Fruitless Policies to Justify Totalitarian Goals

The officials of the Islamic Republic often attribute their decisions and policies to God, the Prophet, and the Shiite Imams, as if they are in constant dialogue with the sacred. However, they sometimes attempt to present their authoritarian and totalitarian policies in more reasonable and conventional packaging. Is this possible? This article highlights five instances of these unsuccessful justifications. Legalizing censorship: For four decades, officials of the Islamic Republic and proponents of censorship have claimed that censorship is regulated or should be regulated to prevent arbitrary actions. However, for four reasons, legalizing censorship is impossible: 1) Censorship is the desire of the powerful to limit critics and opponents in authoritarian regimes. The will of the powerful in an authoritarian system does not come under regulation. If the powerful were to abide by the law, they would not be tyrants. What is enacted in an authoritarian system is not law (it is taste and will that prevail) and is not meant to be enforced. Taste cannot be regulated; 2) Those whose work is censored do not remain silent and change their methods of expression. No regulation can counter the natural creativity of humans. For this reason, words, phrases, and methods of censorship do not remain constant in any authoritarian regime because cultural producers change their methods. An authoritarian regime cannot write regulations for every cultural producer at every moment, even if it wants to; thus, censorship has never been sufficient on its own to silence other voices, and the government has resorted to other methods such as assassination, intimidation, revocation of licenses, imprisonment, and torture; 3) In authoritarian and totalitarian systems, censorship does not only affect critics and opponents. The 'insiders' do not submit to a set of regulations for them and the 'outsiders.' They want special privileges that cannot be regulated; and 4) Censorship becomes increasingly meaningless in the face of technology. Even if a law for censorship is written and approved, this law is written for mockery. When hundreds of films and thousands of censored and confiscated books are available on the internet, censors have only made themselves the object of ridicule. The only function of censorship is to prevent cultural producers from making a living based on their work. Issuing fatwas on public matters: Ali Khamenei, alongside engineering elections, directing the legislative body, and vetoing laws he does not approve of (by selecting members who completely agree with him in the Guardian Council), also issues fatwas to create obligations for religiously-minded believers, thereby giving a religious face to his other opinions. Issuing fatwas on public matters where laws already exist (such as not polluting the environment or obeying traffic laws) is a policy that has had almost no impact. If the people are to follow them, laws exist, and since it is a religious government, its laws become religious obligations after passing through the Guardian Council. Therefore, issuing fatwas in these areas has been and will be fruitless. Some believe that issuing fatwas at least guides believers to adhere more to the law, but the opposite is more true. Believers can usually violate laws they dislike with religious justifications. Regional tension creation to maintain security: The officials of the Islamic Republic sell their regional ambitions and tensions packaged as security, the pride of Iran, and the expansion of influence to the people. They claim that if they do not engage in war with Putin and Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the security of Iran's borders will be compromised. Previously, American officials, including former President Barack Obama, held the Assad regime, Russia, and Iran responsible for the massacre of civilians in Aleppo. It is not a week that goes by without announcing that a group of ISIS members has been arrested in Iran, but neither has ISIS conducted operations in Iran nor has the Islamic Republic been engaged in war with ISIS in Syria. How can billions of dollars be spent in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq while having 1300 unsafe clay, stone, and wooden classrooms (according to the Deputy Minister and Head of the School Renovation Organization, ILNA, November 22, 2016) and claim this insecurity is for the pride and security of Iranian citizens? Crime rates and the number of prisoners in Iran have skyrocketed in recent years, contradicting the claim of establishing security. Establishing security by silencing voices: The Islamic Republic claims to be the hero of establishing security in the world and that European countries should use their security forces to establish and maintain security in their countries with the help of the IRGC advisors. However, such a regime is incapable of ensuring the security of a university professor's speech who believes in the Islamic Republic and even praises one of the perpetrators of the Islamic Republic's massacres in Syria (Qassem Soleimani). The security of the powerful is such that the professor says he does not dare to file a complaint against the prosecutor's office (Sadegh Zibakalam, ISNA, December 1, 2016). The temporary Friday prayer leader of Tehran, in response to criticisms of the cancellation of speeches, says: "We must silence mouths before the Supreme Leader and for the sake of God" (Movahedi Kermani, ILNA, December 1, 2016). Suppression justified by attention to people's problems: The representative of the Supreme Leader in South Khorasan province says, "How can a concert provide food and water for the people... Officials should focus on solving people's problems instead of holding concerts" (Fars, December 10, 2016). For four decades, the Islamist officials of the Islamic Republic have justified the violation of people's everyday rights and dictatorship by addressing people's problems, following the tradition of Eastern bloc and communist governments. They present these justifications with matters such as priority, but priority is merely the precedence of one goal over another and not the endorsement of one goal and the complete denial of another. According to this policy, everything the government has disapproved of over the past four decades, such as the breathing of several thousand opponents in prisons in 1987 to the existence of hundreds of publications and newspapers, millions of satellite television dishes, and millions of CDs and DVDs of music and films, has had no connection to the bread and water of the people, and thus eliminating them has posed no problem. Reformists, while not denying social and political freedoms, have always considered them secondary so that they can have a share in power and sections of the people can vote for them in vain hope.