an analysis by Eldar Mamedov, "Iran: How Europe Can Help".

0840 GMT: Economy Watch. Ayatollah Mousavi Ardebili has complained that people are still not informed about the Government's subsidy reduction plan.

0805 GMT: A Boast (and an Admission?). Tehran police chief Esmail Ahmadi Moghaddam, trying to wash away criticism of last year's attack on Tehran University's dormitories, has said, "We were prepared for the elections one week in advance." The dorm incidents were predictable because Communists and neo-Marxists following Mehdi Karroubi had come onto the streets.

Not sure if Ahmadi-Moghaddam realises this, but his statement gives indirect support to allegations of a manipulated election --- the security forces were preparing for violence because they knew in advance that there might be anger over an "adjusted" vote. (More on this on Saturday....)

Meanwhile, member of Parliament Elyas Naderan has kept up his pressure on the Government, saying that the Majlis never completed a full report --- despite its promises --- on the dormitory attacks: "Only parts of it exist and are in our minds."

0800 GMT: The Attack on the Clerics. Some more pressure on the regime: Ayatollah Abdolnabi Namazi, the Friday Prayer leader of Kashan, has said, "If attacks on marja in Qom become normal, the future is not predictable."  Hojatolelsam Mehdi Tabatabai asserts, "God will not forgive those who insulted the 14 Khordad [4 June] ceremony."

0645 GMT: The Attack on the Clerics --- An Apology? Hmm, wondering if this might be an important signal....

In a wide-ranging interview on Parleman News, Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani makes the statement that "whoever does not respect the marja (senior clerics)... shows his worthlessness". Larijani asserts that the marja "are the pillars of nezam", the Iranian system, and "the Supreme Leader up to the chiefs of Iran's forces see them as such".

An EA correspondent gets to the point with the question, "Is this an indirect apology from Ayatollah Khamenei?"

0640 GMT: The Economic Squeeze. Reuters publishes a summary of foreign companies who have pulled back from operations inside Iran and those who continue to do business.

0550 GMT: A Victory in Britain. It is reported that actress and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights activist Kiana Firouz has been granted "leave to remain"' in the UK, removing the threat of deportation to Iran.

Firouz had been refused asylum on two previous occasions, prompting a campaign to prevent her return to Tehran.

0535 GMT: The Attack on the Clerics. It is reported that the website of the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri has been filtered.

Kalemeh publishes a letter from Ahmad Montazeri, the son of the Grand Ayatollah, to senior clerics in Qom. Montazeri describes Sunday's attack on the Grand Ayatollah's home and offices and asks for a denunciation of the assault.

0515 GMT: Today's white noise starts out of Washington rather than Tehran, as the Obama Administration --- trying to hold back the tide of Congressional action on Iran --- plays up rhetorically to the legislators.

Speaking at a hearing on Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gave the rationale for the adjusted approach of the White House to US missile defence:

One of the elements of the intelligence that contributed to the decision on the phased adaptive array (approach) was the realization that if Iran were actually to launch a missile attack on Europe, it wouldn't be just one or two missiles, or a handful.

"It would more likely be a salvo kind of attack, where you would be dealing potentially with scores or even hundreds of missiles.

An editorial aside:I wonder if and when the Administration will ever realise that this appeasement --- not of Iran but of Congress --- will never free up its approach towards Tehran but will limit and even undermine any hope of crafting a thoughtful policy towards the Iranian situation.

Meanwhile, getting back to significant developments, we catch up with this week's potentially important analysis by reformist Mostafa Tajzadeh. A Deputy Interior Minister in the Khatami Government and post-election detainee, Tajzadeh has published a lengthy consideration of today's Iran through a review of the past, apologising for the reformists' role in the detention and execution of political prisoners in the 1980s.

We've posted extracts from the Tajzadeh analysis, accompanied by interpretation for Muhammad Sahimi of Tehran Bureau.