Ayatollah Jannati's Presidency Over the Assembly of Experts Dismisses Wishful Thinking

The election of Ayatollah Jannati as the head of the Assembly of Experts by the majority of its members seems to have shocked some. This shock, although unjustified, is understandable because some individuals always perceive their wishes as reality and have developed a guiding principle for themselves: "I have these wishes, therefore they are reality." The 37-year wish for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic is a good example of this claim. Many individuals and groups have continuously promised over the past 37 years that the regime has reached its historical end and will soon - for example, within the next six months to a year - be overthrown. However, the regime has continued to exist for 37 years, and the wishful thinkers have never considered or provided a reasonable answer to the question of what the causes and reasons for the survival of the Islamic Republic have been and are. Explaining the survival of the Islamic Republic solely with the reason of repression is unjustifiable. Gramsci and Althusser have shown well that the survival of no regime can be explained with singular military, security, and repression elements. The ideological aspect of the state - universities, schools, media, churches, etc. - and what is considered civil society must also be included in the explanation for the political regime's stability. Therefore, one should not fall into wishful thinking and the perception of wishes as reality, which has the least consequence of distancing from reality and floundering in fantasies: "Every inner thought that becomes fanciful, as a reason, indeed, its fantasy increases." The wish of all was to eliminate Ayatollah Jannati, but the Sultan and his royal apparatus did not allow this rightful demand to be realized. Of course, from another perspective, this shock is also understandable. They know that Ayatollah Jannati has been eliminated by the people, and now the eliminated individual has reached the presidency of the Assembly of Experts. The shocking event of protest participation and entrenched despotism has not occurred. The plan for protest participation to eliminate the "Triangle of Jim" repeatedly emphasized this important reality that Ayatollah Khamenei, through the Guardian Council's supervisory oversight, has preemptively guaranteed the existence of a royal assembly. Protest participation was about saying no to the Sultan and the most important symbols of the monarchy and the elimination of the supervisory oversight, not about forming a democratic assembly or opposing the Sultan, which was not feasible. For this reason, the article "The Defeat of Jannati, Yazdi, and Mesbah, Khamenei's Decisive Test" explicitly emphasized: "They have guaranteed the 'Royal Assembly' obedient to Ayatollah Khamenei in advance, and the victory or defeat of the existing candidates will have little impact on the inclination of this assembly." This reality was repeated in all subsequent writings that followed this plan. The article "No to 'Daesh Jurisprudence' Through the Assembly Elections" also emphasized the same reality that: "The complete engineering of the Assembly of Experts elections and the guarantee of a royal assembly should have made the gentlemen completely at ease and calmly awaiting the seventh of Esfand"; it pointed out that the Assembly elections were an opportunity to say no to Daesh jurisprudence by rejecting its most important symbols. This plan pursued a very small goal that was politically hopeful and invigorating and told the people that they could even use this entirely designed royal game to express their opposition to the Sultan by eliminating its most important symbols. This plan successfully achieved its completely minimal goal, and the people used the same opportunity created by the Sultan to eliminate the main symbols, although they managed to send some symbols to the Assembly through fraud (refer to the article "Something is Not Right! - The Need to Examine the Votes of Sadegh Larijani, Ahmad Khatami, and Alam al-Huda"). The protest participation on the seventh of Esfand could not change the royal political structure. A negative vote in the royal elections cannot bring about fundamental change in a dictatorial regime. Yes, if one day a powerful civil society emerges that can impose "free elections leading to the transfer of power from the ruling authorities to the opposition" through public mobilization, civil disobedience, and dialogue, then the votes of the participants in the elections will lead to fundamental changes. However, within the current balance of power, it was clear and remains clear that the royal Assembly of Experts will act according to the Sultan's desires. Ayatollah Khamenei not only made his desired individual the head of the Assembly of Experts but has also been seeking to establish his preferred individual as his successor. The important question is: Should the opponents of the Islamic Republic remain silent while he makes his desired individual his successor, or if they can, should they demonstrate through enlightenment that his potential candidates - namely Sadegh Larijani, Ebrahim Raisi, Hashemi Shahroudi, and Mojtaba Khamenei - are symbols of torture, repression, corruption, and crime, and should they prevent him from at least creating a clean image of his successor? If the opponents of the Islamic Republic can prevent these individuals from becoming leaders and a more moderate person from becoming the leader, how should they act? The lack of an ideological perspective on participation and boycott The plan to eliminate the "Triangle of Jim" absolutely did not have an ideological perspective on participation in elections or boycotting elections. It considered participation and boycott as the rights of individuals and groups and emphasized that if opponents could and can create a broad consensus that would reduce the minimum participation rate of 50% in the elections of the