Interview with Mostafa Mehrayee: "Khamenei is Out of Reach but the Main Factor Behind All Tensions"

Mostafa Mehrayee, a sociologist, writer, and university professor in Iran, states in an interview with Radio Farda that his letters to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic serve as a kind of ultimatum to the political system. He has recently written three open letters to Ali Khamenei, asking him to step down from power and apologize to the people. Mr. Mehrayee, who is an assistant professor of sociology at the Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, has criticized the behavior of the Islamic Republic towards the people multiple times in recent years through other letters. He aims to propose a way for fundamental changes in society by breaking the official binaries between "power" and "people." This sociologist emphasizes the importance of active agency and direct confrontation with problems, believing that society should not be seen as a calm and gradual entity that eventually bears fruit, but rather as a dynamic and complex society where its scattered forces can connect at any moment and create fundamental changes. Mehrayee's analysis includes a deep critique of the power structure and the approach of reformists in Iran. On one hand, he believes that official definitions and the binary of power and people create a context for repression and limitation of individual and collective identity, and on the other hand, by criticizing the benevolent approach of reformists, he emphasizes that only through direct dialogue, open confrontation with tensions, and employing active agency can there be hope for real changes in society. He also stresses the necessity of direct dialogue with power, especially with Ali Khamenei; a dialogue that, although it may be accompanied by severe pressures and punishments, is the only way to break the imposed silence and open the path for real changes in society. This interview, which you can find both in audio and text format below, takes place while Mostafa Mehrayee has been summoned to Branch 9 of the Culture and Media Prosecutor's Office. Mr. Mehrayee, you have been criticizing the government's behavior for a long time. How did you come to write these letters to Mr. Khamenei? In today's world of communication, letters are not the medium. In a world of media and social networks where people easily access each other, there may not be a need for such letter writing; however, power in our country makes itself invisible and seeks to turn itself into something sacred and unattainable. For this reason, we must disrupt the official definitions of power and people. The official definition of these gentlemen is that anyone who is not with us is against us. This definition is very racist and fascist and leads to the destruction of imagination. People either have to identify with you or have no definition of themselves. While in today's world, with so many universities, educated individuals, books, and knowledge, you cannot say that only the power institution can define who you are or what power is. In fact, they limit us to these purely governmental definitions, which, in a sense, are racist and even fascist, which is very dangerous for a society that places its people against itself and tells them: 'You are either with me or if you are not with me, then you are evil.' Naturally, the people of society will also say: 'You are not with us, so you are evil.' In such a situation, one of the most important things we must do is to dissolve and eliminate these binaries and false oppositions that exist between the system and the people, the sacred system that has been constructed. You have repeatedly emphasized that the reason for the antagonism and confrontation between the people and the government is this very opposition you speak of. You have identified the constitution as the cause of it. Now you say that Mr. Khamenei must step down. Do you think that with his resignation, the situation will change? What I said reflects the overall atmosphere of society, where power tries to make itself inaccessible, and the natural consequence of this is silence; something that a tyrannical regime desires. The life of a tyrannical regime lies in the silence of its opponents and in the silence of society and the people. In principle, any shout, of any kind—be it for justice, freedom, democracy, or any meaning—shouting and speaking out causes this tyrannical order to be disrupted. In our constitution, since there are two aspects, 'Republic' and 'Islamic,' these two aspects are fundamentally in conflict with each other. That is, the republic is one side of the matter, and the Islamic aspect is the other. The text of our constitution should essentially be called 'a text in crisis'; a text that is internally in crisis. This means that the Islamic aspect and the republican aspect are constantly at war with each other. In this sense, it is a progressive text that does not allow one side of power to dominate the other. However, what has happened in our society objectively and realistically—especially from the first government of Mr. Ahmadinejad onwards over the past 20 years—is that power has suffocated one side of the constitution in our society; that is, the popular aspect and the republican aspect of the constitution. In fact, our society has been directed towards a situation where there is only one voice; the voice of the Supreme Leader, the voice of absolute divine authority, and only this voice can speak. With this description of the situation you provide, as a university professor and sociologist, you wrote such letters. What do you expect? In our society, we are essentially faced with two aspects; that is, we can advance our societal situation with two actions. One action is a reformist outlook; that is, these moderate reformists who are also loyal to the existing order and want to preserve the existing order. Essentially, they seek a negative peace. In this sense, they say cover up the tension. In the government of moderation, in the government of unity and the reform government, you can see this in different forms; they want a negative peace. They want to cover up the tension and say do not bring the tension to the surface and do not make it visible. But I and others like me do not believe that there should be a negative peace in society, in the sense of the absence of tensions. We believe in positive peace. How does this positive peace come about? Positive