Debate: Political Development in Iran and the Presence or Absence of Ayatollah Khamenei

The nuclear agreement between Iran and the 1+5 countries has raised new questions in the political circles of critics and opponents of the Iranian government. Some, who have their eyes set on gradual reforms and changes, believe that with the opening of part of the knot in Iran's foreign relations with the West, an opportunity has arisen for the long-standing political, social, and cultural demands alongside the demands of civil society and professional groups to emerge. Part of this group argues that reformists and moderates within the government, as well as secular critics and supporters of gradual changes, should now focus their political efforts on gaining more seats for close elements in the Islamic Consultative Assembly and the Assembly of Experts and devote their energies to succeeding in these two elections. A number of political activists believe that participation in past voting has shown that looking towards the elections of various governmental institutions will not pave the way for what they believe to be meaningful changes in the realm of politics and civil society. They believe that collective actions outside the governmental institution, including participation in peaceful protests in streets and public places, can pave the way for other dissatisfied individuals to voice their demands. There is a third group that argues that political opening can only occur through the removal of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This group believes that the leader is the main obstacle to reforming the system and gradually moving towards political development. In this week's program, representatives from the first and third groups will debate each other. The two guests of this program are Kazem Kordavani, a sociologist and former secretary of the Iranian Writers' Association in Berlin, who predicted the candidacy of Hassan Rouhani and his victory in the elections of June 14, 2013, stating that with Rouhani's presidency, the groundwork for an agreement between Iran and the West on Iran's nuclear file, the lifting of sanctions, and political opening would be established, and Shahryar Ahi, one of the founders of the 'Union for Democracy in Iran' in London, an organization that in a statement called for the removal of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran and, as stated in this statement, the groundwork for transferring power to the true representatives of the Iranian people. Ahi, why do you believe that with the removal of Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the opponents and protesters against the government will be in a better position than they are now? Shahryar Ahi: Because the main obstacle to improving matters, even after this agreement, is the nature of this regime and its pillar, which is the guardianship of the Islamic jurist. We will not be able to improve this devastated economy and the conditions in the country even if one hundred billion dollars is freed, which amounts to a little over a thousand dollars for each Iranian. To free ourselves from this historical problem of our country, we must have the affairs in the hands of a freely elected parliament and all the people of Iran. The executive branch must implement the laws that parliament has enacted. The judiciary must base its work on those laws. All of this is impossible as long as an unaccountable authority, which is always the root of corruption, is at the head of the system. Mr. Kordavani, you agree with the point that the government itself has played a significant role in imposing sanctions on Iran. Now I will ask you the reverse of that question: do you believe that with the removal of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the opponents and protesters against the government, as Mr. Ahi and his friends say, will not be in a better position? Kazem Kordavani: Mr. Ahi's statement has two parts. One part is about the government being the main culprit in this sanctions affair, which we all agree on. There is no doubt about that. However, this perspective has two aspects. One aspect is how practical it is. There is a time when I, as an intellectual, intervene in the political sphere. Naturally, I express my intellectual concerns and political views regarding the urgent issues of the country. There is a time when people, in the sense of a politician, express the way and means for the people that must be implemented. The first issue that arises there is reaching such a request. Before we even discuss whether it is right or wrong. This is the most important issue. The next issue is that the government of the guardianship of the Islamic jurist is a government whose first person has practically become above the law and is not accountable to the people at all, and sees itself accountable only to God, which is a major problem for our society. However, the whole affair does not boil down to one person. In our history, there have been many times when one person has left and the next person who comes is worse than the previous one. This is also a topic for discussion. Mr. Ahi, Mr. Kordavani, as you saw, raised two points. First, please respond to the initial point that they say whether those who propose the removal of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic have the capability and weight to implement this. Shahryar Ahi: I believe that the departure of Mr. Khamenei is inevitable and unavoidable. It is not an impractical demand. I do not know whether it will happen sooner or later. But the longer it takes, the more damage will be inflicted on our country. However, let me explain why his departure may be inevitable even before his energy or natural life wanes; this is the fate of all totalitarian regimes. Totalitarian systems that are based on an ideology that is always absolute come to power through a massive popular explosion and support. In the first phase of the life of a totalitarian regime, the issue of reform and such things is not at all raised. The sanctity of the revolution has promised paradise to all people, and everyone is happy. Now 90% are happy. After a while, they see that the promised paradise has not materialized, and there is a significant discrepancy. Those promises have not come true. Support decreases to fifty percent. Something around that. Until this second phase of the totalitarian regime, the era of natural reforms begins. Some come and say let’s increase participation and reduce the absolute. But the regime has developed a security apparatus that sees increased participation as a threat to itself, and there is a struggle between these two, as we saw on Khordad 2 and the events that followed. It reaches the third phase, where popular support has really diminished, and people have awakened and realized that it is not what they wanted. They do not want an ideology to control all aspects of their lives, with a few governing in its name while they have no voice. At this point, the regime must take measures to maintain the unity of command at the top and, as Hannah Arendt says, to mobilize and keep that ten percent of its staunch supporters passive while keeping the ninety percent who disagree with it inactive, and it must exclude many from the power base, which leads to the time of Mr. Ahmadinejad. To the extent that the adequacy