Islamic Republic to 20-30%, they should take advantage of this opportunity. However, in conditions where a high majority of the people participate in elections, boycotting will not be politically effective. But protest participation can positively demonstrate the people's opposition to the dictatorship and the dictator (refer to the article "Social Weighting of Boycotters and Protest Participants" and the piece "Without a Strong Civil Society, No Concessions Can Be Obtained from the Sultan"). According to one viewpoint, the Islamic Republic has been and remains an irreformable regime, and there is no way but its overthrow. Let's assume this viewpoint is completely accepted. The fundamental question is: What is the way to overthrow and topple the Islamic Republic? Logically, the following paths are probable: a- The endogenous revolutionary solution: The problem is that Iranian society is not in a "revolutionary situation" - in the sociological sense explained by individuals like Charles Tilly. Until society enters a revolutionary situation, there will be no news of revolution. Although revolution is the product of the actions of revolutionary actors, it cannot be reduced to the volitional decisions of individuals and groups, and one cannot assume that if individuals and groups decide to revolution, a revolution will occur. b- The endogenous armed struggle solution: Since society is not in a revolutionary situation, individuals who believe in this solution must form guerrilla groups like in the 1970s and go to war against the regime as vanguard groups, killing and being killed until society reaches a revolutionary status. In the current conditions, the most important issue of this viewpoint is that individuals do not appear who can act independently of all foreign governments to engage in armed struggle. c- The exogenous solution of sanctions and military attack on Iran: It may be that for some individuals and groups, the mere overthrow of the Islamic Republic is the principle and goal, and they may argue that the endogenous and exogenous nature of the overthrow is fundamentally unimportant. In this case, some may defend the overthrow of the Islamic Republic through extensive sanctions followed by military attack. The experiences of the 21st century in the region are before us. The experiences of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen show that this solution led to the destruction of states and countries in the region and the killing, wounding, and displacement of millions of people and the widespread birth and growth of Islamist terrorist groups. Thus, those who believe in overthrow must clearly show by what means they intend to overthrow the Islamic Republic? Revolution? Armed struggle of vanguard groups? Or foreign military attack? Let's assume a group explicitly states that it considers the use of foreign military attack to be legitimate. In this case, it must answer which government is currently willing to engage in an unpredictable military war with Iran? Peaceful transition to democracy Another viewpoint is that overthrowing for the sake of overthrow is neither a goal nor is it, and overthrow does not necessarily lead to a democratic system committed to freedom and human rights. The Shah's regime was overthrown through an endogenous revolution, and the revolution replaced one dictatorial regime with another. The goal is to transition from the Islamic Republic to a democratic system committed to freedom and human rights. Methods must be used to fight that guarantee the transition to democracy, rather than destroy Iran and Iranians. Peaceful struggle guarantees the transition to democracy. The experiences of Chile, South Africa, Brazil, Portugal, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia are before us. Therefore, in peaceful struggle under any conditions, all opportunities must be used to say no to the dictator and the dictatorial system. Just as human rights activists report human rights violations by the rulers of the dictatorial regime, political activists and intellectuals in the public sphere have the right to eliminate the main violators of human rights through the elections of the dictatorial regime. Any other field that provides an opportunity to say no for the people should also be used for that purpose. However, they know that they are using small opportunities to inform the people of their power and to organize themselves, and merely voting or not voting will not lead to democratic changes. The plan to eliminate the "Triangle of Jim" remains defensible, and this plan should be expanded to all realms for the peaceful removal of the oppressors. With each removal, society will become more hopeful about what it can achieve. How was the extensive and continuous removal of the clergy from 10 legislative assemblies made possible? Was it not because the people, by participating in the royal elections of this regime over 10 terms, said no to the clergy and replaced them with non-clerics? This means that if the regime provides the opportunity for competition between clerics and non-clerics in its royal elections, the people will prefer the non-clerics. Khamenei and the jurists should look at the sharply declining trend of the clergy's presence in the Islamic Consultative Assembly for their credibility. The people have positively shown that they do not agree with the clergy. This same approach was also evident in the Assembly of Experts elections. They only approved one non-cleric, and he was elected. If the Guardian Council had approved dozens of non-clerics, then through the eliminative participation of the jurists, they would not have been elected. Although the chosen non-cleric is one of the jurists of the Guardian Council, the affirmative approval of the people's opposition to clerical rule was important and remains so. This achievement can only be attained through protest participation. The author's opinion does not reflect the views of Radio Farda. Akbar Ganji, Iranian journalist and researcher.