Iran is marking the 23rd anniversary of its Islamic Revolution with nostalgic blasts at "America, the Great Satan," thanks, in part, to President George Bush naming Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" involved in terrorism and the production of weapons of mass destruction.
Beneath the surface, however, Iran is no longer Ayatollah Khomeini's sharia state.
ILLUSTRATED: YUSHA
Iran does deserve to be classified as a regional and, perhaps, a global promoter of instability; its support for the fundamentalist Islamic terrorism of Hizbollah in Lebanon is, indeed, aimed at further undermining the diminishing chances for an Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation. But internal developments in Iran are complex, and demonization of the Islamic Republic is not helpful. Neither is drawing a simple dichotomy between "conservatives" and "reformers," the latter led by President Khattami, helpful.
In many respects, Iran is perhaps the most interesting country in the region, with the greatest potential for development leading to -- not a Western-style democracy -- but greater opening and liberalization. The paradox is that Iran's potential is embedded in its ideology as an Islamic state. After the first turbulent and murderous years of the Iranian revolution, the last few years have shown some remarkable developments. Among them:
Elections: these are confined to an Islamic discourse, and all candidates and parties must secure the imprimatur of the highest Islamic authority in the land before they can be listed on a ballot. But despite these restrictions, there is a fierce contest between various groups and interpretations:
Women can vote and participate actively and publicly in political life. Moreover, the general image of Iranian women suppressed behind their black chadors is more complicated than it first seems. For example, in medicine: because male doctors are prevented by strict Islamic law from treating women, the government has encouraged the training of female doctors. Today, there are many more women doctors in Iran than under the Shah, and the number of women dying at childbirth is among the lowest in the region.
The government has also instituted a very pro-active birth control program, and has found a way of legitimizing it within an Islamic context, saying "we want educated Islamic families, not just large Islamic families." Iran, as a consequence, has one of the lowest birth rates in the region.
Because elections to the Majlis (Parliament) and the Presidency are contested, they are meaningful. It is, for example, clear that President Khattami was elected with the support of women and younger people, and the "establishment" candidate was not elected. There is nothing like this in any Arab country: In Egypt or Syria (just as in Belarus) there is virtually only one candidate, and he receives between 97-98% of the vote.
Parliamentary debates are real, and real contested voting takes place. Again, this is nothing like the rubber-stamp sham parliaments of countries like Egypt and Syria.
The shades of gray have real consequences for policy towards Iran: as an Iranian political scientist recently put it at a seminar in Germany, younger people in Iran do feel themselves to be Muslims, and Iran will never become a secular society. But they view their Islam as part of their Iranian identity, whereas the older clerics viewed Islam as a universal revolutionary identity. These younger people -- the Iranian scholar claimed -- are first of all Iranian nationalists, and would like to dissociate themselves from Middle Eastern politics, in particular the Arab-Israeli conflict. They will continue, of course, to give verbal support for the Palestinian course, but it is not at the top of their agenda.
In sum, Iran presents a complex, sometimes confusing picture. But anyone who knows European history can identify a parallel: the Calvinist, Puritan revolution. The Calvinists of Geneva, or Cromwell's Puritans, were -- like the mullahs of Teheran -- biblio-centric, with a Holy Book as their model for the ideal society. Their society was meant to be puritanical, frugal, non-permissive, with laws against conspicuous consumption and luxuries. It was also anti-feminist, anchored in patriarchal family structures.
Because the Calvinists did not accept a Church hierarchy, they -- like the Iranian Shi'ites who are not part of the Sunni majoritarian universalism -- based their legitimacy on the community of believers and so introduced elections. But once you hold real elections, different modes of interpretation of the Holy Book become possible and legitimate. Suddenly, there exists a mechanism for participation, control, dissent (limited as it may be) and the introduction of innovative strategies that seek to legitimize change within a traditional context.
In Europe, after all, Calvin's Geneva -- an autocratic theocracy, more similar to Khomeini's Teheran than to any other regime -- eventually developed, through English Puritanism, towards modern parliamentary government. Indeed, in Britain until the l820's only members of the Church of England could vote in Parliament or be elected to it.
Will Shi'ite Iran follow a road similar to that of the European Calvinists? Nothing is pre-determined; but the parallel is striking. For all of today's involvement of some Iranian leaders in terrorism, the picture is more complex, more interesting -- and perhaps more promising than President Bush's speech suggests.
Shlomo Avineri is Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a former Director-General of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. copyright: Project syndicate
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
RSS