for maintaining at least the minimum affairs of the country decreases so much that it must make a shift in the middle of this third phase and introduce other adequacies. Read: the beginning of Mr. Rouhani's government. Here, the regime finds itself in its most vulnerable position. Because that pillar of the tent, that symbol of this ideology, finds itself in an unsustainable position. It is no longer the idol of that ten percent, because they see it making the absolute less absolute, talking to America, the cultural and social pressure of Rouhani's government on non-revolutionary institutions, etc. And it cannot, as Machiavelli says, fully gain the support of new defenders of this reform. This is where it finds itself in its most vulnerable position. The more it insists on keeping that pillar of the tent, the more dangers it faces. A collapse of a worse and uncontrollable nature may occur, and for this reason, it is better for him to go and try to pave the way for the sovereignty that belongs to the people to return to the representatives of the people. Let’s see what Mr. Kordavani says about this. Mr. Kordavani, as you heard, Mr. Ahi says that according to political science hypotheses, this type of government is now in the middle of its third phase and is in its most vulnerable position, and therefore there is no alternative to the removal of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the opportunity is also available. This answers your first point about whether there is the capability to remove the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran or not. What do you say about this? Kazem Kordavani: First of all, in any political or theoretical assessment, whatever you want to call it, I do not consider the Iranian government to be a totalitarian government. There are strong totalitarian tendencies in the Iranian government, but the Iranian government is not totalitarian. This does not mean agreement. Because the types of governments we have actually suppress, torture, and kill, and all of these can be present in a government but not be labeled as totalitarian. I see the Iranian government more as an authoritarian government. Because if the theoretical discussion is to have practical results, it must first align with the reality of society. The reality of our society defines and experiences the government types of totalitarianism, which are the best examples of which, without wanting to establish a kind of equivalence, are the two governments I am mentioning, namely the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, which are totalitarian governments with their specific characteristics. In other words, do you distinguish between totalitarian governments like Nazi Germany and, for example, communist Soviet governments and authoritarian (autocratic) governments like third-world dictatorships? Kazem Kordavani: Yes. First of all, the self-assessment of this government is important, and then you must act differently. When you believe that a society is totalitarian, your approach and the type of action you take will be completely different from authoritarian governments. This means that very different fundamental results arise from each of these perspectives. Very well, your disagreement with Mr. Ahi is in this regard. Now, assuming that, for example, the government you are talking about is authoritarian, why does the removal of Mr. Khamenei not achieve the goals you believe in or is not possible? First of all, my discussion is that the question of whether it is better for Mr. Khamenei to go has what practical backing, what political backing? The main first discussion is that when a discussion is raised, a slogan is given, this slogan must be actionable. This slogan today, if it does not exist, tomorrow. If tomorrow does not exist, then the day after tomorrow. And whoever gives this slogan, whether it is a party, organization, or group, must be able to implement part of what they express in Iran. You think about a time when you say participate in this election or say do not participate in this election. Well, this becomes. It is the right of all of us to express an opinion, and it is the right of all of us. This is our country. We are the people of Iran. We are part of the people. But when we express a political opinion... when in Iran we cannot say to 500 people that because I said participate in the elections, they went and participated or did not participate; they said because so-and-so said do not participate, or some organization said do not participate, we will not participate. This situation that the opposition has, I mean the Iranian political opposition abroad (the intellectual opposition is another discussion), with this situation, well, express what it wants to solve in our society by saying Mr. Khamenei should go. This is my main problem. I mean, this expression, this proposal, if it is at the level of a discussion, at the level of an opinion, can be raised. But if it is at the level of a program from a political movement that says this is my program and I act for it, its type of action, its type of feasibility, its type of capability, where is it? Mr. Ahi, you can answer this question again, but another point Mr. Kordavani mentioned was related to the fact that with the change of the individual, nothing specific changes. If the result of Mr. Khamenei's removal is the leadership of Rouhani, it relates to believing in the expansion of political, individual, and social freedoms, which we have seen examples of in the distant and recent history of Iran, such as Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, Kazem Shariatmadari, Mahmoud Taleghani, Reza Zanjani, one can expect a transformation to occur. But if Mr. Khamenei is replaced by figures like Sadegh Amoli Larijani, Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, or Mohammad Ali Mohammadi Kermani, do you still think the situation of critics, opponents, and protesters against the government will improve? Shahryar Ahi: Regarding the first point that Mr. Kordavani mentioned, that this is not a totalitarian system, I think the entirety of that famous book by Hannah Arendt on totalitarianism shows why this system, not the people, not society, is totalitarian. Because its issue is not just preserving its own power. It is based on an ideology that is woven throughout its constitution. It does not seek Iran for the life of the Iranian people. Rather, it sees Iran's resources as a basis for exporting its ideology. It is in the constitution. It deals with the individual even if that individual is completely obedient to its power. This is the definition of authoritarian governments. It seeks to change the individual. It is concerned with the individual, not just their political behavior. This is the definition of totalitarian systems. If the hijab is removed, this regime will collapse. It seeks to create a new human being. It wants to use Iran's resources to export its revolution. All of these are definitions of a totalitarian system. A totalitarian system is also based on an absolute ideology, and that absolute is breakable. It cannot be gradually transformed into something else. But let’s return to the main point, Mr. Kordavani, I believe that the departure of Mr. Khamenei, as I said, is inevitable. The danger that rational people like dear Mr. Kordavani think that Mr. Khamenei...