peace means allowing our agencies to become possible face-to-face. That is, do not constantly tell us 'now choose between bad and worse, now be patient, now give it time until the right moment comes and it will happen by itself.' Martin Luther King had an interesting saying in his struggles: 'The inaction of good people is more painful than the outright misunderstanding of bad people.' This means that our reformists until now thought that through their benevolence, they could constantly hide tensions so that these tensions would not turn into an open field of conflict in front of the eyes of the people, but rather, God willing, the right time would come and that right time would lead to transformations. Apparently, they said this out of benevolence, but this perspective harms us; it does not allow the real tensions of society, which are hidden, to become visible and to engage in dialogue with this situation in a face-to-face and non-violent manner. That is, we should be able to address Mr. Khamenei, as the leader of a country who has made himself sacred and out of reach and is the main factor behind all tensions and has placed himself in a state of absence, and speak to him non-violently. Why should there be this perception that he must always be out of reach and that there should be no dialogue with him, and that we should postpone it to a time that is uncertain? This perspective has another affliction; that is, it seems that in our society, events must inevitably occur. While in today's world, with the possibilities available in the social and political realm, societal actors can work tirelessly and continuously to ensure that society does not have to wait for an external event for conditions to change. You speak of dialogue with Mr. Khamenei, you say it must be addressed and discussed. However, throughout the past years, the fate of those who have written to him and criticized him has been imprisonment, exile, and punishment. You yourself have also been summoned after writing a letter. How do you think one can engage in dialogue with someone who does not even recognize critics and responds with violence? It depends on what understanding you have of society. The difference between me and others, including yourself, lies here. This understanding of society, in theoretical language, is like a 'tree-like' understanding of society. That is, it seems that society is a tree that gradually takes shape, grows, and naturally must eventually bear fruit. This means that the result of these struggles should become apparent at a specific time, and we should see it. However, my understanding of society is not like this. According to sociological theories, society should not be viewed as a tree that necessarily ends in bearing fruit. Society, in the language of Gilles Deleuze, a French philosopher, is like a 'rhizome'; roots that spread not vertically but horizontally and penetrate everywhere. Social forces are like these scattered roots that are present in society and connect with each other. That is, society is a kind of montage where these scattered forces combine. Let me give you a simple example: Can you imagine how in an era without any technology, humans were able to build the Pyramids of Egypt? With the magnitude and precision of their architecture? If there were a hundred thousand humans working there, these hundred thousand people were connected and created an energy equivalent to tens of thousands of horsepower. Scattered events in society appear to be scattered, but if you look from the beginning of the revolution to the Islamshahr uprising, the student movement, the reform movement, the events of 2009, even negative aspects such as the chain murders, the presence of Ahmadinejad's government, the movements of 2017 and 2019, different elections, the 'Women, Life, Freedom' movement, all of these are different pieces of a machine. These pieces, from the letter writings of Mr. Saidi Sirjani to Mr. Nourizad and Ms. Sepahri, to today’s Mostafa Mehrayee, have appeared to be suppressed, but they have not remained so. The reality of today’s Iranian society is that, as a result of the joining of these scattered energies, we are faced with a society where the people have become empowered. If you pay attention, in the 1980s when people were being executed, society accompanied that; but now, when they want to execute someone, society raises its voice. The actions of the people have connected, gained power, and in fact, a social machine has formed and gradually become powerful. It is this machine that gives me, Mostafa Mehrayee, the courage to write letters without fear. Speaking with political elites in this country has been one of the serious red lines of this society. I am not merely a political activist like Ms. Sepahri or Mr. Nourizad, but I am an academic who has been involved with books and education. Now, in the university space, I hear whispers that 'we also want to raise our voices to the top,' because we are not satisfied. Society feels threatened, afraid of collapse, war, and the loss of Iran. These are what give us courage. When there is no listening ear in the government, the government follows its own path and responds to every criticism and protest with violence, and the people, as you say, follow their own path, what happens in such a situation? I must say this. I have often said that talking to this system is a basic task, and this system is fundamentally not a good listener. No matter what we say, nothing enters its ears. In fact, we are making an ultimatum to this political system; as those who one day must answer the question 'Did we do that? Did we, as our last action, make an effort to prevent some negative events or not?' We know that it probably does not have a direct positive outcome. We know that power may be indifferent. Although I personally believe that every word of the texts has an impact. The text has force and power. The text targets a place. Ultimately, it does something. But if these texts do not work, if they do not shake something, at least they will stir the conscience; both our conscience, the conscience of power, and the conscience of the people. These tiny powers, from these media dialogues to letter writing to street protests to even the comments that have been written for me, have become a force that creates reactions. The Tasnim News Agency, affiliated with the IRGC, wrote a lengthy text in response to these two letters. This itself is a sign.